Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive 2

New version
Hello, everyone. I recently introduced a new version of this article which:


 * Adds details of Langan's life, covering where he was born, his father and mother, his history of poverty and abuse, his educational history, his "double-life strategy", and the Mega Foundation.


 * Adds a section on the CTMU. The CTMU, which has received coverage in Popular Science, The Times, Esquire, Newsday, on 20/20, and elsewhere, is a major part of Langan's notability, and needs inclusion here: not, of course, to be asserted as truth, but to be described, factually and neutrally.


 * Expands the intelligent design section, overviewing what the CTMU says about ID, summarizing Langan's Uncommon Dissent chapter, clarifying his views on evolution, and quoting his stance on religion.


 * Reworks the Mega Society and Goddard material for factuality and neutrality. As Asmodeus said, the current presentation is filled with inaccuracies, claiming, for example, that Langan left the Mega Society in 1997 (he was still a member in 2001), that the 2002 suit was filed against Langan and his wife (it was filed only against Langan), that the Langans renamed "their organization" the Mega Foundation after the 2004 decision (the Mega Foundation had existed since 1999), and more.  The presentation is also non-neutral, relaying the Complainant's contention from the Forum decision but not the Respondent's, and omitting to mention that the Complainant was found not to be entitled to three of the five domain names that it sought.

I tried to present the material accurately and neutrally, with frequent qualifiers (e.g. "According to Langan", "claims Langan") and footnoted citations. The new version is much more informative than the old, and I'll be glad to address any claims in need of citation or qualification. I hope we can work together to incorporate this material into the article. Tim Smith 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your "new version" was highly biased and continues a troubling pattern you've established of treating the project as a vehicle for promoting Langan's views. This is presently being discussed at your ongoing user conduct RFC, Requests_for_comment/Tim_Smith, so I suggest you reconsider your pushing of such biased content here. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NPOV, Langan's work should not be asserted as being the truth, but neutrally presented. That's what I've tried to do, taking care to use frequent qualifiers (e.g. "According to Langan", "claims Langan") and footnoted citations.  As I said, I'll be glad to look at any claims in need of citation or qualification, and would welcome constructive feedback.  The new version adds much sourced, relevant information (not just about Langan's work, but about his life), so again, I hope we can work together to incorporate it. Tim Smith 08:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The previous version implies that Langan started out calling his group Mega Society-East, but in fact he initially called it the Mega Society and declared it to be the official Mega Society. I added a link substantiating that. His argument for doing so was that the Mega Society had been abandoned and so he was stepping in to resurrect a defunct organization. I added a link to that argument he made. I removed the extraneous bit about a dispute between Langan's wife Gina and a contributor to their disputed "Noesis" journal. The charge raised by that author claims that Gina changed his article without his permission, making it attribute his thesis to Langan. While it appears that the article was in fact changed (see reference 2 in the original version and then in the altered version) and that LoSasso admitted making the change, importing disputes related to a family member of a subject seems, to be fair to the subject, rather unwarranted. CaveBat 02:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

First sentence issues - "versed"
I don't like the first sentence here. There are no independent, reliable sources that support Langan being "versed in mathematics, physics, cosmology and the cognitive sciences." In fact, even the ISCID source that is given only asserts that "Without benefit of formal higher education, he has engaged for over two decades in research on mathematics, physics, cosmology and the cognitive sciences"—very different from being knowledgeable in the subjects. I'm going to change this to "doing research in", since from a strictly definitional standpoint this is correct, but I'm not happy about the connotations involved. Does anyone have a better idea of something which would be closer to NPOV from a connotation standpoint while having sources to support it? --Philosophus T 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it looks fine to me. "Doing research" in no way implies any great knowledge of a subject.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  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, 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 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.  &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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". cf:.
 * 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"&mdash;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&mdash;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.)
 * &mdash; 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&mdash;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)

Request for Relief
I have received the following complaint Fred Bauder 13:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Fred. As you may or may not have noticed, Wikipedia administrator FeloniousMonk has now carried out his threat to insert into the article Christopher Michael Langan certain defamatory falsehoods provided by certain self-identified involved parties. As you'll recall, I apprised you of this threat long ago - see the article's talk page - and requested that the article be locked (for reasons not yet clear to me, you declined to do so). Unsurprisingly, almost every sentence of the section "Mega Society Lawsuit" contains at least one false and/or defamatory allegation.

Rather than going through the falsehoods one by one, I'll simply point out that (1) this entire insertion is highly inaccurate on numerous counts, thus violating WP:V; (2) the sources are mainly self-published by non-notable involved parties and therefore not reliable, thus violating WP:RS (the "decision" and "judgment" are relevant to none of Langan's works, beliefs, major activities, affiliations, or accomplishments, but only to three URL's legitimately owned and employed by a nonprofit Foundation which receives only a passing mention in the body of the article, and which bears no substantive resemblance to the group allegedly "owned" by the litigants); and (3) the insertion is biographically irrelevant, openly defamatory (even containing what appears to be a libelous charge of plagiarism despite the absence of that term from the personal self-published web page being passed off as its source), and thoroughly violates WP:BLP, a very important policy here at Wikipedia which helps keep it on the right side of the ethical fence. Obviously, this situation is something that no conscientious, well-meaning Wikipedia arbitrator or administrator, hopefully including you, would allow.

Obviously, the misinformation in question needs to be removed. Since, in your capacity as a member of the ArbCom, you inexplicably tied the hands of the only two people with the will and the knowledge to insure the article's accuracy, the responsibility to protect this article from administrative miscreants would seem to fall to you and your fellow ArbCom members. In other words, the article should be reverted to an acceptable form and locked against the vandals and wayward administrators who have periodically attacked it over the last six and a half months. (Of course, if you would prefer to reverse your restrictions on DrL and me so that we can set things right ourselves - after all, I edited the article only two or three times in very benign and innocuous ways over the course of many months, and DrL's edits were a model of accuracy, neutrality, and reliable sourcing - then that would be acceptable to us as well, barring further abuses of administrative authority tending to neutralize corrections and further corrupt the article. This would offer the further ethical advantage of tending to mitigate any damage that might occur to our reputations and nonprofit endeavors from future defamatory attacks of the kind to which we have been recurrently subjected here.)

Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter. Asmodeus 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (copied from my talk page Fred Bauder 13:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Does he have any valid complaints? Fred Bauder 13:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about this issue to comment on that. However, if as this person says there are `only two people with the will and the knowledge to insure the article's accuracy', then does Wikipedia need an article about this guy?  Since the personal testimony of two people cannot be considered a reliable source, nor verifiable, and probably not even neutral, if they are the only ones who know about these things.  Should this article not just be removed?  Rosenkreuz 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The only person who is making that claim is Asmodeus who is Langan and the second person he is referring to is his wife. The claim does not need to be taken seriously. JoshuaZ 17:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That both are banned from editing this article per an RFAR ruling seems relevant to note here. FeloniousMonk 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he's now trying to make the claim at Fred's talk page that since the Superior Court of California ruling against him was a default judgement, in other words - he didn't appear to defend himself and so lost, that it and the National Arbitration Forum decision are flawed sources. Incredible. FeloniousMonk 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He makes a good point, a default judgement, by definition, is ex parte, that is only the evidence of one side is considered. A sharp contrast to a peer reviewed source. However, one must look at the point being demonstrated, that they went to court and there was an injunction entered against use of the name. It ought not be used to try to show that they did not have a right (before the injunction) to use the name. Fred Bauder 02:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He would make a good point if the article actually tried to show that they did not have a right before the injuction to use the name. The article merely states (correctly) that the injuction ruled they had to cease using the name and that the opposing party disputed their right to use the name. Looks pretty much verifiable, neutral, and reliable to me. --ScienceApologist 02:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Fred. The article has never said they never had that right, only the plaintiff's allegation and that they were enjoinded from using it moving forward. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I wrote the content I suppose I should respond here. No, he doesn't have a valid complaint. The sources relied upon, the decision of the National Arbitration Forum on claim number FA0312000215404 and the ruling of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego on case number GIC 787630, are accurate. The National Arbitration Forum decision is linked from the National Arbitration Forum's own site, and the ruling of the Superior Court of California is easily verified, as you know. And neither source supports his contention; but they do indeed support the article's content. Reading the two rulings, the two Langans come off as shameless self-promoters not above spinning facts to suit their causes, something that aligns well with our experience here. Of course they're going to want any mention of adverse rulings removed; but the rulings are notable and properly sourced per our policies and necessary for a complete article on the subject. Whether Lagan is notable enough for an article at Wikipedia is another matter, as is whether it's worth the hassle, which speaks to the matter of self promotion again. FeloniousMonk 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The only valid complaint he has is that Fred didn't lock the article and Langan doesn't know why. Elsewise, everything is appropriately sourced and meets WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
 * BTW, Rosenkreuz has a point. Langan is essentially a nobody, and whether he deserves an article (one that he hoped to turn into a self-aggrandizing publicity page) is highly debatable.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He does meet WP:BIO. Apparently, a lot of magazines and newspapers find him notable. Not entirely sure why, but that's not our concern as much. JoshuaZ 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and he was on Walker, Texas Ranger once too. FeloniousMonk 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for removal of false and defamatory material
For the last seven months, DrL and I have watched this originally accurate and well-sourced article periodically degenerate to character assassination. Two of its current sections are false or misleading, and one of those sections ("Mega Society Lawsuit") is blatantly defamatory of the subject, his wife, and the nonprofit foundation on whose board they serve. According to the powers-that-be here at Wikipedia, all that one needs to do in order to protect oneself from defamation is register one's objections on the talk page of one's biography and explain why corrections are necessary (in this case, that was done a long time ago). Once this has been done, so the theory goes, the abundant "good faith" of Wikipedia's editors, and the integrity of its administrators, will take over and save the day. (Actually, since the inclusion of this material in the biography of a living subject violates every applicable Wikipedia policy, it should have been removed immediately "in good faith" without placing any burden at all on the libel victims. But since it has been jealously protected by the Wikipedia administrator who inserted it, and since this administrator has in turn been empowered and his activities tacitly sanctioned by higher levels of the Wikipedia bureaucracy, it has already survived and done its damage for an unacceptable length of time.) Therefore, just to ensure that no stone is left unturned in our good-faith efforts to obtain relief, here is the actual chain of events that has been maliciously misrepresented in the article.

Christopher Michael Langan was at one time a member of a super high-IQ society called the "Titan Society". After several name changes, the people now claiming to be the "owners" of that group (who had formerly claimed that it was democratic, and that they alone possessed a democratic mandate to run it) suddenly claimed to have "merged" it, admittedly without the permission of the majority of the members of either group, with a prior and arguably defunct high IQ society, the Mega Society. (Later, they would claim that this maneuver entitled them to own the name and "trademark" of the prior group under common law in the State of California. However, this claim is almost certainly invalid. A group cannot be founded twice, and an allegedly democratic group which is merged with a prior group without the permission of their respective members is not the same as the group with which it is purportedly merged, particularly when the groups began with different members and different qualification standards.) The Titan Society's hardcopy newsletter, ultimately dubbed "Noesis", was published at different times by different members of the group, including Mr. Langan.

Ultimately, owing to the profitable but unlicensed testing activities of its founder and one of his associates, the group's qualification procedures came under fire from the Medical Board of California and the analogous medical authority in New York, specifically regarding the illegal practice of psychology (i.e., psychological testing without a license). Immediately prior to the official MBC warning, one of those who now claim to be the group's "owners" had been producing the monthly newsletter; after the warning was issued, he and his associates inexplicably fell incommunicado and failed to produce the newsletter for seven consecutive months. Mr. Langan (as a past editor), recognizing that the group needed to do something other than merely play dead, revived the newsletter, explicitly advocating compliance with the law as outlined in the MBC warning. Outraged, the former publisher suddenly and unexpectedly resurrected his own version of the journal and advocated defiance of the warning despite the fact that he and his associates were residents of California, claiming that only they represented "the real Mega Society" and printing negative remarks about Mr. Langan. When Mr. Langan pointed out that the former publisher and his associates had no right to force other members of the group to share complicity in violations of California law and the laws of other states with similar licensing requirements (including New York, where Mr. Langan himself resided at that time), they summarily demanded that he stop publishing his alternative edition of the newsletter, asserting that only they were entitled to to publish a newsletter in the society's name. That is, they demanded exclusive control of the only means of communication among the group's members (whose contact information they claimed to possess, but kept secret from other members).

Unintimidated, Mr. Langan responded by continuing to publish an alternative edition of the newsletter, which he qualified as representing only the "East Coast Faction" of the group, for the explicit purpose of protecting the society as a whole from any criminal liability for acts which might be committed by the group's self-styled proprietors in defiance of the MBC warning (i.e., by the California litigants, to whom Mr. Langan referred as the "West Coast Faction"). These self-styled "owners" of the "Mega Society" then began threatening Mr. Langan with legal action, ultimately prompting him to turn his back on them in disgust. Meanwhile, Mr. Langan and several others, including the future Mrs. Langan (Dr. Langan), had founded a completely separate organization, the Mega Foundation, whose nonprofit corporate structure, composition, and charitable purposes - as clearly stated in its Articles of Incorporation, which are dated considerably in advance of the California litigation and its ensuing judgment - in no way resemble those of the "Mega Society", an elite "social club" designed to provide its founder, an amateur psychometrician, with test subjects for his high-ceiling intelligence tests. For a time, the Mega Foundation ran a charitable project in which they hosted websites for the benefit of the members of various high IQ clubs that wished to participate, acquiring appropriate domain names for that purpose (not just for the "Mega Society", but for several distinct super-high IQ societies). However, this only further enraged the "owners" of the "Mega Society", who responded by scheming to make a litigious grab for the "megasociety" domain names, in which they had never shown the slightest interest prior to their good-faith acquisition by Dr. Langan. The false allegations contained in the ex parte San Diego judgment were concocted for that purpose, and for the additional purpose of vengefully seizing (i.e., "reverse-hijacking") the Mega Foundation's domain names as well. Although ICANN later improperly recognized the litigants' claim on the "megasociety.***" domain names based on the San Diego judgment, it rejected all of their other claims. Meanwhile, in a completely unrelated matter, the Langans printed an essay voluntarily submitted to Mr. Langan's alternative law-and-order edition of the "Mega Society" newsletter by one Ian Goddard, an amateur Internet conspiracy theorist (and nonmember of the "Mega Society"). Some time afterward, Goddard suddenly appeared on an independent Internet bulletin board, and after seeming to innocently involve himself in the ongoing discussion, burst out with the claim that Mr. Langan had failed to give him credit for a concept that Langan had long ago introduced as an original component of his CTMU theory, "syndiffeonesis". The Langans publicly but gently corrected Goddard, reminding him that Mr. Langan had invented the term and the underlying concept, and explained why Goddard's vague and inconsequential "holistic identity" notion, which he introduced circa 1997 and claims to have gotten from some part of Asian philosophy, is not strictly identical to "syndiffeonesis". But Goddard merely became more adamant, persisting in his spurious accusations. Finally, Dr. Langan posted for general examination a 1992 paper by Mr. Langan in which the term and concept "syndiffeonesis" were used and clearly defined on a level far more advanced than the concept described and named by Goddard, in principle laying the matter to rest.

Unfortunately, Goddard nevertheless persisted in his accusations. Therefore, as a warning to those who might be taken in by Goddard's injurious allegations, Dr. Langan went back to Goddard's paper and inserted a footnote consistent with the evidence earlier presented, essentially observing that if Goddard's "holistic identity" were really synonymous with "syndiffeonesis" as Goddard claimed, then since Mr. Langan had invented "syndiffeonesis" long before Goddard came up with "holistic identity", Mr. Langan would also own credit for "holistic identity". In other words, Dr. Langan merely drew a valid conclusion from Goddard's own claim in conjunction with known facts, and then published it on a cautionary basis in what seemed the most appropriate place. After some unknown period of time, Goddard then created a personal, self-published, utterly uncorroborated web page complaining about Dr. Langan's cautionary footnote, repeating his original claim, rejecting the Langans' proof that his claim is invalid, and asserting that the Langans had taken the "holistic identity" concept from his paper and applied it to "syndiffeonesis", thus transmuting "syndiffeonesis" into an entirely new concept for which Goddard himself owns the credit. (Anyone familiar with Mr. Langan's work would know immediately that this accusation is absurd. Goddard's explanation for why he continues to make his claim despite the graphic evidence brought to bear against it is easily recognized as nonsense by any reasonably intelligent person who bothers to look closely at the two concepts.)

At some point, Goddard succeeded in aligning himself with the self-styled "owners" - or as he has sycophantically called them, the "true leaders" - of the "Mega Society". As described above on this talk page, some of these people and/or their associates then fed some or all of their combined false and defamatory claims to certain WP administrators, who promptly announced their intention to insert them into the CML biography in contempt of crucial Wikipedia policies designed to protect the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia and the feelings and reputations of its biography subjects. Mr. Langan registered his objections to these threats and drew the attention of the ArbCom to them, requesting protection for the article. This request was acknowledged but then ignored. A month or so later, Wikipedia administrator and resident Intelligent Design critic FeloniousMonk, backed up by other members and sympathizers of "WikiProject ID" and evidently determined to root out and publish as much derogatory material on the Langans as he could for his own malicious purposes, then carried out this threat, inserting various unfounded and defamatory allegations into the article while citing and linking to several self-published and/or ex parte sources allegedly supporting them. Pointing out that the allegations are false and defamatory and the referenced sources unsound, and that their inclusion in the article violates every applicable WP policy, Mr. Langan requested that they be removed. However, in clear violation of all of those policies, they were not removed as requested. In fact, FeloniousMonk - the WP administrator who maliciously inserted these allegations and references into the article - has speciously cited WP policy as a justification for leaving them, thus implicitly asserting that his actions fall under the control of Wikipedia's "encyclopedic" policies rather than his own expressive freedom as an ISP user. (I've ignored the most recent omissions and additions to the article, since they preserve false, defamatory, and biographically irrelevant allegations and sources which should also have been removed.)

The correct version of events has now been clearly presented. However, some editors may still linger under certain dangerous misapprehensions about the nature of defamation and the responsibilities of this site and its users. Accordingly, I provide the following information not as part of any legal threat or intimidating exercise in "wikilawyering" (complaints about which would seem to have been rendered pointless and hypocritical by the legalistic nature of the defamation), but merely to help Wikipedia users behave responsibly and make their own informed editorial decisions with respect to this article and others like it.

The first thing to understand as a Wikipedia editor is that if you defame some person and/or organization or place them in a bad light, and you are duly informed you that what you've said or written about them is false and defamatory (whether or not somebody else said it first, and you are merely "quoting your source"), then you are obliged to retract it. If, on the other hand, you instead insist that it is "accurate" and "neutral" and therefore decline to retract it, and your victims call you on it under the law, then the burden of proof regarding its veracity is all yours. That is, if and when you are called into court on account of it, you will need to prove that what you've said or written, including any part of it originating with or imparted to you by other sources, is true. (Note that an ordinary Wikipedia editor is not an ISP, and his/her sources are not the "users" of his/her "Internet services"; thus, although the sources cited by an editor may be liable for speaking or publishing the defamation, so is the editor for actively scavenging and repeating it.) On the other hand, if you cannot prove that your allegations are true, then depending on a reasonable evaluation of your intent and the negative impact of the material on your victim(s), you may be judged guilty of defamation, in which event the court will impose on you a burdensome but appropriate penalty. (In the course of this process, the court will demand that your real name and/or IP address and any other available contact information be provided, if necessary by Wikipedia itself, and Wikipedia will have no choice but to hand you over in order to protect itself.)

Secondly, some Wikipedia editors and administrators may be under the mistaken impression that despite the existence of enforceable antidefamation laws, they can write whatever they please, true or false, benign or malicious, and remain safely under the protective umbrella of Wikipedia, whose highest authorities are reputed to believe that it bears absolutely no responsibility or liability for "objectionable" information provided by its users and/or administrators. This belief appears to stem from a highly questionable legal opinion to the effect that under the Good Samaritan clause of Section 203 of the Communications Decency Act, Wikipedia enjoys complete immunity from prosecution for defamation published under its auspices. But despite such opinions, it is very important for Wikipedia and all of its editors to understand that none of this is necessarily true. In particular, users/editors who produce or relay defamatory misinformation are liable for doing so regardless of whether Wikipedia itself is immune; indeed, Wikipedia would need to explicitly divorce itself from such a user as a condition of its own immunity, thereby hanging that user out to dry (although perhaps not as easily as expected, particularly if the offending user also happens to be a Wikipedia administrator). Moreover, there exist strong legal arguments to the effect that Wikipedia is not immune under the provisions of Section 203, particularly under certain aggravating circumstances that happen to be present in this case.

I have previously observed that it is extremely unwise for individual editors, and for Wikipedia as a whole, to insert themselves into the middle of potentially ongoing legal disputes, particularly by taking the side of the litigious aggressors who originally provided the defamatory misinformation recently shamefully contaminating the CML biography. Obviously, this is not a legitimate function of any "encyclopedia" purporting to operate in good faith as a tax-exempt public service, or of individuals claiming to act in furtherance of its encyclopedic purposes, or in conformance with or administrative enforcement of its explicitly encyclopedic policies. Accordingly, I urge that the entire "Mega Society lawsuit" section of this biography be removed immediately and permanently, as it should in fact have been removed upon its first appearance.

I sincerely hope that these comments and corrections prove helpful in that regard, and thank you all for your attention. Asmodeus 16:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's especially funny that the Mega Society was categorically deemed "non-notable" by the Wikipedia admins. How is it the case then, that an entire sub-section of Langan's article is based on such "vanity" (once again, using Wikipedian terminology)?  I am unaware of the nuances of the legal suit, but by virtue of the Mega Society’s lack of notability, this section should be duly removed.


 * It also violates the single rationale for which justifies the Langan entry: the rarity of his intelligence. This article should contain passing remarks on the CTMU, his feats and different anecdotes relating to his stratospheric abilities. The trivial lawsuit has no bearing on any such matters. Furthermore, it does not indicate anything about Langan's character. As it stands, we have a fragmented event, which is void of any context. CDiPoce 19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "facts" which Asmodeus claims as contradicting the claims of the lawsuit, are, in fact, contradicted by the judge's decision in that lawsuit. Perhaps the article should be deleted, after all, as the facts listed and sourced in the article are claimed to be defamatory, and the non-defamatory "facts" are not sourced.  It should not be editing to remove facts agreed to in the lawsuit.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Attention, please. You, Arthur Rubin, are a Wikipedia administrator (sysop). It is therefore very important that you not make a mockery of your responsibilities by trying to confuse Wikipedia editors, including yourself, about the important distinction between actual verifiable "facts", and ex parte "agreements" between the plaintiffs in a lawsuit and the single judge who heard their one-sided case. Even when an ex parte judgment is enforceable (as it sometimes is, at least in the short run), it does virtually nothing to substantiate the claims of the litigants. Only all of the available evidence can do that, and in a case like this one, the words "ex parte" clearly imply that not all of the evidence was presented.


 * Mere common sense should be enough to tell you that when a legal dispute arises, and only one side shows its evidence and pleads its case, the probability that its claims are all factual, and that a fair and neutral decision will be rendered, is considerably under 50%. It doesn't take a genius to understand why: the litigants are powerfully motivated to omit or downplay any evidence that might weaken or destroy their case. In fact, if they expected their claims to be unopposed (e.g., due to improper service of the defendants), they might even have lied to the court. That's why an ex parte judgment is virtually worthless for the purpose of verifying or proving the factuality of its related allegations, and thus for defending against an associated charge of defamation. It is also why the judgment in question is not a neutral or reliable source by Wikipedia standards.


 * Since this has now been repeatedly explained to you, you have no excuse to further disrupt, or encourage the further disruption, of this article. Please also bear in mind that you have no excuse for presenting the ex parte judgment in question, or any subsequent decision based on it, as a legitimate source for the verification of claims made by the litigants. (Incidentally, contrary to your absurd claim that the original nondefamatory version of this article - some of which remains in the first section of the current article - was "unsourced", it was in fact one of the best-sourced articles of its kind on this site. You should know that, because your own complaints helped make it that way. Granted, you are on record as disputing the validity of one or more of its sources, but you have not discredited a single one of them (nor will you succeed in so doing). Furthermore, as someone whose own Wikipedia biography seems to be a gratuitous exercise in personal horn-tooting, and who is on record as |wishfully comparing his own IQ to that of Marilyn vos Savant, you have no rightful business complaining about Mr. Langan's biography, or for that matter anyone else's.) Asmodeus 17:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you haven't lost your spunk (or your zeal for a hagiography). 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs).


 * As usual, you (Asmodeus) are absolutely wrong. The context of the legal dispute as written was verified by court documents, while your "truth" is not verified by those documents, and it appears inconsistent with them.  (And, as I've pointed out, I've only edited my article to include my birth year, with all other comentary on the talk page.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here?
The "Mega Society lawsuit" section is inconsistent with known facts about the Mega Foundation. Worse, it's completely derogatory and totally slanted toward one side of the dispute, that is, totally non-neutral. The comments of Asmodeus above - I guess he must be Langan, since he's obviously an insider and has been banned from editing the article - explain why the sources used for that section are unreliable, and also how it fails to line up with the facts and the chronology. So what it looks like is, the people behind the lawsuit filed it behind Langan's back and then lied to the judge (either that, or feloniousmonk etc. simply inserted their own negative claims and then deceptively cited the litigation as a "source" even though it doesn't support them). I looked for legitimate news coverage of this lawsuit; there isn't any, probably because it and the people who filed it were considered insignificant and its claims were seen as unverifiable. So given that it was completely non-newsworthy and probably fraudulent to boot, what the hell is it doing in an encyclopedia article, taking up a big percentage of the print space? No matter how you slice it, this section is non-neutral and largely counterfactual, and needs to go.

I invite your comments. If I don't hear any that make sense (in something other than a personal animosity sort of way), I'll do my duty and get rid of this crap. Sheerfirepower 16:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The content is completely consistent with the sources provided per Verifiability, and those sources meet the bar established at Reliable sources. Describing all relevant issues on a topic, such as the Mega Society lawsuits, not only falls within the bounds of our core policy governing content, Neutral point of view, but is required by it for an accurate and complete article. So, simply deleting it and acting as if it never happened is simply never going to fly. FeloniousMonk 17:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you're not just reporting that there was a lawsuit. That could be done in one neutrally worded sentence, and it could be reasonably argued that not even that would be appropriate. Instead, you're trying to work specific claims in that lawsuit into an encyclopedia article which purports to contain only facts, even after being told that the claims are false, and even after I and others, apparently including the subject of the biography, have pointed out that they're inconsistent with known facts about the Mega Foundation (it was founded in 1999, not by the "renaming" of some high IQ club in alleged competition with some other high IQ club after this bogus judgment was issued). That claim alone has "slime" written all over it. You've even gone out of your way to work the phrase "bad faith" into the article...man, if there was ever a way to damage a nonprofit charitable foundation, that's got to be it! It looks 100% intentional on your part. So who do you think you're kidding? As I say, either explain why this crap belongs in the article, or take it the hell out. What "won't fly" is trying to maintain that it is consistent with policy...after looking at some of the main policies here, I can already see several that it violates...verifiability, neutrality, no original research, and the need for extra care and sensitivity in the bios of living subjects. What it looks like is, a handful of the subject's enemies have decided to use wikipedia as a weapon against him and his charitable endeavors. Asmodeus up there sounds like he might be getting ready to sue your asses off. If I were you, I'd ask myself whether any court would be stupid enough to believe that you people are just trying to write a fair and accurate encyclopedia article. Why don't you be smart about this, and just reduce your section to a single sentence reporting the existence of the lawsuit without transmitting its damaging claims and inflating it to nearly 50% of the article? (If you don't, then I'll probably just remove the whole freaking mess as promised.) Sheerfirepower 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, that's called wikilawyering, and it didn't get Asmodeus and DrL too far. Reading your words above, you're choosing a method that likely will not end well for you. For starters, legal threats, implied or overt, violate policy, WP:NLT, and when repeated usually end in the one making the threats losing their editing privleges. Removing neutral, properly-sourced content also violates policy. Repeatedly doing it often results in the guilty party usually ending up in dispute resolution. You can ask Asmodeus about that one. Removing content more than 3 times in one day violates WP:3RR, and usually results in the one doing it temporarily losing their editing privileges. Lastly, Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist says "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." The method for moving forward you insist on above is exactly the same editing pattern as Asmodeus and DrL combined, so by following it you run the risk of being considered acting on their behalf and suffering the same ban from this article. I suggest rethinking your method here if your goal is to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia and not to just bowdlerize the Langan article. If your goal is the latter, then by all means please carry, and the community can be done with the unpleasantness business sooner rather than later. FeloniousMonk 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold on a second. Are you claiming that in some bizarre amateur-hour parody of a kangaroo court, wikipedia has decreed that anyone saying anything that might be considered favorable to the subject of this biography, or even correcting false statements in it, can simply be warned and then banned at your discretion? I hate to indulge in "wikilawyering", whatever that strange little piece of insider jargon is supposed to mean, but wouldn't that be just an attempt on the part of wikipedia and its administrators to issue themselves a libel license stapled to a get-out-of-jail-free card? Doesn't that kind of self-serving, heavy-handed grease job make it altogether too obvious what's happening here? It's obviously not right, and that almost certainly means that it's not legal either. As I look around the internet, I get the impression that a lot of people are asking the same question these days: is it really very bright of jimbo and his sysop wiki-army to be barging and bumbling into all these gray areas of jurisprudence and trying to replace real-world laws and ethics with their own fashionably emergent "wiki-laws" and "wiki-ethics", all sharply slanted to the advantage of a "wikielite" with a penchant for defamation? History offers many lessons about that sort of bureaucratic arrogance - push too hard against the status quo, and the public will eventually get fed up and feed wikipedia face-first to the garbage disposal of really bad ideas. I mean, it seems clear that you can only take this brave-new-world, follow-the-Internet-guru manure so far without inciting a killer backlash. Anyway, is that what you really mean to say? Is that really the situation here...that anyone correcting falsehoods in the article or removing badly sourced, unbiographical trash is "acting on behalf of" the subjects and liable to peremptory restriction? Because that very much seems to be what you're saying. Sheerfirepower 17:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Mega Society lawsuit" section is inconsistent with known facts about the Mega Foundation - feel free to supply these "known facts", so that we can incorporated them into the article. Guettarda 19:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Does Sheerfirepower remind you of anyone? FeloniousMonk 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this "I guess he must be Langan, since he's obviously an insider and has been banned from editing the article" certainly cracked me up. Reminds me of The Fugs' "It Crawled into My Hand, Honest".
 * BTW, Sheerbullshit, feel free to wedge this threat "(If you don't, then I'll probably just remove the whole freaking mess as promised.)". &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Sheerbullshit", &#0149;Jim 60 douche&#0149; ? Please mind your civility. Sheerfirepower 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you are simply too clever for me. ROFL. Might want to work on your pronunciation, though: touché would be closer.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

MF v. MS section
There were a lot of mistakes in this section so I pared it down to what could be verified by reliable sources. The Mega Foundation apparently predates the legal dispute by a number of years so posting that this was created as an afterthought/response to the litigation is incorrect. I removed unreliable source Kevin Langdon, who is well-known in the high IQ world as being rather a nut who is obsessed with Langan and generally viewed as an unreliable source in that community. The ICANN issue was not filed against Langan, so probably shouldn't appear in his bio. The domains in question seemed to belong to his wife or girlfriend, not Langan himself. This mention is probably about as far as Wikipedia should go into this topic without more objective sourcing, IMO. DennB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.73.177.254 (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
 * The version you wrote directly contradicts the sources that were there before, and really requires discussion here first. The largest difference is that your version claims that Langan started the Mega Foundation and some other group named the Mega Society sued him over this, whereas the sources seem to support that Langan was running or at least presenting himself as running the Society. In addition, the detail of the domains belonging to Dr. G. Langan (C. Langan's wife) rather than C. Langan does not put them outside of the purview of this article. –Philosophus T 06:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Read like another attempt to whitewash the article to me as well, and clearly misrepresented the information present in the sources provided. To the aggressive new editors here, please be aware that this article falls within a recent arbitration committee ruling that reads: "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist I suggest a less aggressive and more constructive approach to editing in order to avoid being viewed as acting on the behalf of the Langans and thus sharing their ban from this article. FeloniousMonk 06:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not acting on behalf of anybody. I am following the instructions on the top of this page: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." I think the editing here has been irresponsible. Denn
 * Please note any other user with a similar editing pattern - which would apply regardless of any connection you may or may not have with the Langans. You have now been warned and provided with a link to the case, cease your disruptive whitewashing unless you wish to be categorized with the Langans and share in their ban. KillerChihuahua?!? 08:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cease, what? Correcting errors in Wikipedia articles in a neutral manner? This is not the only bio article that I've noticed being "blackwashed" on wikipedia over the years. It seems to be getting worse instead of better. You people really need to get your acts together. Denn

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)

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? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  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. 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 &divide; talk  19:23, 20 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 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.  &mdash; 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.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  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.  &mdash; 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.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  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)

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)

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 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. &mdash; 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)

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 &divide; talk  19:04, 22 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:
 * 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.)
 * 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.
 * We cannot easily confirm or deny that CTMU may have been refocused to support ID.
 * 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.
 * 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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)

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)

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:
 * 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.)
 * 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.
 * We cannot easily confirm or deny that CTMU may have been refocused to support ID.
 * 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.
 * 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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:
 * 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)
 * 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:




 * 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:




 * --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:




 * 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.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * placeholder: —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;Jim 62 sch&#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.  &mdash; 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.  &mdash; 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)