Talk:Christopher Langan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Christopher Michael Langan)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Dubious IQ Claims[edit]

The references on this site for his IQ being so high are not authoritative as best I can see. Every link I have been able to follow goes to a transcript of him being interviewed and making that claim; none of them offer more support for his IQ being so astronomically high beyond his own claim. This should be marked as such.

Yeah. I agree. Jcvamp (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

I suggest this article be deleted. I can find nothing about this person that is notable. BEST case scenario he did really well on SAT. He has published no books, has no patents, no degrees (simply claims he was smarter than his professors). He has published three articles that have extremely few citations. This man has done nothing notable other than brag about himself. If we are going to put everyone who brags about themselves on Wikipedia, you will need a LOT more servers. How is this person notable? Is being a blowhard now notable??

I second that. I mean, who is this person? If you took a poll, say a Gallup poll, what percentage of people would see him as notable? It's obviously written by him and I can't see anything noteworthy in terms of professional life (say as an academic) or in medicine (cure for cancer?), business (is he Bill Gates?), industry (does he run a Fortune 500 company?), politics (is he in the Senate?), diplomacy (does he represent a country at the UN?), the media (is he a newspaper magnate?), philanthropy (how many millions has he given to noble causes?), humanitarianism (is he Bob Geldof?), the military (did he lead any famous campaigns?) or any other sphere of life. What about the IQ test itself - has it been properly verified, done several times so that the statistical spread could be seen and done with the many different IQ tests? Not very scientific; the world’s tallest man would be measured several times and on different days. You might as well have a Wikipedia page for the teenage with the most spots or one who can squeeze the contents the furthest. How about a whole page about the person with the most flatulence? How about one for the neighbour's cat?
Quite apart from the invective, the notability of a person is determined not by what we think of the individual but rather by what third-party reliable sources say about them. This is explained more in depth by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Langan is notable because others have noticed him and profiled him, sometimes at length. This does not mean we need to uncritically accept everything that is said about the person, but that's the rationale. If you don't like those standards, you can try to change them at that level. jps (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, both WP:GNG and WP:BIO make it clear that coverage from reliable sources create a "presumption" of notability but not a guarantee. "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." [1] and "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not." [2] Simply being profiled is not sufficient. Manybytes (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────You are free to start a new AfD if you think you have a case. jps (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

In Popular Culture link[edit]

Roy Batty link no longer resolves to a valid address. SquashEngineer (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)