Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive 3

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: 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)
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: 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)
replies: 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)

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)
replies: text:  There's a response from Jimbo to a similar question on the e-mail list (see archives or post). AvB ÷ talk 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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: I am critical of the wording and skeptical of the claim that he scored a 1600. These scores are private, and the only proof could come from Langon himself. Also, the SAT article notes (but uncited) that in some years, it was impossible to get a 1600. Langdon Langan would have taken it around 1973?  The citation comes from the reporter's voiceover from the 20/20 special. The reporter provides no evidence. Does this meet the WP:ATT  guidelines? --Otheus 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does what meet ATT?  The SAT score, if not documented, has to go. •Jim62sch• 12:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 20/20 article is narrated by a reporter who claims that Langan scored the 1600. 20/20 is a secondary source used throughout wikipedia. My question is: Is there anyway someone could independently verify this score? If not, then is this statement attributable, even though it is cited by a secondary source? --Otheus 15:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Did he state it unequivocally, or did he say "it is reported"?  There's no way to verify, I'm assuming Langan made the claim. •Jim62sch• 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect SAT score 

message: For those contributors here who insist on implying that International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID) is engaged in activities other than furthering intelligent design arguments by insisting on the phrase " a professional society whose activities include promoting intelligent design" over simply "a professional society promoting intelligent design" I have a question and a challenge for you: 1) Do you have a non-partisan secondary source that says ISCID does things other than engage in activities that promote ID? 2) Name one activity they do (no need for a source) that does not further ID. Insisting on implying that they are through the use of ambiguous phrasing is likely to be seen as not neutral since ID proponents have a well established practice of dissembling on what exactly it is they are promoting. Relying on an organization's own partisan rhetoric for a simple description of that organization simply will not pass NPOV muster.  FeloniousMonk 04:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, the head of ISCID has characterised it as an ID society.  Of course, it probably also serves coffee and cookies at seminars... Guettarda 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is a link to Langan's chat at ISCID. Maybe we should include it in the article? It seems to give a good idea of where Langan's focus and interests lie. Here's another example of an open discussion that could not be characterized as "promoting intelligent design". There are others as well. There is an active discussion board at ISCID with a wide range of topics. Characterizing ISCID as a group solely dedicated to "promoting" intelligent design does not seem to be supported. In any event, the purpose of ISCID needs not to be debated, or even declared, in this bio. The reader can visit Wikipedia's article on ISCID or the ISCID site if they want to learn more about ISCID. --Honorable citizen 11:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a compromise, and in the interest of consistency, I brought the intro to this section in line with the article on ISCID. The citations and presentation should not go beyond what is presented in the ISCID article. In fact, I don't think discussion of the nature of ISCID should be contained in this bio, but in the spirit of compromise, I have made this edit. --Honorable citizen 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ISCID

message: Since I asked about posting the draft almost a week ago, FNMF has recommended doing so, and I've tried to address Arthur Rubin's objection about the first sentence.  I'll therefore go ahead and post what we have.  Suggestions for further improvement remain welcome. Tim Smith 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a break from fighting other wikibattles. I looked at Tim's edit and deemed it needing some tuning. If the CTMU is to stay, it should be a very concise summary. I removed several parts that seem to distract from the main idea, that only introducing buzzwords, or that didn't make sense to someone who took a rudimentary college-level course in philosophy (I took two). However, I fear I may have over-rephrased, resulting in an inaccurate version of the CTMU. Comments welcome. --Otheus 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Otheus, Tim has worked patiently on this section for two weeks. I think you should be careful when introducing changes to ensure they are in fact improvements. For instance, in the version of the first sentence you composed, the repetition of the word "developed" was poor writing. Also, the claim that Langan was "following the track of modernist philosophy" seems like original research to me. I am also not convinced it makes the section easier to understand. Just because something seems to be written in easier language does not mean it is clearer: what exactly does the statement about modern philosophy mean? I think you should propose changes here rather than simply editing them into the text, given the history of the entry, and to ensure they are well-composed. FNMF 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  From my talk page [Otheus...] I am disappointed that Tim Smith has left his draft up for discussion and improvement for two weeks, and within minutes of him posting it, you have seriously reduced the quality of the section. I urge you to rethink your actions about this controversial entry. FNMF 22:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about that. I saw that he changed the article without recently updating the talk page, so I assumed his was hastily done. I saw some problems with it and hacked it. After, of course, I saw the talk page comments. On the talk page you mentioned problems with OR, and well, I really did blow the second paragraph. So I restored my edits to the first and third paragraphs. If you think my recent edits are still ill-advised, I'll self-revert. --Otheus 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Otheus, thanks for re-considering your course of action. I have left almost all your changes in, which mostly are good (others can discuss). But I did change the first sentence of the section back to a slightly altered form of Tim's, for two reasons: I thought his was better expressed; and it was the outcome of above discussion and therefore care should be taken with it. FNMF 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good. Now waiting for the fudge to hit the fan. --Otheus 23:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Minor changes: I dropped in with some changes to CTMU paragraph 3. I am confident they are consistent with both a good faith review of this discussion and the need to keep content accessible to a general audience. Also fixed was a broken cross-ref relying on commented-out material. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor, but well-done. Definitely improved readability. I'm still concerned about the phrase 'logic's "absolute truth"'. Is that in reference to "analytical truth", ie, certainty built via (for example) by propositional logic? --Otheus 13:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a good point here, that could use some clarification as well. If I have time I will take a shot at an appropriate re-draft to address this. dr.ef.tymac 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: No offense, but the Life section reads somewhat more like People magazine than an encyclopedia - would anyone object to my eliminating some of the Langan quotes and more subjective statements? Hal peridol 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of editors actively editing this bio. Most of the editors are collaborating to some degree. The best approach would probably be to propose your specific changes here on the talk page. --Honorable citizen 18:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got that right. There's been a lot pro-Langan promotion going on at this article for some time now, with those opposing being piled on to some degree. 151.151.73.167 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't confuse good-faith collaboration with "pro-Langan piling on". That's an offensive and uncivil remark to be making toward the community on this page. Oh, and please get an account. --Otheus 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid the anon seems correct.  Perhaps the section should be gutted and restarted as if this were an encyclopedia.  (And the polite term is hagiography, rather than "pro-Langan piling on".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps a better phrase would have been "piling on the anti-Langaners" or something. Are you feeling "piled on"? --Otheus 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, yes.  There's a lot there that wouldn't be there if we were properly insisting on sources, and there's a lot there which isn't notable.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uncivil comment by 151.151.73.169 on 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a major problem with the section. Perhaps the word "flurry" could be replaced with "degree" to characterise the extent of media interest? Mostly it seems neutral and factual. I agree with Honorable citizen that specific changes should be proposed on the talk page, and consensus sought, before changing the entry itself. This will lessen the chances of unhelpful conflict. FNMF 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It reads like a MegaFoundation press release, please. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I agree, it needs fixing. Please feel free, we could use new contributors here. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've eliminated a fair bit of material - most seemed unencyclopedic. The information about Langan's mother is uncited - I was unable to find that information. Hal peridol 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! I hope that will satisfy the other critics. --Otheus 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone is now quite good.  Others will have to check whether the cited information really exists, other than in Langan's mind.  (As noted above, the Mega Foundation site is Langan's, so it falls under "self-published", even when it archives articles in reliable sources.  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hal, I appreciate your effort to make the section more encyclopedic.  I do think some relevant material was removed, so I'll rework its presentation.  I'll also cite the statement about Langan's mother.  Let me know what you think. Tim Smith 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting FM, it still reads like a MegaFoundation press release. Some editing of the more obvious puffery will have to be done to fix that. 151.151.73.167 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life section