Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters.See talk page guidelines.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
No and no. For reasons detailed above, the smattering of new sources accumulated since the previous consensus was established do not amount to a case for notability. Moreover, the new version of the article violated WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV and would be a poor starting point even if notability were agreed upon. XOR'easter (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment I put a lot of work in to giving the material WP:DUE weight, and I don't see any violations of WP:FRINGE or WP:NPOV but am of course open to re-writing or rewording anything I may have missed. - Scarpy (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the portion of WP:FRINGE that this violates is "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." You may find my essay at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Guy Macon. I'm more well-acquainted with WP:FRINGE now than I was when I was researching the article and understand these criticisms. This was the first time it was relevant to anything I've written from scratch before.
You may not have intended here, to my ears (eyes?) the tone and content here wasn't as helpful as the suggestions from but XOR'easter and PaoleoNeonate. They had similar concerns but took the time to point out specific wording in the article that they took issue with.
WP:1AM is a helpful essay. What I find more illuminating is Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:1AM. I often see pattern in the pages where it's linked that a similar cast of characters are involved for a similar class of issues on Wikipedia in a way that follows a routine. When things become routine, they become depersonalized. While your essay is somewhat a counter-balance to this, it's also a bit of a symptom of depersonalization in the sense that it's part of a stock/boilerplate/routine response. I think of essays like WP:DTTR and WP:DTA in the sense that they both advocate for a more personalized approach to help create a more congenial environment. I get that many admins (and probably others) believe that the founding values of Wikipedia have compromised its success and may take harder line, especially on WP:FRINGE issues. My constructive criticism is that the hard line approach should be less of a default and to take things on more of a case by case basis. There's a point of diminishing returns when the 'M' becomes so many more times larger than the '1' that it seems to be less about the goals of creating encyclopedic content and more about schadenfreude. - Scarpy (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, no. Three of those are blogs (two of which are by the same person and thus constitute one source for notability), and then there are a few paragraphs in two books. Just create a section of his page specifically for CTMU and redirect this page to that. --tronvillain (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
And I didn't even notice "Fusco": a thesis submitted for a doctorate in theology, in which nothing even vaguely resembling extensive coverage of CTMU exists. No. --tronvillain (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
No. It's a one-man theory with no credible evidenbce of wider acceptance. The sources remain terrible. Self-published exposition by Langan, and larglely self-published critique. There is no "there" there. Guy (help!) 08:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
No. Judging from the last incarnation of the article, this is just a description of what space the theory occupies (a sort of meta view of the topic), and the cited sources that I looked at largely talk (with a degree of dubiousness) about whether aspects of the "theory" can make any sense and whether it is even a theory, and put a lot of focus on Christopher Langan. In all, this is really about Christopher Langan's expression of something quirky, not about the topic described by the title. A better title for the real topic here would have been "Christopher Langan's CTMU" or similar. The topic itself (the content of the theory) is less notable than the existence of the theory (people discussing whether it has any merit). All this makes me think that this belongs in a section of Christopher Langan, and no way should be an article in its own right. —Quondum 11:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
No - Looking through the references on that recreated article, it doesn't even come close to achieving notability for a fringe theory. As far as I could tell, the only ones explicitly about the theory (rather than offhand mentions) were three blogs, two of which were about how it was nonsense (from the same person). Now, you can achieve notability based on criticism, but that's not in any sense sufficient coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
No. It has the expected depth and quality of sourcing for a fringe theory, which is to say: not enough for a standalone article. We should maintain the redirect to Christopher Langan. GorillaWarfare(talk) 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
No - I read the proposed version and looked at its sources. It's still suboptimal and lacks deserved criticism (if reliable secondary sources don't abound for that, it's an indication of lack of notability). The current version also uncritically asserts as facts claims like "As the CTMU indicates, creation occurs through a self-replicating feature of the universe"... Then it falls in apologetics like yes it's religious, but not necessarily the god you know... And uncritically goes on with the role of language as proposed (as opposed to concepts of the mind to apply to reality assessment, reality must somehow be derived from it, rather than our conception of it). The sources are generally suboptimal (and I have the impression that the linked Nils Melzer would be another person)? —PaleoNeonate – 16:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
No - One man = one pet theory = one Wikipedia article. GPinkerton (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes to the notability of the CTMU and a new version of the article. The theory has appeared in peer-reviewed journals (e.g.  and has received coverage in the mainstream media (e.g. ). This does not mean it is accepted by most experts, but per WP:FRINGE, Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines. These guidelines require the topic to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since this is true of the CTMU (see above), it is notable. The new draft by Scarpy could serve as a starting point for further development. Tim Smith (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
We don't actually know anything about the peer-review standards of Cosmos and History (which have been disputed); an inquiry at WP:RSN might be the right venue to sort that out. But that source is WP:PRIMARY anyway. Ideas don't become notable just by being published, no matter what journal publishes them; they have to be noticed, and a blurb in a pop-science magazine (scarcely a full story) is thin grounds for saying that people have paid serious attention. The Popular Science blurb could be added to Christopher Langan#Ideas and beliefs. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The blurb in Popular Science is effectively a sidebar to an article about the author, so that article is not about CTMU. Nor does the sidebar talk about the content of CTMU but rather only of the author's approach to it (making it an extension of the interview), a second point against this being about CTMU. So it is a stretch to claim that CTMU itself is covered by Popular Science, irrespective of its (lack of) credibility as a mainstream publication. There is just no way that this can be regarded as "significant coverage in reliable sources" or even contributory coverage of CTMU. —Quondum 18:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Cosmos and History, it is included in Scopus  (thereby meeting WP:JOURNALCRIT), and also in ESCI , which Clarivate (publisher of Journal Citation Reports) characterizes as "a trusted set of journals" which "contains quality publications, selected by our expert in-house editors for editorial rigor and best practice at a journal level" . Furthermore, per WP:PRIMARY, Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. In this case, the journal is indeed independent of the CTMU. Thus, it is a reliable, independent source for the theory's notability.
Regarding Popular Science, the CTMU is referenced repeatedly throughout the article, not just in a sidebar. Indeed, the article begins:
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.
Regardless, per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Additionally, per WP:FRINGE, Reliable sources on Wikipedia may include [...] magazines [...] published by respected publishing houses. Popular Science was published by Time Inc. and has won multiple awards, including the American Society of Magazine Editors award for General Excellence. Thus, it too is a reliable, independent source for the theory's notability. Tim Smith (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, primary does not mean non-independent (WP:IS). The Cosmos and History paper is a primary source about the CTMU, but an independent source for its notability, because the journal is independent of the theory and its author. Tim Smith (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Tim, I have carefully re-read the Popular Science article, trying to find what you might construe as a "more than a trivial mention". Every mention is just that: a mention. The main article (which is just an interview) talks around it without even mentioning what theory they are referring to; one has to infer that. The side-panel mentions the CTMU, but only gives a very general idea that it is supposedly a "theory of everything", which I'm sure you'll concede is misleading, since you have already conceded that the theory it is in the realm of philosophy, and I would say that a theory of everything would by definition have greater predictive power and be more a more complete than the Standard Model. Misnomer aside, Popular Science seems to have as a significant objective finding new and unfamiliar topics for their immediate interest value, and I would say that it is a safe bet that more than 80% of what it has covered has faded into obscurity and never achieved notability. If you have failed to find any other mainstream coverage in the 19 years since the article appeared, I think we have pretty much found the textbook case of a non-notable topic. —Quondum 12:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding "more than a trivial mention", the article contains not just a mention, but an entire section about the theory, titled "Science Works in Mysterious Ways: Christopher Langan's theory grapples with some of the murkiest questions about our universe."
Regarding "faded into obscurity", there is mainstream coverage of the CTMU from both before and after the Popular Science article. But in any case, per WP:NTEMP, Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
Regarding "theory of everything", I do not concede that it is misleading to apply it to a philosophical theory like the CTMU. Here is what Popular Science says:
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.
In fact, our own article says that the use of the term in physics "gives a very misleading impression", pointing out that physical theories "generally do not account for the apparent phenomena of consciousness or free will, which are instead often the subject of philosophy and religion." Tim Smith (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The "entire section" is impressive in its superficiality, quoting only one person for commentary, who admits that he has nothing to say. If any scientific project of mine received such a superficial write-up, I would think that I did not motivate them to care. I might even be a little hurt. XOR'easter (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The Popular Science sidebar is about the CTMU (well, Langan and the CTMU), but if it constitutes significant coverage, it does so barely. You'd want a very large pile of coverage at that level to show notability. --tronvillain (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. There's a lot of interest in the CTMU and people would like to understand it better. I’d like to give just one example, that of Quora, which surely is noticeable enough (with its active Wikipedia article) and can be used as a source of information. If I am right, in 2016 Mr. Langan set up an account on Quora in response to many questions appearing there about his work. During his two years there he answered approx. 250 questions, generated 1.2 milion content views and had 1,657 followers. I was one of them and found many of Mr. Langan's answers very interesting and original, for example this one:
Since 2018, questions about the CTMU haven't stopped flowing in; the last question was asked on 13th June 2020. People want to know more about it and Mr. Langan himself; there IS popular demand. If I may present some interesting numbers to support this claim. Upon checking the following Topics on Quora and all questions asked in relation to them, the following results present themselves:
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU): 905 questions;
Chris Langan: 807 questions; there is an overlap with the CTMU category but it's not an absolute one, so we can definitely add a few questions to those 905… .
Please compare the above with the relatively low interest in the below related Quora Topics which are, nevertheless, present on Wikipedia.
I haven't mentioned this topic accidentally. It's important to recognize that Mr. Langan is the originator of the term “self-simulation” in the reality-theoretic context, and has always followed this path by positing that the Universe is monic (dual-aspect monism) and exhausting logical consequences of this fact.
Interviews with Mr. Langan are also popular (from YouTube):
Mr. Langan has published various articles (including the ones in the peer-reviewed C&H with many noticeable scholars in its Editorial Team) and answered hundreds of questions about his theory on numerous websites. His position has been consistent over the years and the answers I have seen are very satisfying. He is a logician, metaphysician (in a precisely-defined sense), philosopher, and thinker whose contributions deserve to be recognized.
If there is an article on Wikipedia about Simulation Hypothesis (276) there definitely should be a separate article about the CTMU (905) on Wikipedia.
People want to know more about the CTMU and I believe Wikipedia should support this wish in order to be consistent with what it is presenting itself to be.
The simulation hypothesis is far from a single person's ideas and even has importance in culture, it's difficult to compare with CTMU in relation to notability. —PaleoNeonate – 23:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Langan publishing articles, answering questions on websites, and being interviewed in various self-published sources and on Coast to Coast AM (the home of fringe topics) is not an argument for the CTMU having it's own page—Langan already has his own page. And numbers on Quora carry essentially zero weight on Wikipedia. --tronvillain (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The CTMU has gained steady popularity including coverage on mainstream media and podcasts as stated above. A moderate number of works of Langan were also published on a peer-reviewed journalCosmos and History, whose editorial board consists of notable academics including a Nobel Prize winner. The CTMU was also cited on Klee Irwin's Self-Simulation hypothesis, I think that's enough back-up for the notability of the CTMU and definitely qualifies a re-creation of the article on Wikipedia. --Johnnyyiu (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Johnnyyiu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Those sources have already been discussed and do not add up to a case for notability. Langan himself can "publish" however much he feels like; what matters is demonstrable influence, of which there is not enough. XOR'easter (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. My argument is the following notable material into which the CTMU found its way. The quotation marks for the verb "publish" in the above comment are not justified at all if you don't mind me saying so:
b) Quote: >>I include three papers – one each by Leanne Whitney, Jack duVall and Chris Langan – from our “21st century sacred” session on Oct 5 2017 in honour of the Benedicitine monk Sean O Duinn, who passed away on Oct 9 2017 at 83, and we were grateful to have the privilege of honouring him."What have we found out in our 4 years and 150+ papers from over 100 authors? It is worth pointing out that some of our authors do not have Ph.D’s; in fact, Chris Langan, perhaps the most downloaded, does not have a degree. However, Chris has one of the highest IQ’s ever recorded and incredible discipline as he alternates farmwork in Wyoming with research. What was more important for us was to get a range of viewpoints on critical issues of life and mind that conventional academia is not addressing.<< (https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/677/1149)
a) and b) are not primary sources, but secondary sources. They were written about the author of the CTMU by someone else (an academic who publishes, does research etc.) in a reliable source (Cosmos and History journal, more specifically in the proceedings of an academic group known as “Foundations of Mind”). The quotes come from Seán Ó Nualláin who’s mentioned, e.g., here: https://www.interaliamag.org/author/seanonuallain/. It is noteworthy for the CTMU theory because the FOM group contains notable academics. Cosmos and History is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal of natural and social philosophy and this is the editorial team: https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/about/editorialTeam
“The "Foundations of Mind" series (O Nualláin 2014a, 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018) which began in 2014 is now the most downloaded series of conferences proceedings in the history of modern science of mind and possibly alt science in general. Perhaps not coincidentally, it is also the most various and here we review it. (...) The Metaformal System: Completing the Theory of Language Christopher Langan…” https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-vii
“Our new proceedings volume featuring Chris Langan (whose interview with Spike Jonze can be seen here), Paul Werbos (who invented deep learning), and many others, is also included in the Premium package. These are peer-reviewed papers not available elsewhere.” https://www.bionoetics.org/
There is this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jonathan_Mize2 “I am currently working in advancing the novel and currently neglected metaphysical framework of Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). More specifically, I am interested in advancing CTMU-informed methods of social and normative analysis.”
Notability isn't inherited: establishing Christopher Langan as notable does not establish the CTMU as sufficiently notable to merit a standalone article. But let's see... a)not extensive coverage of CTMU (it doesn't even mention it by name) b)not extensive coverage of CTMU (again, it doesn't even mention it by name). Those are no help to resurrecting this page, and the "further evidence" is similarly unhelpful. So, we're left with the "furthermore" section: a ResearchGate profile is nothing, a self-published piece on Medium is nothing, and while the Menzler mention is something, it's already been discussed above. So... no. --tronvillain (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Through all this, I am struck by the absence of a source for any real content that such an article would need. What we have are several sources talking about Langan and mentioning that he originated CTMU, and giving general opinions about the latter in some instances (mainly from Langan himself). However, we would be hard-pressed to come up with any assessment about what the CTMU actually says (this is what we need proper secondary sources for). As it was before becoming a redirect, it was like a big hole in the middle of a description of the metaphysical context it presumably fits into. Aside from the non-notability discussion, I see this as a severe obstacle to the creation of an article. There seems to be an argument "this has some popularity, so it deserves a page", but what purpose would such a page even serve in the encyclopaedic sense? None that I can see, until we can find a secondary source with real content on what the CTMU is really. —Quondum 13:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Quondum, I've noticed that too (along with the arrival of accounts that don't seem to have edited much else, which makes me suspect canvassing — maybe this got mentioned on a CTMU Facebook fan group, or something). XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Yup, the thought had occurred to me that there might be the perception that weight of numbers might swing the issue. I have no idea why they should be so intent on a separate article on this; it has the feel of trying to create a sense of credibility, which is not what WP is for. Not that it is important. I have also wondered at the amount of time established editors are bothering to devote to this. —Quondum 16:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Wikipedia maintains a lower notability requirement for new articles than the above opponents here seem to realize. So one shouldn't get too caught up in the fact that the CTMU "isn't as important as Langan claims", or "is just a bunch of nonsense", when all we need to know is that (a) the CTMU has been around for decades, with hundreds of thousands of words written about it (b) has received attention from academia and the press and (c) compares favorably in depth and notoriety to similar theories which already do have articles (e.g., William James Sidis' The Animate and the Inanimate).
The self-appointed gatekeepers of Wikipedia who insist on keeping it free of "crackpot theories" should stop allowing their personal issues with Langan and his theory to detract from Wikipedia's mission, which has always been far broader than that of any other website. Wikipedia hosts many utterly obscure articles on topics which very few are even aware, and thus an article covering one of the very few "theories of everything", authored by someone widely reported as having the world's highest IQ, clearly qualifies.
No, Wikipedia maintains exactly the notability requirement for new articles that we are trying to uphold here. Frankly, The Animate and the Inanimate looks like it should be deleted, too; or at least redirected to William James Sidis, because there appears to be basically nothing to say about it, beyond a line or two that could easily fit into the latter article. So, in fact, the situation is exactly analogous to the one here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you realize how easy it would be for me to provide links to dozens (and if I had the time, thousands) of other weird, obscure Wikipedia articles proving that its notability requirement is, in fact, quite low? It's certainly not so high that a theory of the universe addressing every major question in philosophy doesn't make the cut. The only reason you think so is because you really, really don't like the CTMU, and think it's a waste of time. Well, there's a lot here on Wikipedia that I regard as a "waste of time" which I'm not tempted to remove. Let people read about the things they want to. There is a huge population of people who would love to learn about the CTMU, as you can probably tell from the overflow of support it's receiving. Siagos (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
By all means, nominate those articles for deletion or redirect, but they are not an argument for reducing notability requirements (especially not for a fringe topic). And no, it's not that I "really, really don't like the CTMU, and think it's a waste of time." Fringe topics have a place on Wikipedia... if they have sufficient notability—I've looked at deletion discussions for pages that are obvious nonsense and voted "Keep" because I've been able to find extensive coverage in reliable independent sources, but that's not the case here. --tronvillain (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
... allowing their personal issues with Langan ... I think none of us non-single-purpose-account editors know the man. You may also want to discuss content rather then editors (and read WP:PA). As for notability and fringe, they're Wikipedia policies, not the personal concepts of some editors. —PaleoNeonate – 20:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique bent on minimizing the reality of the situation by redirecting to a defamatory section of Langan's bio. Let's open this up to have a real discussion and wait for some less involved admins and editors to weigh in. TIA DrL (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)— DrL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.