Talk:Christopher Langan

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

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

IQ Percentile/Rarity

With so much ambiguity over IQ figures, I felt that it was necessary to establish that the 195 estimate is based on a 16 Standard Deviation scale. Therefore, I also quoted the percentile with the proper citation. CDiPoce 06:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the value of the percentile being part of the article. •Jim62sch• 01:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved my response to a more appropriate section. I sure hope you don't mind, Jim :) --Otheus 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design section

My recent edit to the intelligent design section was reverted by KillerChihuahua, who suggested an item-by-item breakdown. So here goes:

• changed the section name from "Intelligent design movement" to the more general "Intelligent design"
• described ISCID using wording from the first two sentences of our article
• noted the title of Langan's paper in ISCID's online journal
• noted Langan's RAPID lecture as having the same title
• characterized Uncommon Dissent's contributors as including "leading figures in the intelligent design movement"
• overviewed what the CTMU says about ID with a description sourced from Langan's PCID paper
• summarized Langan's Uncommon Dissent essay, sourcing every sentence
• added quotes from an ABCNEWS.com chat transcript clarifying Langan's views on evolution, creation, and religion

KillerChihuahua, I don't know your specific concerns, but will be glad to discuss particular items in more detail. Tim Smith 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of which were done in a less-than-neutral manner it appears. I'd have reverted them too. Tim, are you pretending that your editing has been neutral here and other Langan-related articles, and not a subtle promotion of Langan's views rhetoric and those of other ID proponents? If so, then please explain your ongoing user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tim_Smith. FeloniousMonk 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, Langan's work should not be asserted as being the truth, but neutrally presented, per WP:NPOV. That's what I've tried to do, taking care to use frequent qualifiers (e.g. "Langan argues", "he contends", "describes what he sees as") and footnoted citations. Again, I'll be glad to look at any statements in need of citation or qualification, and I welcome feedback on the individual items and suggestions for improvement. I'm trying to engage constructively, and encourage everyone to do likewise. Tim Smith 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gradually reworked and resubmitted the items listed above. In a recent edit, I:

• changed the section name from "Intelligent design movement" to the more general "Intelligent design". The bulk of the section is not about the movement, but about Langan's views on the concept and on related concepts.

• described ISCID using the two-sentence introduction from our article on it, which relays the society's stated purpose and says it promotes intelligent design, briefly defining the concept.

• described Langan's RAPID talk strictly by what the conference schedule says, removing a quote which is not from the talk, but from Langan's later Uncommon Dissent chapter.

• characterized Uncommon Dissent's contributors as including "other ISCID fellows and leading figures in the intelligent design movement".

Again, I welcome constructive feedback on these items and suggestions for improvement. Tim Smith 08:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to implement the third of the above items, describing Langan's RAPID talk strictly by what the conference schedule says and removing a quote which is not from the talk, but from Langan's later Uncommon Dissent chapter. My edit was reverted by FeloniousMonk with the summary "rv. undue weight issues. please do not use this article as a vehicle to promote Langan's views". FeloniousMonk, could you be more specific? You've reverted to a version which footnotes a claim about Langan's RAPID lecture with a quote which is not from that lecture, but from his later Uncommon Dissent chapter. Tim Smith 22:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the above four itemized changes? I've given brief descriptions and rationales above, and would be glad to discuss the individual items in more detail. If anyone does object, specific feedback and suggestions for improvement would be appreciated. Thanks, Tim Smith 05:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

After a week, no one had replied to my request for feedback above, or indeed to anything I've written here over the last two weeks. I therefore tried again to describe Langan's RAPID talk by what the conference schedule says, removing a quote which is not from the talk, but from Langan's later Uncommon Dissent chapter. Within two hours, my edit was reverted by Arthur Rubin with the summary "Revert edit made against concensus".

Consensus works best when all editors make an effort to work together and resolve disagreements through discussion. Unfortunately, and despite my repeated invitations, that's not happening here: other editors are simply reverting without discussion. Again, the quote being used to footnote a claim about Langan's RAPID lecture is not from that lecture. Please abide by basic principles of Wikiquette and engage constructively on this matter. Tim Smith 19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand matters, although I am a bit distanced from this fiasco, there is a clear consensus here on which version of the article is acceptable; and one lone editor who insists on presenting a slanted take on the facts in no way implies that consensus has not been reached. These repetitive requests with their simpering and trite appeals to things like "assuming good faith" and "wikiquette" (a hideous neologism, and barbarous to boot) are quite transparent, Mr. Smith, and are not really very convincing. I suggest you try another approach, such as perhaps refraining from trying to dolly up the article so that it reads like an apotheosis of this chap and his 'genius', and not an objective statement of fact. When it comes to junk science like intelligent design, you no doubt know very well that the battles are fought not in the laboratory or in the professional literature, but rather via propaganda, sleight of language, and emotional appeal to the public. Wikipedia therefore have to be on its guard about that sort of thing in its articles, and strenuously resist any attempt to subtlely influence the way in which articles portray the junk science in question, lest the words used end up giving innocent readers entirely the wrong impression of the true state of affairs. Wording in these articles is a delicate affair, and the issue transcends the question of citations, since it is possible to provide citations for most statements someone might want to make. Rather, one has to examine subtext and see to what extent it corresponds to both reality and the consensus not only of editors working on the article, but of the scientific community as well; and in this case, the bald facts are that whether you are ashamed of it or not, Mr. Langan is a proponent of a form of junk science, given that he clearly believes the intelligent design 'hypothesis' to even merit serious consideration at all, and does not simply dismiss it as the confused rantings of a small group of religious fanatics (which is how educated, reasonable, straight-thinking people regard the topic). Trying to temper his involvement with the intelligent design movement really amounts to PR of sorts, and Wikipedia does not exist to act as Mr. Langan's personal publicist.

I cannot speak for other people who have reverted your whitewashing, but certainly if I were to catch it first, the above would be the reasons why I would revert it. Rosenkreuz 20:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Hello, "Rosenkreuz". I don't want anyone to be misled about your actual distance from this "fiasco", particularly with respect to its history. Is there anything you'd like to disclose? At any rate, please refrain from incivility and respect WP:AGF and WP:WQT, which are considered standards all users should follow.

I agree with you that the issue of wording in these articles "transcends the question of citations" in the sense that once citations are provided, the wording of the statements they support remains a delicate affair, and one in which Wikipedia must be on its guard against deviations from a neutral point of view. However, per WP:ATT, what is not transcended is the need for citations in the first place, and the need for citations to actually support what they are cited to support. At present, we have a claim about Langan's RAPID lecture footnoted with a quote which is not from that lecture. It is from Langan's later Uncommon Dissent chapter, and it does not support the claim for which it is being cited. Does anybody dispute this fact? Please, everyone, let's have a constructive discussion and work toward agreement. Tim Smith 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that you're misusing FACT tags here, so I agree with Rosenkreuz. Sorry. 151.151.73.165 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I added two tags. One was a citation request for the unsourced claim that ISCID is "a think tank of the intelligent design movement". That wording has now been dropped and replaced with "an intelligent design society", sourced to Brauer/Forrest/Gey. However, Brauer/Forrest/Gey does not use that term, and ISCID's Managing Director, while acknowledging that "ID plays a significant role in the activities of ISCID" and that "[m]any of the participants and leaders of the organization are intimately involved in ID oriented research", nonetheless denies that ISCID is exclusively an "ID society", and states that its focus is to be "a society for the exchange (even cross-fertilization) of ideas on complex systems rather than the biased promotion of an idea." Consequently, our description needs further work to satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:ATT.

The other tag I added was "not in citation given", for the claim about Langan's RAPID lecture which is footnoted with a quote not from that lecture. The only source we have for the lecture is the RAPID conference schedule, which gives the lecture's title as "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory". So we can verifiably say:

Langan presented a lecture on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe at ISCID's Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.

But instead, we are saying:

Langan presented a lecture on Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe and intelligent design at the ISCID's Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.

The "and intelligent design" is footnoted with a quote which is not from the lecture, but from Langan's later Uncommon Dissent chapter. Obviously, this quote, from a book published after the lecture, saying nothing about the lecture, cannot establish what the lecture was about. That is why I added the tag, and why the quote is misplaced and misleading. Tim Smith 06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: The misplaced quote has finally been dropped from the claim about Langan's RAPID lecture. However, it is now being cited for a different claim, and it does not support that claim either. In fact, that claim, which concerns the CTMU and "Teleologic Evolution", is already supported by a citation to pages 261–262 of Uncommon Dissent, at the end of Langan's chapter. The misplaced quote, in contrast, is from the beginning of Langan's chapter, and simply introduces "Intelligent Design theory", saying nothing about the CTMU or Teleologic Evolution. Additionally, our copy of the quote is not even intact, having been modified with phrases ("Langan holds that", "Langan's interpretation of") not present in the original. Because the "quote" is ineffective and unneeded, I removed it. That removal was then reverted without explanation by 151.151, who less than twenty-four hours earlier had actually removed the quote him/herself as part of this edit, but upon seeing me remove it, took the opposite action. 151.151, you have already been warned about reverting without explanation. Please see WP:REVERT#Explain reverts and follow WP:WQT. Tim Smith 06:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly the case that the corrupted quotation cannot remain in its present corrupted form if it is to remain in the entry. It obviously does nobody any good to include a "quotation" that has been tampered with by editors. I also feel that the quote has been badly misinterpreted by editors who wish to use it as evidence that Langan supports intelligent design. The quote says:

• "The concept of teleology remains alive nonetheless, having recently been granted a scientific reprieve in the form of Intelligent Design theory." But this statement seems to be stating only that a concept (teleology) that had gone out of fashion, has now reappeared. He is not, in this quotation at least, claiming that the concept of teleology has therefore been proven scientifically, only that it has been asserted.
• "Although the roots of ID theory can be traced back to theological arguments from design, it is explicitly scientific rather than theological in character, and has thus been presented on the same basis as any other scientific hypothesis awaiting scientific confirmation." This quotation is not stating that ID theory is a scientifically verified theory. What he means is that it is scientific in character, purely in the sense that ID proponents are trying to shift the theological debate to scientific grounds. This is after all why ID is so controversial. This is why he states that it "has thus been presented on the same basis as any other scientific hypothesis." He means: this is how ID proponents present their theory, that is, as scientific. The addition of the corrupt phrase "Langan holds that" before the phrase "it is explicitly scientific" is therefore both misleading and false. It is not that Langan holds that ID is an example of good science or proven science or science at all. Rather, he merely means that, as a theory, ID has been presented by its proponents as scientific, and as subject to scientific verification.
• "Rather than confining itself to theological or teleological causation, ID theory allows for any kind of intelligent designer – a human being, an artificial intelligence, even sentient aliens." This sentence argues that proponents of ID theory do not specifically argue that God is the designer, but try to claim their scientific status by refraining from presuming what kind of intelligence is the designer, simply that there must be an intelligence. The corrupt phrase which has been introduced into this sentence argues that this is merely Langan's dubious interpretation of ID theory. In fact, of course, it is definitional of ID that they shirk the name of God in favour of the name of "intelligent design," the meaning of which is left unspecified. It may well be the case that ID is really just a Trojan horse to reintroduce theological notions into science. Nevertheless, Langan's sentence here (and the following one) are simply describing the specific character of ID theory as opposed to creationism. He is not taking sides on evolution versus design, nor on creationism versus intelligent design. He is simply explaining the facts of the situation. It may be the case that Langan believes in notions of teleology and in notions of non-human intelligence present in the universe, but he does not pursue such arguments in the quotation under discussion. Nor would this make him a proponent of ID, given that the CTMU is explicitly described as not being a scientific theory. It is for reasons such as these that Langan has explicitly stated that the CTMU is not a species of ID theory.

No quotations provided thus far provide evidence he is a proponent of ID theory. There is clear evidence that those who are trying to claim this are guilty of attempting to unnecessarily introduce controversy into an entry about a living person. If that is the case, they should cease doing so, as it is a violation of official policy in relation to living persons. Nor should they engage in original research in an attempt to "prove" that Langan is an ID proponent. There are substantial reasons for believing he is not, including explicit statements by the subject of the entry. If no legitimate secondary sources can be provided supporting the contention that he is a proponent of ID, then trying to establish this through interpretations of quotations from Langan's work is impermissible, as such interpretations would constitute original research. The policy against original research is all the more important where the subject of the entry is a living person. If you personally believe Langan is a proponent of ID, make the case in a book or an article elsewhere, and others may then consider using such material as a source for this entry. FNMF 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true that claiming that ID is scientific in nature is not the same as being a proponent of ID, but those who make the claim are, wittingly or not, furthering the political aims of the ID movement, which is intent on promulgating that very claim in order to make ID look like a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution; their main slogan is "teach the controversy". They also speak out against "scientific materialism" and for science to include "supernatural" forms of explanation. William Dembski, the leading ID theorist argues that any system with "complex specified complexity" must be intelligently designed, and this applies to any designer as well; thus the theory must bottom out with an uncaused designer -- i.e., ID is fundamentally and unavoidably theological in nature. While it may well be misleading to claim that Langan is a proponent of ID, it would certainly be misleading to claim that he is neutral toward it, and plain false to claim that he is simply reporting how ID theorists characterize ID -- he himself is characterizing it. -- Jibal 10:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that however true what you say about ID and ID proponents may be, you just have not provided any reason for concluding anything at all about Langan. In relation to Langan's statement about ID being a scientific theory, as I have pointed out many times, what Langan is stating is that ID presents itself "on the same basis as any other scientific hypothesis awaiting scientific confirmation," that is, as an hypothesis to be accepted or rejected by the application of scientific method to empirical data. This is clearly what Langan is stating in the references provided, and it is clearly not an evaluation of the validity of ID. Langan is not claiming ID is a scientifically proven idea, nor is he claiming anything like it. He is characterising the kind of theory ID is presented as, in order to contrast this with his own work, which does not present itself as scientific. Finally, I do not believe anybody is arguing that the entry should "claim that he is neutral toward" ID. But without clear evidence that Langan is a proponent or an advocate of ID (and no evidence whatsoever has thus far been provided), what is certain is that WP:NOR and WP:BLP mean that the entry must not claim that Langan is a proponent or advocate of ID. And I can only repeat, I believe there is a misunderstanding by some editors of the kind of person Langan is, and that they are searching for a bogeyman in dark corners, rather than asking what the evidence about and from Langan actually suggests. I urge all editors not to see this entry as a battleground in the war against ID, but as a biographical entry about a living person who deserves fair treatment. FNMF 12:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this falls into that grey area between truth and verifiability. If you read Langan's chapter in UD it's clear that he's an ID proponent - he rips into an unrecognisable caricature of neodarwinism, while lavishing praise upon what a solid idea ID is. Why anyone would write such rubbish without being invested in an idea is beyond me...but, obviously, that's OR. Guettarda 13:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions. First, where exactly does Langan rip "into an unrecognisable caricature of neodarwinism"? I have a copy of the book, so a page number will do. Regarding whether or not all of the contributors are "intelligent design proponents and ISCID fellows" (the basis of your revert), did you have a source for that? I don't see any comment to that effect in the LoC description and I cannot find a characterization of Schützenberger ans Sisson in that regard. Even if I could, without a secondary source pulling it all together, wouldn't the characterization of the authors in the book as "intelligent design proponents and ISCID fellows" be OR (even if you perceive it as obvious)? If you don't have a solution for this, it's probably best to revert. I'd like to have a discussion with you first, to make sure we're on the same page or at least give you an opportunity to disagree, before I rv. It's a small point, but they add up quickly in a short article. --Honorable citizen 12:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for paying no attention to what I wrote, FNMF, and simply repeating your responses to others. Langan himself states that ID is a scientific theory; by doing so he says it's "valid" -- as a scientific theory -- but this is a form of validity that the world's scientists deny that ID has. And that is the sort of validation the ID folks seek. By focusing on the fact that Langan doesn't say that ID has been confirmed, you address a strawman and manage to completely miss my point. -- Jibal 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with you about that. FNMF 03:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Questioning Langan's "195 IQ" Claim

Langan's claim to fame is an alleged IQ of 195. But where is the supporting evidence? It seems that the alleged 195 score is from his second shot at the Mega Test. It is well known that Langan took the Mega Test twice, the second time under the pseudonym Eric Hart. See Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests for the details. But the norming of the Mega Test shows that it is unreliable above 180. See Prometheus Society Membership Committee Report, 8.4 Review of norming analyses of currently accepted tests and especially Figure 7 therein. Curiously, above Asmodeus appears to portray the Mega Test as being administered in violation of the laws of several states including New York where Langan resided. Is there sufficient evidence to support the unqualified claim that Mr. Langan has an IQ of 195? I don't think so! Troll 8745 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In case the server is still down see Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests. Troll 8745 02:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the first sentence of the article? 72.142.125.86 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It says his IQ has been reported to be 195. But just because something is reported does not make it true. What IQ tests are considered to be reliable in that range and which one did he take? It seems this would be the most basic fact-checking task for this entry. As the link I gave above notes, Langan's first IQ score on the Mega Test, one of the few high-range tests, was 174, less than 195. Troll 8745 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The Mega Test is not a standard IQ test like the WAIS (whose ceiling Langan is known to have broken), but an experimental test for the extrapolation of adult IQ beyond the range that can be measured by standard IQ tests. It is untimed, non-multiple choice, and unsupervised, meaning that time is not a factor, that there is no appreciable advantage to be gained by limited repetition, and that "cheating" is prohibitively difficult (the author originally forbade the use of electronic computing devices and collaboration, but even before the test exceeded its lifetime and its answers began to circulate, collaboration or the use of computers would have been quite difficult and probably futile). The basic design premise of the test is that for any given subject, there are certain problems that are too difficult to solve even with unlimited time and unlimited access to research materials. There is clearly no practice effect on such a test - every subject has unlimited time to practice and prepare, which means that any practice effect inheres in the measure itself - and for that reason, its author allowed it to be taken multiple times by any given subject (this policy seems to have changed at some point, but the option to repeat inheres in the test design, and there is no theoretical basis on which to rescind it). Moreover, because such a test demands far more than the usual amount of time and effort of its subjects, motivation, persistence, and even the availability of free time become limiting factors with respect to the measurement of intellectual ability.

As a matter of statistics, no IQ score is perfectly reliable, and all IQ tests become increasingly unreliable toward the upper and lower tails of the bell curve. Thus, whenever one sees an extremely high IQ score, one is always looking at something that is less reliable than a score which falls in the middle of the test's range; the farther it lies from the middle, the more likely it is to be erroneous. However, this does not make IQ totally untestable at the low and high ends. It simply means that some reliability is lost toward the extremes of the curve, and that more caution must be exercised in interpreting extreme results. In particular, extreme scores tend to rely a bit less on measurement, and a bit more on extrapolation from measurements within the "proper" range of the test. When one reads that an extremely high adult IQ has been "measured", this must be born in mind; while it is certainly true that some amount of measurement was involved, some amount of extrapolation was involved as well, with a corresponding loss of reliability. This is the nature of extreme IQ testing, as all who are familiar with it understand. The implication is not that intelligence tests "measure nothing" below their floors or above their ceilings, but merely that such measurements fall below a certain (relatively high) threshold of reliability. It is in this sense that Mr. Langan's IQ was "measured", and that's the context in which this claim was reported by the press.

The Mega Test was initially introduced in an international publication with a cutoff of 42 out of 48, the putative 1-in-1,000,000 level. Mr. Langan took the test and met the cutoff, stating that this was all for which he then had time (other subjects reportedly voiced similar considerations regarding their own time constraints). But when he applied to the high IQ society for which 42 was the nationally published qualifying score, the author of the test, who had also established the society in question, used incoming statistics to justify an unexpected "bait-and-switch" in which he upped the qualifying score by one (1) point, thereby denying certain subjects what they had been clearly promised while altering the motivational criterion of the test and thus undermining its intial results (later, he would reverse himself and lower the qualifying score again, and then raise it again, and so on). Realizing that they had been misled, a few high-scoring subjects "re-motivated" themselves and retook the test (some under pseudonyms, having been duped under the names they initially used). Several improved their scores, indicating that they had not expended adequate time and effort the first time around, and thus showing that their first results had been inaccurate. Langan's score became a record 47 out of 48, the only unsolved problem being a vocabulary item that was arguably inappropriate because its "difficulty" was strictly a matter of the extremely specialized actuarial lexicon from which it was taken. Given the basic design premise of the test and the time frame within which it was repeated, this (raw) score is perfectly valid.

This has all been common knowledge since Langan made it public many years ago, and it makes no more difference now than it ever did. Because Langan and the various websites on which he is mentioned were questioned or examined in the course of his media exposure, the press was certainly aware of it. In fact, the initial Esquire article on Langan also featured the test's author, who thus had all the input he needed in order to correct any errors. After its early normings, the test's statistics fluctuated wildly, mostly due to its author's compulsive tinkering with data received after the test was already "blown" by people passing its answers around (it was introduced in the mid-1980's, which is when it was taken by Langan and the rest of its early norming population, and was almost certainly unusable by 1990). But the relative validity of the various normings was never decisively established, and that's apparently why the press decided to go with the initial published estimates. There is presently no single agreed-on procedure for estimating extremely high adult intelligence, and owing to the Mega Test's nonstandard design and protocol, the legal circumstances under which it was administered do not bear on its psychometric validity. Given that it has been normed many times over, the fact that one particular IQ club has settled on one particular norming for their own internal purposes is of little or no importance.

Incidentally, editors should bear in mind that trying to gainsay the press on such matters, or trying to undermine published estimates of anybody's IQ in any way, would clearly amount to "original research". Trying to insert such speculations into an article would thus violate WP:NOR and several other important Wikipedia policies. Asmodeus 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is false that the author or any reputable intelligence researcher allowed the test to be taken multiple times. As CML did take it multiple times, the second time under a pseudonym, as reported in the article, that makes the test result questionable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As usual, Arthur Rubin, you're dead wrong on all counts (the test was in fact legitmately repeatable due to its design, the test author did in fact allow repetitions - in many cases, more than two - and Mr. Langan's score is not "questionable" on either of those alleged bases). I urge you not to further abuse your authority as a WP administrator to mislead other editors. The bad examples you set here are unquestionably a disgrace to this "encyclopedia", and they reflect badly on everyone who has written for it. Asmodeus 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A gentleman does not refer to himself as "Mr.". Moreover, the convoluted verbosity spewed out by Asmodeus above, which masquerades as an `argument', is specious from start to finish — and utterly nonsensical to boot. The assault upon Dr. Rubin is completely uncalled for, and represents a gross misconstrual (or misprision?) of both the nature of Wikipedia and the facts at hand. It really does seem as though certain people are Hell bent upon embarassing themselves here. Rosenkreuz 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Asmodeus. But the question still stands, On what IQ test did Langan score 195? It sounds like you're saying the 195 score is an educated guess. Are there established psychometric criteria for arriving at exact guestimated IQ scores? Curiously I found an ISCID forum where Mr. Langan himself was queried about his alleged 195 IQ score.

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-4.html

But Langan refused to cite the test upon which his reported 195 score is based, saying he has no "obligation to provide personal information." Why would the basis of his publicly reported 195 IQ score be private? Does something here smell fishy to you? Troll 8745 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you note the implication of Rosenkreuz's comment? Stating it explicitly isn't allowed here, but it should be clear enough and shed some light on the views of editors here. Also, I'm not sure why you are so concerned about this. My reading of the intro is that it implies that the 195 value is dubious. --Philosophus ^T 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I just edited the lead to make it clear that the number is dubious, or at least (if you read in the references) self-reported.

Basically an IQ of 195 is pretty much meaningless -- From Wikipedia IQ article (which I assume is well sourced):

a perfectly Gaussian curve defines the highest possible IQ within the United States (population 300 million) as between five and six standard deviations above the U.S. mean defined as 100. With a standard deviation of 15 this would produce a result of IQ175 to IQ180.

In street parlance, the shrink test is totally bogus for frickin' smart people.

But that's really beside the point. (According to the Morris video:) It's a self-reported figure from Omni magazine. I'd put more stock in the evaluation given by the 20/20 shrink, except that, well (a) no number was reported and (b) his exclamation, "the highest IQ I've tested in 25 years" is interesting because:

• The test was given between 2000 and 2001
• Novelly received his PhD in 1975 (so far so good)
• BUT: His focus was on treating folks and children with epilepsy. "In 1975 he started the Clinical Neuropsychology Section in the Yale-West Haven VA Epilepsy Surgery Program and directed its growth for over 15 years". [1] cf:[2].

That's not to say Novelly is lying, nor that people with epilepsy are less intelligent, but do you think, just think that maybe he had not given the test to a normal sampling of the population? So Novelly might have found his IQ to be a "disappointing" 140, and it still would have been off the charts and the highest he'd ever seen. And then I could publish Otheus' Decision Making Theorem Theory of Value involving a coin, a thumb, and a flat surface. --Otheus 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of your arguments. My feeling is there is no reason to go overboard questioning the basis of these claims, since it is simply possible to write the entry making clear that they are claims. It is not the place of this talk page to conduct some kind of forensic investigation into the validity or otherwise of Mr Langan's IQ (I'm not saying that is what you are doing, just making a point). I agree with you that at this high end of the scale the measurement of IQ probably becomes quite inexact, but after all that is not Mr Langan's fault. I note also that not only is there no evidence Mr Novelly is lying, neither is there any evidence that Mr Langan has lied. That doesn't make his claims true, but the claims themselves are plausible as claims, and as claims they are reported in legitimate secondary sources. I think it is clear that Mr Langan is, as you put it succinctly, frickin' smart. That is the real point of the IQ claims, and it is the basis of the interest in Mr Langan, since people are interested in the limits of how frickin' smart people can be. I note for the record that this obviously does not mean Mr Langan's CTMU theory is correct, but neither does questioning Mr Langan's IQ undermine his CTMU. FNMF 01:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I think it is important to add that, if there is questioning of the claims about Mr Langan's IQ, it is important that this not become original research. Arguments questioning his claims should not be advanced in the entry unless they can be sourced to legitimate secondary sources. This is a good reason to write the entry in a way that simply states that claims about Mr Langan's IQ results have been printed, and sources those claims. Readers should be permitted to draw their own conclusions about the claims, unless there are legitimate secondary sources casting doubt on the claims. FNMF 01:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. So does the new lead fit your criteria?

Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1957) is an American autodidact whose IQ he estimates at 195.[1] Billed as "by some accounts... the smartest man in America",[2] he rose to prominence in 1999 while working as a bouncer on Long Island. Langan is author of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU (pronounced "cat-mew"), which he describes as "essentially a theory of the relationship between mind and reality."[3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otheus (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I am reasonably but not totally happy with it. I feel that it is slightly unfair to the subject, since it implies that this is merely his estimate. His estimate would seem to derive from the estimates of others, so I am not sure why it needs to be described in a way that implies it is quite this subjective. Personally I don't believe it is even necessary to state a number in the opening line. I would suggest something such as the following: "Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1957) is an American autodidact. He is well-known for claims by himself and others that he has scored extremely high on IQ tests.[1] Billed as "by some accounts... the smartest man in America",...." etc. Possibly this is not perfect either. FNMF 02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FNMF that the current lead overemphasizes what (it claims) Langan estimates, when what is most notable is what the sources say:

• 20/20: "In the past, his IQ has been measured at 195 [...]"
• Esquire: "He is [...] endowed with an IQ that has been measured at 195, give or take a few points."
• BBC Radio: "His IQ, or intelligence quotient, has been put at a staggering 195."
• The Times: "He has an IQ of 195 [...]"
• Muscle & Fitness: "Langan scores somewhere in the neighborhood of 195 [...]"
• Popular Science: "He's scored as high as 195 on IQ tests [...]"
• Newsday: "That's because Langan is a certified genius, tested as having an IQ of at least 195 and quite possibly much higher."

Regarding "the smartest man in America", the sources say:

• Esquire: "The Smartest Man in America" [title]; "By some accounts, Christopher Michael Langan is the smartest man in America."
• Newsday: "That impressive score could very well make him the smartest man in America and quite possibly the world."
• The Times: "Langan was recently named the smartest man in America [...]"
• BBC Radio: "[...] he’s been described as 'the smartest man in America'."
• Muscle & Fitness: "Arguably the smartest man in the world, [...] His claim would be easily dismissed if he weren't the smartest man in the world."
• Popular Science: "Answers from the Smartest Man Alive"

So following the sources in these respects, we can say:

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. Billed as possibly "the smartest man in America", he rose to prominence in 1999 while working as a bouncer on Long Island.

Notice that we are not claiming that his IQ is 195, or that he is the "smartest man in America", but only that the sources reported his IQ to have been measured as such and billed him as such. The exceptions—that he said 190-210 in First Person, or that some sources say "in the world" or "alive" rather than "in America"—we can footnote. Tim Smith 05:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the change to the opening made by Tim Smith and referred to above. It is neutral, balanced, and factual. FNMF 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been involved in this discussion much, as I asked for it in the first place. I have not been on as much as usual - I am pleased to see that in my absence other editors have been working on this. I would support this version. I'd like to see the surrounding text from the sources for Iq a bit, though - wasn't the original source for all of these Langan himself? Also, on the subject of high IQ/Low reliability, should we include something about that or would that merely obfuscate the matter? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there are grounds for including a statement about the reliability or otherwise of IQ tests here. Editors have offered no real grounds for doubting Mr Langan's test results, and there do not seem to be any legitimate secondary sources questioning his score. To include discussion of the reliability or otherwise of such testing seems to be a way for the article to implicitly cast doubt on Langan and his score. Readers who wish to question the basis or reliability of IQ tests can read about this question elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. I would further note that the current phrasing of Mr Langan's IQ results, that is, "reported as..." and "billed as...." is factual and neutral, as well as being the outcome of considerable discussion about the best and most fair way to approach this. FNMF 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

CTMU section

I recently added a section on the CTMU, trying to present the material neutrally and verifiably, with frequent qualifiers (e.g. "Langan contends", "he argues", "claims Langan") and footnoted citations. The entire section was then removed by Arthur Rubin with the summary "I don't think CTMU deserves 3 paragraphs, without the assertion added that it is believed by some to be an excuse for Intelligent Design; reverting addition of section".

First, the CTMU is a major part of Langan's notability, and certainly deserves a multi-paragraph section here. The mainstream media coverage of Langan has given the theory 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.

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.

In fact, Popular Science alone devotes as much space to the CTMU as did the section I added.

Second, the CTMU has received far more mainstream media coverage than the material in the "Intelligent design movement" and "Mega Society lawsuit" sections of this article. 20/20, Popular Science, The Times, Newsday, and Esquire all covered the CTMU, but said nothing about the intelligent design movement or the Mega Society lawsuit. In fact, as far as I know, none of Langan's press coverage said anything about the intelligent design movement or the Mega Society lawsuit. If those topics merit sections here, the CTMU merits a section a fortiori.

Third, 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.

Fourth, the relationship of the CTMU to intelligent design is already explained in the "Intelligent design movement" section. The assertion that the CTMU is "believed by some to be an excuse for Intelligent Design" would need a reliable source; "believed by some" is, of course, inappropriate wording.

Arthur, if you have further suggestions for improvement of the material I added, I'd be glad to hear them, and I'd like to work constructively with you. The absence of a CTMU section is a glaring omission in this article, and one I hope we can soon remedy. Tim Smith 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons for moving the CTMU article here was that it wasn't notable. Whenever it has been mentioned in the popular press, it has been as a minor point attached to an article primarily about Langan, and it has never, to my knowledge, been mentioned in acceptable scholarly sources per the AS criteria of ArbCom-PS (I need to make that a redirect, since I reference it continually.) It just isn't notable. --Philosophus ^T 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus, you yourself suggested at the AfD, "Why not move the coverage to the article on Langan, which is essentially what is being proposed", assuring another editor that "The topic will be covered in the article on Langan". In response to a comment that deletion would be a disproportionate response, you said: "That isn't what we are trying to do. [...] We want to move coverage of the topic into the article on Langan himself."

But coverage of the topic wasn't moved into the article on Langan himself; it was simply erased from Wikipedia, in exactly the kind of disproportionate response you said was not what you were trying to do. To be adequately covered in the article on Langan, the topic needs at least a section, and that's what I've written for it.

Please be careful not to confuse the notability needed for the CTMU to have its own article, with the notability needed for the CTMU to have its own section in the Langan article. The former is the notability of the CTMU on its own; the latter is the notability of the CTMU in the context of Langan. As I said, the CTMU is a major part of Langan's notability, having received prominent, attention-getting placement in mainstream media sources including 20/20, The Times, and Popular Science. Indeed, Langan's press coverage has given far more space to the CTMU than to the intelligent design movement or Mega Society lawsuit, which as far as I know received none whatsoever in articles about Langan, but nonetheless occupy sections in this article. Please reread my above post.

The "Appropriate sources" principle of RfAr/Pseudoscience merely interprets WP:V and WP:RS (now superseded by WP:ATT) as requiring that "information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader", noting that "[w]hat constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article", and that scientific theories not appearing in reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals should not be represented as "scientific theories". But the CTMU is not a scientific theory, and I've taken care not to represent it as one. Indeed, the section I added quotes Langan as saying that "a comprehensive theory of reality cannot be based on scientific observation alone". Further, as noted by the ArbCom principle, what constitutes a reliable source varies by topic, and for the topic of what Langan says about the CTMU, Langan's published work is reliable and appropriate.

The addition of a CTMU section is therefore in line both with the arguments you made at the AfD and with the ArbCom principle you cited. You once proposed to merge the CTMU article into this one. Let's follow that proposal and give it the section it deserves. Tim Smith 16:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

CTMU should be kept off Wikipedia, it's a totally un-notable topic, supported only by the Langans, period. Oh, and you. You seemed to stepped in to fill Asmodeus' and DrL's shoes promoting their idea since they've been banned. 151.151.73.167 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing the notability of the CTMU as a topic in its own right. We are discussing the inclusion of a CTMU section in Langan's article, and the notability of the CTMU in the context of Langan. Again, the CTMU is a major part of Langan's notability, having received prominent, attention-getting placement in mainstream media sources including 20/20, The Times, and Popular Science (see my first post). Of course, Langan's work should not be asserted here as being the truth, but neutrally presented, per WP:NPOV. That's what I've tried to do, using frequent qualifiers (e.g. "Langan contends", "he argues", "claims Langan") and footnoted citations. Does anyone have constructive feedback regarding the section I wrote? Tim Smith 05:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Still bent on using Wikipedia to promote Langan's notions I see. The community has already decided CTMU is not notable or worthy of coverage. But by all means please keep your Langan campaign up, it's just more grist for the mill. FeloniousMonk 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out at RfC/Tim Smith, the CTMU AfD and DRV deleted the article. They did not decide that the topic was not worthy of coverage at Christopher Michael Langan. On the contrary, as documented above, a comment at the AfD 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." Indeed, 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. Accordingly, I've submitted a CTMU section for inclusion here. Again, I invite constructive feedback. Tim Smith 19:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

CTMU is already sufficiently explained in the article; anything more becomes simple promotion. CTMU is only notable within the context of Langan and is not worthy of more extensive coverage to make up for its own article being deleted. And I find very troubling the attempts by Langan and his one or two cronies to dissemble CTMU's connection to ID, a common ID tactic, that his crew will not be able to get away with repeating here. 151.151.73.165 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from incivility. The CTMU is certainly not "sufficiently explained" in this article; in fact, other than to say that Langan describes it is as "a theory of the relationship between mind and reality", it is not explained at all outside of the "Intelligent design movement" section. Again, 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. As far as I know, the CTMU's mainstream media coverage never even mentioned the intelligent design movement. To present it only in that context is misleading and non-neutral. I've submitted a section to address this problem, for which I again invite constructive feedback.

By the way, have you edited this page as a logged-in user? Tim Smith 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule for any person to divulge their login identities if they choose to edit/discuss as an IP. Furthermore, I concur with the editors who have told Tim Smith that CTMU is sufficiently explained for the scope and puroposes of Wikipedia and the associated notability of the idea. It's okay to mention that Langan has an idea but describing it in detail is promotionalism since no third party has published any sort of review of the idea. I reject the submitted section which I see as an attempt to reintroduce material that was removed for these very reasons. --ScienceApologist 11:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Numerous third-party publications have described or mentioned the CTMU: Popular Science, The Times, Newsday, Esquire, etc. Granted, these are not peer-reviewed academic journals, and they do not establish that the theory is correct, or that it is accepted by mainstream academia. What they do establish, however, is its role in Langan's notability. (See the top of this section.) Consequently, describing the CTMU here is not promotion, but necessary for a comprehensive article. The current treatment, in which discussion of the CTMU, a theory whose scope goes well beyond biological evolution and intelligent design and which predates Langan's ID connections by over a decade, is largely confined to the "Intelligent design movement" section, is imbalanced and misleading. Again, if the intelligent design movement, which as far as I know was never even mentioned in Langan's press coverage, merits a section here, then the CTMU, which received prominent, attention-getting placement in that coverage, merits one a fortiori—not to be promoted or asserted, but to be described, factually and neutrally. Tim Smith 19:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

We have no substantial references that state that CTMU is anything other than an apology for ID. (In fact, we have no references other than CML, himself, as to what it is.) As it was presented at an ID conference and published in an ID journal, there's no reason to believe it was anything other than ID.

(1) The fact that Langan's theory predates the intelligent design movement is a strong argument that it is something "other than an apology for ID." (2) Substantial arguments have been given that the theory is not ID, both by Asmodeus and in the sections below: "Comments on the editing of this entry," and the "Further comments" section below that. To summarise very quickly: ID claims to be scientific, and therefore claims to be scientifically verifiable. Langan states his theory is not scientific, and not subject to scientific verification. All enemies of ID should understood the importance of this distinction, since this is how ID distinguishes itself from creationism. (3) Langan does seem to believe that the chasm between evolution and ID can be bridged, by a non-scientific theory at a deeper level. But it requires willful interpretation to then understand this as really supporting ID over evolution. Unlike ID proponents, Langan is explicit that he does agree with the theory of evolution. (4) Are there any substantial references that state that CTMU is an apology for ID? I haven't seen them. It should not be necessary to overcook the connection. (5) Langan's association with ID stands for itself. How it is interpreted is up to the public. Why try to force the public to believe what this association means, especially when the subject of the entry himself strongly contests that he is a proponent of ID? (6) I agree with Mr Rubin that there seems little evidence of support for Mr Langan's theory. Nevertheless, it has received interest in the publications and on the television programs in which he appears or is discussed. It seems fairly clear that it is an element of Langan's notability. The way the entry stands, readers could be forgiven for thinking Langan concocted his theory to back up ID. This is unfair to Langan, as the theory substantially predates ID. Whether or not there should be a section on CTMU (and I have no objection to such a section, and really do not understand why people think it would be so bad to have such a section, other than because of their general antipathy to the subject of the entry), I think it should be made clear that Langan created his theory long before his invovlement with ID. FNMF 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to create a point-by-point refuation of this last, but you'd ignore it, just as you've ignored my refutations of your reasons why the lawsuit shouldn't be here. Jimbo (a day or two after he deleted it) provided a completely different justification of why it shouldn't be here; it's not referenced in any secondary sources, so is probably not notable. His previous assertion of WP:OR is completely bogus, as I hope he now recognizes.

Suffice it to say that any indication from WP:RS of the content of CTMU prior to CML's involvement with ID would be appreciated. The papers published in the ID journals and in Uncommon Descent clearly indicate it supports ID over evolution. (This is WP:OR, but we have to interpret articles to determine what the appropriate unbiased description is.)

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of the mainstream media coverage of Langan and the CTMU was prior to his involvement with ID, which seems to date from 2002. Popular Science (2001) introduces the CTMU as a "theory of everything", clarifying:

Physicists often use the term "theory of everything" to describe one of their holy grails, a theory that would be capable of unifying the laws that govern the universe.

When Langan says everything, though, he means everything: from quantum mechanics to consciousness. He calls his theory the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. You can think of it as the answer to the question of how and why science is able to describe reality. What he's getting at is that a complete explanation of reality must encompass not only the things we observe (such as events in our universe) but also the way we think about those things.

Esquire (1999) describes the theory as follows:

Simply put, the CTMU explains the meaning and substance of reality. It resolves—once and for all time, [Langan] says—"many of the most intractable paradoxes known to physical science while bestowing on human consciousness a level of meaning that was previously approached only by religion and mysticism." A culmination of the modern logico-linguistic philosophical tradition, the CTMU "reunites the estranged couple consisting of rationalistic philosophy and empirical science."

Neither source mentions intelligent design. For a pre-2002 presentation by Langan himself, try his 1998 "Introduction to the CTMU" (warning: dense reading). Of course, as I said, these sources do not establish that the theory is correct, or that it is accepted by mainstream academia. But the popular media coverage does establish the theory's role in Langan's notability, and that role goes well beyond intelligent design. Don't get me wrong—I'm not arguing for removal of the description of the CTMU's relationship to ID. (In fact, I wrote part of it.) But we do need to cover the CTMU in the broader context presented by the media. I submitted a section for that purpose, for which I continue to invite feedback. Tim Smith 07:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the editing of this entry

I would like to make some comments on the editing of this entry. My desire to do so is based on an (almost inevitably) incomplete reading of the material here and in the discussion of the CTMU entry. Before I make these comments, I feel compelled to state that I do not have any connection with Mr Langan, knowing of him primarily through the Errol Morris program, and secondarily through material available on the internet. Nor am I a proponent of Langan's work. Nor am I in any way a proponent of intelligent design.

The first comment I would like to make is that the contention that Mr Langan spoke about the CTMU theory and intelligent design is simply not supported by the citation provided. The conference program provided as evidence merely states that Mr Langan will speak about his CTMU. To me this seems plausible, given the degree of Mr Langan's idiosyncratic preoccupations, and his commitment to his own work. He certainly does not seem to me to be the kind of guy given to joining the ranks of a movement of which he is not himself the leader. More to the point, as mentioned, the citation simply does not support the claim, regardless of who ran the conference or what the conference was supposed to be about. It is quite common for a speaker to speak at a conference, but fail to address the purported theme of the conference. How many speakers at conferences really just see the conference as a pretext for whatever barrow it is they wish to push? Given this, it is entirely plausible that Mr Langan spoke at the conference about the CTMU, as the citation states. To insist on more than that (and in the face of denials by a wikipedia editor everybody assumes to be the man himself) is unfair without further evidence.

That brings me to my second comment: there seems to be a will by some editors to "prove" that Langan is a secret agent of intelligent design. That he is associated with intelligent design people is not in doubt, and not denied. But this kind of argument by association is very weak when it comes to assessing the work. If that is all the assessment is based on, then it is based on next to nothing. But if everyone presumes user Asmodeus to be Langan, then what is it he is supposed to be hiding with his constant denials that he is an intelligent design proponent? To me, the relation between Langan and the proponents of intelligent design seems much more like mutual exploitation: the intelligent designers being the kind of people who tend to grab hold of anything that looks like it might help their case; and Langan, a guy who is definitively outside the academy, taking advantage of being offered a platform to speak about his CTMU. If one feels this association reflects poorly on Langan, fair enough, but it is a mistake to feel compelled to prove the association extends further than the evidence indicates. And, truth be told, there is not much evidence. That Langan has stated that the Bible is true "metaphorically" is slim evidence of anything, and hardly spells out a position. To me, what Langan sounds like he means to say with this remark is that what the Bible really meant to say, but can only say metaphorically, is what he says in his CTMU. This may sound grandiose, and it may be unfair to Langan to put it like this, but it certainly doesn't make him a proponent of intelligent design.

And this brings me to my third comment. Asmodeus has on several occasions referred to the distinction between CTMU and intelligent design in terms of the distinction between philosophy and science. It sometimes appears that what Asmodeus is trying to say here is not being understood, even though it is a clear and coherent distinction. The whole point of intelligent design theory, insofar as it is a political Trojan horse, is to escape the limits of religion and philosophy by purporting that intelligent design theory is scientific. This opens the theory to scientific verification or falsification, which is what scientists far and wide have undertaken to do. But the direction of movement, so to speak, is then from religion or philosophy to science, in order to try to win the benefits of being called scientific. The CTMU purports to do something quite to the contrary. It examines and accepts the scientific claims of physics and biology, and purports to offer a non-scientific but nevertheless true and rationally-provable theory operating at a more fundamental level than physics or biology. As non-scientific but rationally true, Langan calls it philosophy. If one has to give things labels, then this seems like a justifiable label for what the CTMU is, regardless of whatever today's exceedingly diverse world of philosophy might consist in. Others might prefer other labels. The point is, however, that this direction of movement (so to speak) is directly opposite to that of intelligent design, and that it is so because the two theories are begun with different motives. Whereas the aim of intelligent design proponents is to assert a scientific basis for religious or philosophical claims (and this is after all the only thing about them that really raises the ire of evolutionary scientists; if intelligent designers stuck to religion or philosophy scientists would only yawn), CTMU tries to move from an acceptance of physics and biology to a more fundamental theory exceeding scientific method. Note that this assessment of what CTMU does is not at all an assessment of the validity of the theory. But what it should make clear is that, whatever actual associations there have been between Langan and intelligent design proponents, the aims, methods, and content of their work is very far from being the same. These points are utterly comprehensible with virtually no understanding of what the CTMU actually says, so editors should not use their belief that the CTMU is incomprehensible or gibberish to justify editing in a way that denies these points. Asmodeus's point is clear (though he probably wouldn't put it in quite these words): insofar as intelligent design is the attempt to garner scientific credibility for what were formerly considered religious contentions, the CTMU cannot be a species of intelligent design theory, because the CTMU explicitly states that it is not verifiable in any ordinary scientific way. FNMF 09:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Further comments on the editing of this entry

Really, all you people who have invested so much energy in attacking this and the CTMU entry need to ask what your motive is. No doubt you believe you are defending an encyclopaedia against crank-fuelled corruption, or are defending the science of evolution from religiously-fuelled intelligent design corruption. If that is what you believe, however, I believe you are wrong. Chris Langan is a guy with a big brain and big ideas who dislikes universities and worked as a bouncer. Some people, such as Errol Morris (a very good filmmaker, by the way), thought this was interesting enough to make a television program about. He's an unusual guy. Whether his IQ is really this or that is unimportant and uninteresting, and probably an absurd question to demand an answer to. Face it, the guy is bright. Maybe even brighter than you. If the idea of somebody smarter than you threatens you, at least you can console yourself with the realisation you aren't the first to react that way, but you should really strive to rise above it. Even if you think his ideas make no sense, clearly the guy has a functioning brain.

Some people will find Langan's getting mixed up with intelligent design people another interesting chapter in his unusual life; others will feel it makes Langan all the less interesting. That's fine. What you need to realise is this (and I know it's hard to believe): just because a guy utters the words "intelligent design," is a fellow of some intelligent design body, and speaks at an intelligent design conference, does not make the guy a proponent of intelligent design (see my comments above). And, frankly, he's not. He's a proponent of his own stuff, stuff which it seems (from my superficial knowledge) very few people are seriously interested in. But it appears to be a remarkable fact that the people who find it so important and revealing that Langan spoke at an intelligent design conference are also the people who feel that pointing this out is not enough, who have to overcook their argument by asserting that he really spoke about this or he really thinks that.

So don't make a bogeyman where there isn't one. The only effect of all this invested energy is to waste his time and your own. The guy's not hurting anybody, so don't make out he is, and stop overcooking your arguments "proving" he's really this or really that. He is what he is. You took his CTMU entry away from him, so why continue to persecute the guy? What do you care whether his entry has this many paragraphs or that many paragraphs? Do you really believe there is a measure to how many paragraphs somebody deserves based on how much they achieve? What difference does it make to anything? Oh, and if you think the answer is something to do with building a proper encyclopaedia, have you actually had a good look around Wikipedia and seen what fills up most of the space? Face it, you're out to get the guy, and it's nasty and, more importantly, utterly pointless. FNMF 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I also find it absolutely incredible that a group of people who are so determined to insist that Langan is uninteresting and non-notable are also so determined to include information about legal matters that are totally uninteresting and possibly defamatory. What is supposed to be the interest in this dispute? There is absolutely no reason to include discussion of this lawsuit in Langan's biography. Complaints about it have been raised and not answered. Wikipedia editors should not be trawling through court files of uncontested cases looking for evidence against subjects of biographical entries. People need to lay off the guy. FNMF 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the lawsuit section must be deleted from this entry

My deletion of the lawsuit section of this entry has been reverted by Arthur Rubin. His grounds were that it is true and written neutrally. These assertions are highly questionable. More importantly, there are other important aspects of Wikipedia "official policy" for dealing with living persons which are being ignored with such a reversion (and are being ignored in general throughout the editing of this entry). I begin with the following:

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect subjects' lives. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to attribution and neutrality, particularly if it is contentious.

I draw your attention to the final five words: "particularly if it is contentious." This lawsuit is contentious. It has been contended by editor Asmodeus. He has presented an extremely detailed account of Langan's side of the circumstances of the case. The response to this was to cast doubt on what he wrote, and to point out that he hadn't provided sources for the information. But he did not provide this detailed account in order to say that it should be included in the entry. He did so in order to make clear that there is another side to the case, and that if editors act as if presenting one side of the case is neutral and balanced, they are wrong. The court case was uncontested, as has been pointed out numerous times. This means it must be treated with extreme caution as a source. This has singularly not been done.

The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies.

There has been an utter failure to attend to this element of official policy. The editors here have been collectively and spectacularly insensitive to the impact of their editing. They have been incautious, nasty, irresponsible, flagrant, and shameless. Many of the editors of this entry should simply recuse themselves from doing so, purely on the grounds that they have clearly lost all objectivity in relation to this individual. It appears to be the case that editors are so offended by a biographical subject discussing his own entry (and doing so without explicitly declaring himself to be the subject), or are so offended by his association with proponents of intelligent design theory, that they grant themselves license to discard all sensitivity, caution, or common sense.

If the subject edits the article, it is important to assume good faith and deal with them politely.

Again, a spectacular failure from editors of this entry. When Asmodeus presented Langan's side of the circumstances of the case, other editors presumed bad faith on his part. If editors cannot see that they have failed to deal politely with Asmodeus, they are blind, and ought to recuse themselves from editing the entry on account of this blindness.

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information.

At least four editors believe that this section is biased and malicious: Asmodeus, DrL, Sheerfirepower, and myself. The fact that two of these editors may be directly involved does not mean they do not count. It means the opposite. It means that their perspective counts more, especially when they have gone to lengths to explain why they think bias and malice is contained in this section of the entry. But two other editors also agree with this assessment. To simply ignore all these opinions shows more evidence of the bias and malice in question. Even if you find more than four people who disagree with this position, this is not a first past the post election. The point is to defend the inclusion with arguments, and this has not been done. Many, many, many points have been raised by various editors, and ignored, ignored on the grounds that they are from interested parties. This is not good enough, nowhere near good enough.

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. [...] Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out.

This is critical. The lawsuit in question is exactly like the situation of a messy divorce. In fact, it is a messy divorce between two parties. The divorce in question is not notable, and no grounds for its notability have been provided. It is not important to the article. No attempt whatsoever has been made to demonstrate it is notable to the article. No claim has been made about why this case is supposed to be interesting or relevant. It is purely a way of trying to get at the subject of the entry. The official policy could not be more clear about what to do with such a non-notable, unimportant event: leave it out.

Jimmy Wales warns other editors to think twice when encountering such attempts: "...reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do."

At least four editors are of the opinion this material is potentially libelous. One of those editors is presumed by all and sundry to be the subject of the entry (and this editor has been banned from editing the entry, which should make the other editors all the more cautious, conservative, and sensitive, but the opposite has been the case). These opinions count for something but are being treated as counting for nothing. This is to flagrantly and shamelessly ignore numerous elements of Wikipedia offical policy (not guidelines, official policy). And, in the opinion of the founder of Wikipedia, it is a horribly stupid thing to do. Please cease to revert the removal of this potentially libelous material, and you will save yourself from being horribly stupid in the future. FNMF 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The material has been discussed and is supported by reliable sources. Guettarda 00:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The notion that the above "response" by user Guettarda is sufficient to rebut the above arguments is so absurd as to in fact prove those arguments. That "the material has been discussed" is a content-free assertion: yes indeed, it has been discussed, including by four editors who believe it should clearly and immediately be removed. The arguments of these four editors has been consistently ignored, indicating a clear campaign to violate official Wikipedia policy regarding living persons. The assertion that the material is supported by reliable sources is questionable, has been questioned, and does nothing to rebut the arguments that have been put about this material. The thoughtlessness and insensitivity of editors of this entry is shocking, revolting, and unconscionable. Please do not continue to revert editorial changes without even attempting adequate justification. FNMF 01:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said - the issue has been discussed, the concerns you raised have been addressed previously. Have you bothered to read the discussion? If so, what was wrong with the explanations provided? If not, please do so. Guettarda 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That the issue has been discussed means, precisely, nothing. I note that not one of the points I made, which refer explicitly and extensively to Wikipedia official policy in relation to living persons, has been discussed. I note that the edit I made to the article has been reverted three times without any attempt to address the reasons given for my edit. I note that I am improperly accused of vandalism (by Arthur Rubin). I note that I am improperly threatened with blockage (by Arthur Rubin). And I note that the bullying campaign—with no regard to policy, and with no attempt to argue the case—continues unabated. And I continue to be amazed at the virulence with which a living person is being attacked on Wikipedia through the entry devoted to him, without reason and without purpose, by editors who ought to know a great deal better. These policy violations are shameful. FNMF 03:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The content has already been passed on by an arbcomm member and is properly sourced and attributed by our policies: It's fine. Please stop edit warring and disrupting this article. FeloniousMonk 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit confict)

As for beling banned (not blocked), the ArbCom ruling makes it clear that other editors who act as DrL and Azmodeus did may be subject to the same remedies. Deleting the lawsuit section was one of the things DrL did. Not one of the points you made is relevant to the fact that Mega sued L for the name (and domain names), and won, in part. You may (if you're not banned under the ArbCom ruling) copyedit the lawsuit section, but there's no reason or justification for removing it.

As for Asmodeus "disputing" the facts, his/her comments were inconsistent with the court records, and should be disregarded as WP:COI. The only reason that the lawsuit might be removed in full is the lack of secondary sources, other than the parties. However, if the lawsuit is removed, WP:NPOV#Undue weight demands that we remove all references to the Mega Society from the article, and probably references to the IQ test designed by that society, and possibly all references to L's websites which had the disputed trademerks. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, your remarks show remarkable bad faith. (1) No attempt whatsoever has been made to establish that the lawsuit is notable or important. I repeat: it is exactly like the situation of a messy divorce mentioned in the official policy concerning living persons. (2) Your argument that Asmodeus's comments explaining the circumstances of the case is inconsistent with the court records utterly ignores the point (made many times) that only one side presented evidence in the case. To refer to the court records as though they establish the facts of anything is highly questionable, and this is one very important reason why the material may indeed be libelous. (3) Your argument about the consequences of deleting the section on the lawsuit (all the other things that will have to be removed) is utterly irrelevant. If all these things have to be removed because something else is removed, then such is life. But that has no bearing on the question of whether the section should be removed. Furthermore, your argument concerning "undue weight" is exactly the reason the section should be removed. It presents a one-sided picture of a one-sided legal contest, and does so against the wishes of the subject of the entry. And, again, it does so for no good reason, being an utter triviality. FNMF 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have left discussion of the matters arising from this entry here and here. FNMF 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This writing style sure does look familiar, the points look familiar, the allegations of "libel" look familiar, screed against Rubin looks familiar -- it's like déjà vu all over again.

BTW, what's "potentially libelous"? It's either libelous or it isn't, and I see nothing that can be classified as libel. •Jim62sch• 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is remarkable that none of you people feel the slightest need to make arguments or rebut the arguments of others. Why do you feel the constant need to expose your nastiness and sliminess at every opportunity? If you, Jim62sch, are trying to imply that I am really Langan, you are wrong. Potentially libelous is not a difficult concept—it is the reason we have courts and lawyers and judges to decide whether something is or is not libelous. That you see nothing libelous may be because your attitude to this subject contains bias and malice. FNMF 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing that none of "us people" feel the slightest need to remake arguments that have already been made in counter to your arguments which have also already been made by DrL. On the other hand "potentially libelous" makes sense (although incorrect in this context), in that one could argue that nothing is libelous until found so by the courts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, from a legal sense you are correct re libel, but, the use of potentially libelous in this case is wrong unless there is a lawsuit making such a claim. Since you, FNMF, seem to have the inside scoop I'm sure you can enlighten me further on any pending lawsuits. •Jim62sch• 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

FNMF's arguments are some of the most laughable I've ever heard. "To refer to the court records as though they establish the facts of anything is highly questionable, and this is one very important reason why the material may indeed be libelous." In a word: bullshit. No court is going to even consider a claim that citing official court documents is libel. Such a lawsuit would be considered frivolous and thrown out right off the bat, probably with sanctions against the filer. Truth is always an absolute defense to libel, and it is incontestably true that a lawsuit was filed and that Langan lost (I believe by default). No court would consider allowing a libel suit to re-litigate specific claims that had already been heard; collateral estoppel would prevent any such thing. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 08:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE AND THIS DISCUSSION PAGE

Chris Langan has not proven his "intelligence" in any constructive manner. Someone with his brains would have found a way to work the system to accomplish his goals. He could even have pursued a PhD, given his alleged "smarts", and been able to spend ALL his time "thinking", instead of spending most of his waking hours as a bar bouncer.

Indeed, his contention that he is the "World's Smartest Man" makes a mockery out of intelligence in general and IQ testing in particular.

And rightly so. `'mikka 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

His alleged theory of everything, the "CTMU", has no mathematical foundations, and is, in fact, Intelligent Design in scientific clothing. Intelligent Design is not science, it is not even philosophy.

Suppose it is an intellectual game.... `'mikka 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also don't understand the tempest in a teacup that has erupted on this page. It in itself makes a mockery out of Wikipedia.

You probably didn't see tempests in teaspoons in wikipeida yet. This one is about a living person at least. `'mikka 08:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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. [3] Yet this section header clearly contradicts that statement. So, does that mean that the section can be reinserted if it fairly represents the sources (and how does it not fairly represent the sources?) or does it mean that Jimbo hasn't redefined OR, just redefined OR for this article? Guettarda 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replying upon Langan's website as a source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of arguments for and against deleting the references sourced from Langan's website

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)

Langan, intelligent design, and Wikipedia policy

One of the key reasons for the ongoing problems with this entry is the association between Langan and intelligent design. Nobody has denied this association, but there has been substantial disagreement over its extent, character, and meaning. The entry, however, is not the place to argue the case one way or the other on these questions. While there has been an avalanche of discussion purporting that Langan is a proponent of ID, this is contrasted by the dearth of evidence supporting the contention. I have earlier today left a comment explaining my view that a quotation by Langan has been misused in the attempt to argue that he is a proponent of intelligent design. I urge editors to study that comment closely, as well as my other comments on the question of Mr Langan's association with ID, because it is clear there is some confusion and misunderstanding. I would like now to reproduce the final paragraph of my aforementioned comment, so that this issue is made even clearer:

No quotations provided thus far provide evidence Langan is a proponent of ID theory. There is clear evidence that those who are trying to claim this are guilty of attempting to unnecessarily introduce controversy into an entry about a living person. If that is the case, they should cease doing so, as it is a violation of official policy in relation to living persons. Nor should they engage in original research in an attempt to "prove" that Langan is an ID proponent. There are substantial reasons for believing he is not, including explicit statements by the subject of the entry. If no legitimate secondary sources can be provided supporting the contention that he is a proponent of ID, then trying to establish this through interpretations of quotations from Langan's work is impermissible, as such interpretations would constitute original research. The policy against original research is all the more important where the subject of the entry is a living person. If you personally believe Langan is a proponent of ID, make the case in a book or an article elsewhere, and others may then consider using such material as a source for this entry. FNMF 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking it one small step at a time: The article says: "Langan and his wife are fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), an intelligent design society." Do you agree the sources support this claim? WAS 4.250 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. And I'll add that I do not have any substantial problems with the section. The parts about what Langan's theory actually says I do not feel in a very strong position to argue one way or the other. I do believe that the corrupted quotation which user Tim Smith removed was misunderstood and misused, as indicated in my earlier comment. But I do feel that so much of this dispute has arisen because it has been presumed on flimsy grounds that Langan is a proponent of ID. On the basis of that presumption a campaign has been conducted on every front imaginable, whether justified or not. My feeling is that this campaign is unnecessary and all editors should take steps to end it. My own efforts, while sometimes received as hostile, are merely an attempt to bring this campaign to an end, and let the entry return to its natural (not teleological!) course. FNMF 08:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what is written here. I would suggest two minor edits to the section titled "Intelligent design movement" in the interest of NPOV. The first would be to change the title to something more neutral and representative of the content of the passage (e.g., "Intelligent Design, Neo-Darwinism and the CTMU"; other suggestions?). The second would be to remove the word "fellow" from the following: "a collection of essays by fellow intelligent design proponents". Since there is no source for the assertion that all of the authors in that book are ID proponents, this constitutes original research. (In fact that may still be OR since the resulting characterization would imply that authors in that book are either ID proponents or ISCID fellows and that has not been established.) Of course, now that it is established that the CTMU predates any involvement with ISCID, a brief paragraph on the CTMU should precede the ID passage for the sake of balance. Maybe we can work on a CTMU section here and come to some consensus. --NightSky 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(recovered after database crash)

Points:

1. At least one of CML's CTMU papers explicitly supports ID, although it redefines "intelligent" so that most ID supporters wouldn't recognize the support. (The support is explicit, but my interpretation is WP:OR. However, it may be appropriate to suppress the support, as the interpretation is plausible.)
2. We cannot accept L's assertion that he does or does not support ID. There are arguments that he might lie in either direction. We can assert that he belongs to ID organizations and is published by ID publishers. We're unlikely to find an external source who will state that he does or does not support ID.
3. We cannot easily confirm or deny that CTMU may have been refocused to support ID.
4. We are unlikely to find WP:RS as to what CTMU really says, so that we may only list what CML says it says, with sufficient notice that they really are just what he says about it.
5. May I suggest the phrasing "a collection of essays pubished by intelligent design proponents", rather than making implications about the individual essays?

I'll write more, later. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That wording for #5 seems better. Did you have any thoughts on a more neutral and accurate heading for that section? --NightSky 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Responding to WAS 4.250, I agree that Langan and his wife are ISCID fellows. But the characterization of ISCID as an "intelligent design society" is problematic on NPOV/ATT/NOR grounds, because (1) the cited source, Brauer/Forrest/Gey, though labelling ISCID's fellows "almost exclusively" ID proponents, does not use the term "intelligent design society", and (2) ISCID's Managing Director, while acknowledging that "ID plays a significant role in the activities of ISCID" and that "[m]any of the participants and leaders of the organization are intimately involved in ID oriented research", nonetheless denies that ISCID is exclusively an "ID society", and states that its focus is to be "a society for the exchange (even cross-fertilization) of ideas on complex systems rather than the biased promotion of an idea." Can anyone think of a neutral, economical way to express both ISCID's relationship to ID, and its stated purpose to investigate complex systems? How about:

Langan and his wife are fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a professional society whose stated purpose is to investigate complex systems using information- and design-theoretic concepts. ISCID's fellows are almost exclusively proponents of intelligent design (ID), and ID plays a significant role in the society's activities.

Tim Smith 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bull, ISCID is wholly and completely a ID group and nothing else. ISCID stands for the International Society for 'Complexity, Information and Design! It was founded by Dembski, a leading ID proponent. Implying that is not an ID group is misleading and dissembling the same line ISCID and the ID have been trying to do for years. TS's proposal pushes a particular viewpoint over a neutral description 151.151.21.101 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be important to note, either just before or just after that last sentence, that neither Langan nor his wife have declared themselves to be intelligent design proponents, nor have they been depicted that way in any reliable third-party source (in which case why is that last sentence included?). It may be best to leave that last sentence out altogether, since the passage would link to the ISCID article (this biographical article is about Langan, not ISCID). I imagine that the ID/ISCID connection is duly covered in the ISCID article. Just some thoughts on the options for handling this section. --NightSky 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of the suggestions put. I agree with NightSky that the word "fellow" should be deleted from "a collection of essays by fellow intelligent design proponents". Inclusion of "fellow" turns a descriptive sentence into original research. I agree with Arthur Rubin's suggestion about "a collection of essays published by intelligent design proponents." I agree with Tim Smith's suggestion about how to describe the ISCID. I agree with NightSky that it would be good to mention that Langan has not claimed to be a proponent of ID. I would suggest: "Langan himself does not claim to be a proponent of intelligent design." On reflection, my feeling is that there is no reason to mention Langan's wife in this section. That Langan and his wife are fellows of ISCID does not seem important to me, as no-one seems to be suggesting his wife is a notable figure. I would suggest dropping her from the opening of the section, and then it would no longer be necessary to add that she too does not claim to be a proponent of intelligent design. FNMF 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think those are good suggestions that simplify the passage and provide clarity. --NightSky 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they promote a partisan POV and you are relying upon a partisan primary source (ISCID) to support your entire argument, something we apparently cannot do according to Jimbo. Without that primary source your claims are shown for the house of cards that they are. 151.151.21.101 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad ideas. We shouldn't say that CML is an intelligent design proponent unless he or a WP:RS says it, but we also shouldn't say the contrary unless he or a WP:RS says it. He hasn't denied being an ID proponent, as far as I can tell. Tim Smith is wrong about ISCID; it's clearly an ID organization, as has been stated and sourced in that article. CML's wife is marginally relevant; we frequently list relatives of "notable" people, especially if they're in the same occupation.

Now, if ISCID and their journal are not considered WP:RS, we probably should just delete the article and block all references to megafoundation.org and ctmu.org throughout Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In relation to these points by Arthur Rubin:

• I agree that it is not crucial to say that Langan denies being a proponent of ID. But because the implication that he is such a proponent remains in the section, I think it may at least be worth including a weaker statement such as the one I indicated above: "Langan himself does not claim to be a proponent of intelligent design." This is a factual statement that gives the section more balance.
• I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Tim Smith is wrong in his description of ISCID. His proposal included the following sentence: "ISCID's fellows are almost exclusively proponents of intelligent design (ID), and ID plays a significant role in the society's activities." This sentence seems fairly clear, explicit, and factual.
• I'm still not sure what you think the relevance of Langan's wife's fellowship in ISCID is supposed to be. It seems gratuitous to me. The relevance of Langan's fellowship is because it has raised questions about the connection between his theoretical ideas and ID. I don't see that her association adds anything, and it serves to complicate the issue. I am not against mentioning her in the entry; I just don't see the point of mentioning her in this particular connection. She is not in the same occupation. FNMF 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we can incorporate the concerns of editors to this section and rework this paragraph based on the above consensus. I'll give it a try.

Heading: Intelligent Design, Neo-Darwinism and the CTMU

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a professional society whose stated purpose is to investigate complex systems using information- and design-theoretic concepts. Although ISCID's fellows are almost exclusively proponents of intelligent design (ID), Langan himself has never claimed in published writings or interviews to be an advocate of ID. The ISCID's journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design published a paper in 2002 in which Langan explained his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". Later that year, Langan presented a lecture on Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe at the ISCID's Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference. 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.

Let me know what you think! Specific feedback including suggestions for changes would be welcomed. --NightSky 15:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a neutral, balanced, and factual paragraph. I have not scoured every printed word coming from Langan, so I am not in a position to say for sure that he has never claimed to be an advocate. But it certainly seems that nobody has found any evidence for such advocacy. Unless evidence to the contrary is forthcoming, I believe the paragraph as rendered by NightSky should replace what is currently in the entry. FNMF 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It omits the fact that ISCID is a ID organization instead repeating the rhetoric of some ISCID fellows meant to dissemble that fact; it will never fly per WP:NPOV. And "Langan himself has never claimed in published writings or interviews to be an advocate of ID." is original research, you'd need a reliable published primary or better yet secondary source to say that. Considering these issues, a more accurate and neutral paragraph would be:

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a professional society promoting intelligent design. The ISCID's journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design published a paper in 2002 in which Langan explained his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". Later that year, Langan presented a lecture on Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe at the ISCID's Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference. 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.

This version is accurate, well supported, and avoids repeating the rhetoric of those who seek to dissemble the role of ISCID in promoting ID. FeloniousMonk 17:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's acually not too bad but I feel there is still one problem with the passage as worded. I know that some believe that the ISCID stated purpose is an effort by Dembski to dissemble, but it's important to note how they publicly present themselves because this may well contribute to the reasons that some people might have for involving themselves with the society, if only for the sake of publication. In the interest of balance, let's consider the following:

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a professional society whose stated purpose is to investigate complex systems using information- and design-theoretic concepts and whose activities include promoting intelligent design. The ISCID's journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design published a paper in 2002 in which Langan explained his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". Later that year, Langan presented a lecture on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe at the ISCID's Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference. 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.

This version is accurate, well supported, and balanced. There is no reason to include a Langan disclaimer (which, as FM points out, may be WP:OR) since the description offers two documented purposes (investigating complex systems and promoting ID). In this way, the reader is able to make up his or her own mind about why Langan might have involved himself with this group. --NightSky 18:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe both NightSky's and FeloniousMonk's suggestions are acceptable. I might surprise you here, but I think I prefer Felonious's. The phrase about "investigate complex systems using information- and design-theoretic concepts" does come across like ISCID marketing hype, and nobody really seems to contest that ISCID is there to promote ID. And if everybody agrees that, essentially, ISCID is a body promoting ID, then I think we should not get into a big argument about this minor detail of the entry. So I think my vote is to keep it simple and stick with Felonious's. Also, this might serve to ease the qualms of those editors who feel that editors like NightSky, Tim Smith and myself are really just trying too hard to downplay the ID connection. Since all agree the connection is there, I think Felonious's version states this connection in a clear way that to me is factual. FNMF 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, point well-taken, although I don't see what could be wrong with including an organizations stated purpose. If we take that out, I think that this version might be more neutral as it does not limit the activities of the society to just promoting intelligent design:

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a professional society whose activities include promoting intelligent design. The ISCID's journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design published a paper in 2002 in which Langan explained his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". Later that year, Langan presented a lecture on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe at the ISCID's Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference. 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.

--NightSky 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the above suggestion by NightSky, incorporating the thoughts of myself, FeloniousMonk, as well as NightSky, is as good as we are going to get. It seems very neutral and balanced. It makes clear that ISCID promotes ID, but leaves a bit of wiggle room, so that the sentence no longer directly implies (without explicitly stating) that fellowship in ISCID makes Langan himself an ID-promoter. I appeal to FeloniousMonk to examine the above chain of argument, and to endorse this version so as to achieve consensus. FNMF 22:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to include the society's stated purpose, which concisely explains its name:

International Society for Complexity, Information and Design

a professional society whose stated purpose is to investigate complex systems using information- and design-theoretic concepts

I agree with NightSky that ISCID's public face may have contributed to Langan's reasons for involvement, and that by presenting both its stated purpose and its association with ID, we let readers draw their own inferences.

I also support NightSky's suggestion that we make the section's title (currently "Intelligent design movement") more representative of its content. Over "Intelligent Design, Neo-Darwinism and the CTMU" I might prefer just "Intelligent design". (I think we need a separate section for the CTMU, though the current section can still explain its relationship to ID.)

I further submit that more relevant here to Uncommon Dissent than the background of the contributors might be what the book is about.

I therefore propose:

Intelligent design

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a professional society which promotes intelligent design. ISCID's stated purpose is to investigate complex systems using information- and design-theoretic concepts, and Langan published a paper on his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002. Later that year, Langan presented a lecture on the CTMU at ISCID's Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference. In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, a collection of essays critical of Darwinism edited by ISCID cofounder William Dembski.

Tim Smith 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer NightSky's last version over Tim Smith's. The argument that the "public face" of ISCID may have been a motivation for Langan's involvement seems very speculative to me. I note that there are already entries on both the ISCID and Uncommon Dissent: the battles about the character of the ISCID and the contents of Uncommon Dissent can be fought at their respective entries. I don't believe the Langan entry needs to be burdened with these disputes. I therefore prefer NightSky's version because, keeping the claims minimal and (fairly) neutral, I think it holds the potential for ending what is really, in my opinion, only a sideshow for the Langan entry. I urge all involved to accept NightSky's latest version as a fair compromise. On the other hand, I support titling the section "Intelligent design." I also support the inclusion of a section on the CTMU, to precede the section on ID. FNMF 21:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Once ISCID is labelled as a society that promotes intelligent design, it becomes a matter of maintaining balance to include the society's stated description. I think that the stated description is so close to what the CTMU is all about that it isn't much of a leap to think Langan saw this as a fit, enough so to publish his material there. By giving both the stated purpose and the popularly understood purpose, we are presenting factual information and allowing the reader to decide. Therefore, I like my last version that included the stated description or Tim Smith's most recent version best. After that, I think my most recent version is adequate but would like to keep the door open on including the stated description when consensus can be reached. I also think dropping "movement" from the heading is warranted as politics are not discussed in the entry and I don't think there is any problem with working on a CTMU section. Most Wikipedia bios have at least some coverage of the major work of the subject. --NightSky 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that this disagreement is about Langan as much as it is about ISCID. It is still a leap to assert that Langan saw a fit because of the stated purpose, therefore agreed to speak. It is an opinion, a justifiable opinion, perhaps, but one without any supporting evidence. I believe the title of the organisation gives enough information about the character of the organisation, and adding the "stated purpose" is just unnecessarily buying into ISCID marketing. I haven't got a problem if that's the version people want to go with, but I believe you are just making unnecessary problems that are likely to drag out by fighting for this. Even if there was consensus achieved now about including the stated purpose, it will just lead to further unnecessary disagreement in the future. In my opinion, that is what the "door is being kept open for" with such an inclusion. If you can get agreement, fine. If not, then you can't just blame the anti-ID people for keeping the argument going rather than trying to resolve it. I'm not trying to be attacking, but I just don't see that much is gained by prolonging this particular disagreement. As I said, there are entries for ISCID and Uncommon Dissent, and these arguments should take place there. FNMF 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some time has now passed, during which several arguments have been put for a change to the section "Intelligent design movement." In that time, nobody has contested the need for improvement, so I have gone ahead and made the change. I have chosen, unsurprisingly, the version I like, written by NightSky, which I consider the most neutral and balanced. I understand that Tim Smith and NightSky prefer Tim Smith's most recent version. I am certain that editors will understand that I am not trying to make a pre-emptive partisan move here. If Tim Smith or NightSky wish to change to their preferred version, I will not object, but I continue to believe that Tim Smith's version is likely to produce avoidable disagreement, and does in fact contain some content problems, whereas NightSky's is virtually impregnable to objection and has the capacity to achieve a workable consensus. These arguments are explained in the above sequence of comments. I have also changed the title of the section, as per consensus. FNMF 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the change by user 151.151.21.99 (aka 151.151.21.101, and similar numbers). I have a number of points to make in relation to the change made by 151.151.21.99, including the following:

• The justification given for the change in the edit summary was that he was removing an "ambiguous" phrase. I do not believe the phrase "whose activities include promoting intelligent design" is in any way ambiguous. It is a clear and explicit statement. If the user wishes to argue that the statement is somehow false, and can make the case, I request that they do so.
• The change which the user made followed 1 hour after a change which I introduced to the paragraph. My change was the outcome of a long series of exchanges over several days between several users, including NightSky, Tim Smith, FeloniousMonk and myself. These exchanges were ongoing, extensive, reasoned, and polite. User 151.151.21.99 was asked on a previous occasion not to introduce controversial changes without discussing them on the talk page. It has been pointed out on this page previously that making changes without discussion has proven a disruptive and unproductive form of editing. Furthermore, it is clear that 151.151.21.99 either did not read, or utterly ignored, the ongoing discussions about this paragraph. The change I introduced was extensively explained, referring to the ongoing series of exchanges between myself and other users. If the user read this exchange, they would have seen that I was arguing with all parties for the need to achieve a viable compromise.
• The previous two edits by this user, here and here, both consisted of restoring quotations which it was repeatedly pointed out to the user had been corrupted and thus were no longer accurate quotations. The user ignored this and also ignored all discussion of whether the quote should be restored.
• When this user was previously criticised for failing to adequately justify changes, and for totally ignoring ongoing discussions, his only response was the following comment: "The only souce [sic] of disruption here is the use this [sic] article by Langan's cronies to continue Langan's campaign of spin and self promotion. You're [sic] creation of this section dedicated to a personal attack is evidence of their disruptive nature." The change this user has now introduced is the first we have heard from him or her since this comment was made.
• I politely ask this user, and all users, not to make controversial changes without adequate discussion, given the ongoing difficulty with this entry. I remind all users that WP:BLP requires that biographies of living persons be edited sensitively, avoiding controversy wherever possible.

I believe progress on this entry has been made, not just in terms of the quality of the entry, but in terms of the understanding by all users of the need for discussion and agreement, and of the need to adhere properly to Wikipedia policies. I urge all users to continue this forward progression, and not to permit disruption to inflame a difficult situation. FNMF 02:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive encouragement and participation, FNMF.

The wording in this source is "which promotes intelligent design", and that's what my version says. However, for neutrality and balance, my version also mentions ISCID's stated purpose. Remember that we have ISCID's Managing Director (and cofounder) saying that its focus is to be "a society for the exchange (even cross-fertilization) of ideas on complex systems rather than the biased promotion of an idea." You point out that ISCID has its own article, at which these arguments can take place. But at that article, the arguments which have already taken place have yielded an introduction which says both that the organization promotes ID and that its stated purpose is to investigate complex systems using information- and design-theoretic concepts. I agree with keeping our claims here concise, but if we go beyond

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID).

by adding that the society promotes ID, then I think neutrality demands that we note its stated purpose as well. I don't see it as just "marketing hype": the society's output is not exclusively ID. For example, their journal, which requires that submitted articles be "relevant to the study of complex systems", devoted an entire issue to philosophy of mind. This chat with philosopher David Chalmers is about consciousness, not ID. I don't deny that ID plays a significant role in the society's activities (they hosted a conference on it, after all), but I think neutrality is best served here by acknowledging that they present themselves within a larger context, even if only as a "stated" purpose.

It's also true, as NightSky noticed, that the characterization of Uncommon Dissent's contributors as "intelligent design proponents and ISCID fellows" is unsourced. We have a source that eight of the fifteen are ISCID fellows, but not that all the rest are ID proponents. My version avoids that problem by replacing the description of the contributors with a (brief) description of the book, which I think is more relevant here. Possibly we could omit even that, and just expand the title, making the ID connection explicit 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 04:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you make a good case for each of your points. I don't think the problem lies with your arguments but with what is achievable. As you can see, what I thought was the most neutral paragraph was immediately changed by an anonymous user, and there are now two or three editors (depending on how you count them) who may well be prepared to continue editing the paragraph in a divisive way. Your argument that stating that ISCID promotes ID should be balanced by a statement about its aims seems fair, and you give some good evidence. As I've indicated, I'm prepared to support your position, but the question is whether you can achieve a consensus with it. Perhaps the arguments you make will make it more supportable. The problem is that certain editors refuse to discuss what they are prepared to accept, or do so haphazardly, making it very unpredictable how the editing will unfold. The threat is interminability, an interminable edit war replaying the argument at ISCID. That's the real reason I didn't want to go too far pursuing a turn of phrase that seemed to me likely to encourage further dispute. But as I said, perhaps your arguments will make your version more acceptable to all parties than seemed to me likely. I'm just not prepared to spend too much time arguing this particular point, given that I'm not convinced the distinctions are that crucial, since a reader can just click the ISCID link if they want to. FNMF 05:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Please take care to provide accurate quotes that are not not taken out of context and illustrate the intended points. This is true for all Wikipedia articles. Please discuss controversial edits involving quotes on the talk page first. --NightSky 18:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That would, of course, refer to removing the quotes as well. What precisely is your problem with the quote? I'll await an answer, and if I'm not happy with it, quite frankly, I'm going to restore the quote. I can see no policy that it violates. •Jim62sch• 18:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

placeholder: <ref>From "Cheating the Millennium: The Mounting Explanatory Debts of Scientific Naturalism", Christopher Langan, 2003 (accessed 9 March 2007) :

The concept of teleology remains alive nonetheless, having recently been granted a scientific reprieve in the form of Intelligent Design theory. "ID theory" holds that the complexity of biological systems implies the involvement of empirically detectable intelligent causes in nature. Although the roots of ID theory can be traced back to theological arguments from design, Langan holds that it is explicitly scientific rather than theological in character, and has thus been presented on the same basis as any other scientific hypothesis awaiting scientific confirmation.
Rather than confining itself to theological or teleological causation, Langan's interpretation of ID theory allows for any kind of intelligent designer – a human being, an artificial intelligence, even sentient aliens. This reflects the idea that intelligence is a generic quality which leaves a signature identifiable by techniques already heavily employed in such fields as cryptography, anthropology, forensics and computer science.

</ref> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 18:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

For problems with the quote, see my and FNMF's comments at the bottom of this section. Tim Smith 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

FNMF? Asmodeus in sheep's clothing? No, that argument carries no weight. Also, the editors on this page seem not to put much credence in your views either. I'm restoring the quote. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no shortage of Langan meat puppets at this article. 151.151.21.101 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, the problems with the "quote" are that it (1) does not support the claim for which it is cited, (2) is not needed to support the claim for which it is cited, because that claim is already supported by another citation, and (3) is not even an intact quote, having been corrupted with phrases not present in the original. For details, see the link I posted above. Jim62sch, after first demanding to know NightSky's problem with the "quote" despite the fact that the problems had already been explained on the talk page, has now simply dismissed those problems and reverted, restoring the "quote", corrupt phrases and all. Jim62sch, please act thoughtfully and engage in constructive discussion. Tim Smith 20:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The (corrected) quote supports the claim (not presently made in the article) that CML (falsely) believes ID to be a "scientific theory". That claim should be in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have previously tried to clarify what Langan means in calling ID a scientific theory. Please see the extensive comments I made analysing the quote. I will reprint them here if you prefer. He is not making any claim about ID whatsoever. He is reporting the claim ID makes for itself. This is the whole point of ID theory, to claim (unlike creationism, which sticks to theology) to be able to prove the case for a designer scientifically. Langan is claiming nothing in this quote. Let me explain it this way. Physicist Fred Hoyle argued that the Big Bang Theory was wrong, and instead proposed a Steady State Theory. At the time he had no evidence to prove his theory, but it was still a scientific theory in the sense that he presented it as a theory which needed to be either confirmed or denied by scientific method and investigation. Hoyle's theory was not a scientific theory in the sense editors are using here, because scientific method and investigation failed to confirm any of its details. Langan is making this point about ID, that every single person who has presented an ID theory is claiming that it is scientific in the sense that they are claiming that it is possible to scientifically prove there must be a designer. This is the entire reason that ID is controversial and attacked by scientists. Langan is not saying that the ID is scientifically true. I have explained this multiple times, and it has been supported by several editors, Not one argument has been made against this interpretation. Until any evidence can be presented to think otherwise, this matter should be considered closed. Jim62sch, your refusal to examine or discuss any arguments in relation to this seriously affects your right to make edits. And your repeated claim that I am Asmodeus or Langan is false, as I have already told you. Please stop behaving destructively in relation to this entry, when progress toward a reasonable outcome is presently being made. FNMF 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who seem to have missed it, here again is my analysis of the quotation in question:

• "The concept of teleology remains alive nonetheless, having recently been granted a scientific reprieve in the form of Intelligent Design theory." But this statement seems to be stating only that a concept (teleology) that had gone out of fashion, has now reappeared. He is not, in this quotation at least, claiming that the concept of teleology has therefore been proven scientifically, only that it has been asserted.
• "Although the roots of ID theory can be traced back to theological arguments from design, it is explicitly scientific rather than theological in character, and has thus been presented on the same basis as any other scientific hypothesis awaiting scientific confirmation." This quotation is not stating that ID theory is a scientifically verified theory. What he means is that it is scientific in character, purely in the sense that ID proponents are trying to shift the theological debate to scientific grounds. This is after all why ID is so controversial. This is why he states that it "has thus been presented on the same basis as any other scientific hypothesis." He means: this is how ID proponents present their theory, that is, as scientific. The addition of the corrupt phrase "Langan holds that" before the phrase "it is explicitly scientific" is therefore both misleading and false. It is not that Langan holds that ID is an example of good science or proven science or science at all. Rather, he merely means that, as a theory, ID has been presented by its proponents as scientific, and as subject to scientific verification.
• "Rather than confining itself to theological or teleological causation, ID theory allows for any kind of intelligent designer – a human being, an artificial intelligence, even sentient aliens." This sentence argues that proponents of ID theory do not specifically argue that God is the designer, but try to claim their scientific status by refraining from presuming what kind of intelligence is the designer, simply that there must be an intelligence. The corrupt phrase which has been introduced into this sentence argues that this is merely Langan's dubious interpretation of ID theory. In fact, of course, it is definitional of ID that they shirk the name of God in favour of the name of "intelligent design," the meaning of which is left unspecified. It may well be the case that ID is really just a Trojan horse to reintroduce theological notions into science. Nevertheless, Langan's sentence here (and the following one) are simply describing the specific character of ID theory as opposed to creationism. He is not taking sides on evolution versus design, nor on creationism versus intelligent design. He is simply explaining the facts of the situation. It may be the case that Langan believes in notions of teleology and in notions of non-human intelligence present in the universe, but he does not pursue such arguments in the quotation under discussion. Nor would this make him a proponent of ID, given that the CTMU is explicitly described as not being a scientific theory. It is for reasons such as these that Langan has explicitly stated that the CTMU is not a species of ID theory. FNMF 22:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

ID, as a scientific theory, is not self-consistent. There may be some philosophical or meta-scientific theories in which consistency is unnecessary, but ID doesn't fall into either of those categories. I suppose you could say it's a scientific theory, but there is no possible evidence which fails to falsify it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion about whether ID theory is self-consistent is not relevant to what Langan is saying in the quotation. Again, he is not defending ID theory, nor is he presenting a viewpoint on ID theory. He is commenting about how ID theory is presented by its proponents. Whether you believe all evidence points toward the falsity of the theory does not change that the proponents of the theory are claiming to be presenting a scientific hypothesis. And again, I should make clear, I myself am not in any way a proponent of ID theory. FNMF 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

By way of further clarification, I refer to your first sentence: "ID, as a scientific theory, is not self-consistent." This use of "as," "as a scientific theory," is exactly what Langan means too. When you say "as a scientific theory," obviously you do not mean a scientifically proven theory, you just mean as a theory which is presented as scientific, you believe it is not self-consistent. This is exactly what Langan means when he speaks of ID as a scientific theory, not that it is true (or false), but that ID theory makes the claim that its theories are testable scientifically. You are saying those theories will fail that test. Langan is unconcerned in this quotation with the question of whether these theories fail the test of science, only that they make the claim of science. I hope this clears up the question. FNMF 22:47, 22 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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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 &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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 [4] 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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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.[5] 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: [6][7][8][9][10][11] 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: [12][13][14][15][16][17]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 [18]

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

Guettarda 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

CTMU section (2)

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

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

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

20/20 uses the theory as a framing device:

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

The header of the Popular Science article archived here says:

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

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

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

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

Draft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(outdent) The source (Sager 1999) says:

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

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

Article updated per draft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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