Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tim_Smith#Continuing_POV_promotion, so I suggest you reconsider your pushing of such biased content here. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New version 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it looks fine to me.  "Doing research" in no way implies any great knowledge of a subject. •Jim62sch• 20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence issues - "versed" 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't see the value of the percentile being part of the article. •Jim62sch• 01:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved my response to a more appropriate section. I sure hope you don't mind, Jim :) --Otheus 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IQ Percentile/Rarity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  MF v. MS section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments on the editing of this entry 

message: 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)
thread_title: Further comments on the editing of this entry

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Should we amend the policy? •Jim62sch• 16:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I would like to request a more thorough explanation regarding this application of WP:NOR in a WP:BLP context. I think I understand what Jimbo means, but this seems far to important to leave to conjecture. And perhaps there are aspects to the situation of which only Jimbo may be aware? AvB ÷ talk 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOR - removing original research, do not re-insert unless you have a source other than original research 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposal

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

text: Only the references that quote Langan may remain, not any to articles about Langan or assert that Langan published.  I think that still eliminates the one in the lead.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I can go along with that. So we are agreed that we can revert the deletions, then delete that first reference to the CTMU Q&A thing? FNMF 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I am going to go ahead and make those changes now. I hope all editors are clear that in doing so, I am following the declared wishes of Mr Rubin, when he wrote (just above) that "Only the references that quote Langan may remain, not any to articles about Langan or assert that Langan published.  I think that still eliminates the one in the lead." I will therefore undo the reversion, then delete the first reference, as per my understanding. Note that the deletion I am reverting was first placed by Mr Rubin, and hence my "reversion" of this deletion is in fact in conformity with his own present views. I am glad that a formerly acrimonious dispute can hopefully come to this civil conclusion, and I thank Mr Rubin for helping to make this possible. I am hopeful that this will be the end of acrimony in relation to this entry. FNMF 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of 3RR (for which you have a pass from Jimbo, as your removals of the lawsuit section have his stamp of approval), I can't stop you, but I suggest that the megafoundation links be removed from the references to articles about Langan, as well.  (The statement "The CTMU says..." also needs to be changed per my most recent edit, as we don't have any WP:RS as to what it does say.)  But I otherwise concur that megafoundation.com may be used to source Langan's quotes.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another solution might be to use the links at Langan's CTMU site: http://www.ctmu.org/Q&A/Archive.html#CTMU, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/Esquire1.jpg, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/TheSmartGuy.pdf, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/MrUniverse/MUTitle.jpg, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/BBC.html, http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/CTM.htm If you think that's acceptable (although I'm not sure what is wrong with the current links), I can try to change them, though an editor with more experience in referencing might do a better job! --NightSky 15:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have now completed the process of re-inserting the links to the articles mentioned in the article. As we all know, these are just links to articles which do exist in the outside world and are legitimate sources, so I hope everybody can agree that this is acceptable. I have left out the CTMU Q&A reference as per Mr Rubin's preference. I hope editors can agree that with these re-insertions no attempt is being made to promote the ideas of Mr Langan, but simply to provide links to the sources of information about Mr Langan and his ideas. The links are not academic sources, and are not there to try to prove Mr Langan's ideas are correct; just to provide attribution for the information contained in the article. Thanks again to Mr Rubin for helping to lessen the acrimony in this dispute, and, as mentioned, I continue to hope this will be the end of this episode. FNMF 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or one could just delete the article -- Langan really isn't notable. •Jim62sch• 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an appearance in Esquire as "the world's smartest man" makes him notable. His iconoclastic status as genius/bouncer was interesting enough to the media to result in several stories and interviews. Even if he was only notable for a few years around 2000, this makes him notable. --Otheus 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Jimbo, would it be correct to say that, when we have information from a primary source but lack a secondary source, we have no way to gauge the importance of the information? I think you're saying that if information needs to be weighed before inclusion in the encyclopedia, but we have no secondary sources to guide our assessment, we cannot publish. If we do, it is original research, not to the degree that it is untrue, but to the degree that we do not know how (un)important it is. Am I understanding this correctly? AvB ÷ talk 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: 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)
thread_title: Relevant policy

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE AND THIS DISCUSSION PAGE