Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive 1

message: I have added dubious proviso links next to the suspect PopSci articles as per this mention of how they might be forgeries.  Byrgenwulf 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Sci 

message: I see Mega Foundation has just been merged here.  There is an article on Langan's other IQ club, Ultranet.  It has even less merit than the Mega Foundation, and seems even more of an advert.  Can it also be merged here?  I would summarily do it myself, but I must confess I don't know how...although it would probably be a good skill to learn. Byrgenwulf 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding point 3, Asmodeus, you are wrong.  See WP:BOLD --KGF0 ( T | C ) 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: I've heard differing accounts of Langans IQ, ranging from a slim 140 to an impressive 195. Which is it? Are we cherry picking the highest number? Jefffire 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditional IQ tests don't go up that high, and those that claim to do so are more dubious and probably measure different things, which is why I'm concerned. Jefffire 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something that's been worrying me.  Something doesn't add up here...the Mega test apparently has a "ceiling" of just less than 5 standard deviations.  A standard deviation with IQ is 15 points, which means that it can only accurately (insofar as it is accurate at all) measure up to 175.  I was shown a newspaper article about a chap who wrote the Mega test and came away with an IQ of 185.  Which means there is something very odd going on about the reporting of scores here; I'm not sure quite what, but the whole thing is very strange. Byrgenwulf 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I said that psychologists have "speculated" 195 is because that IQ would have been extrapolated from a test. However, that does not mean we can disregard the 195 figure. They had made an educated guess, which holds more weight than us just spewing out lower numbers because of our own inadequacies. In the case of the Mega Test, I believe there was some ceiling bumping. CDiPoce 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, what we, as editors, think about the reported scores is completely irrelevant.  WP:NOR.  Report what exists in the secondary sources, which so far as I have been able to find is 195.  If you can find a reliable source that says otherwise, add it, and cite it.  --KGF0 ( T | C ) 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed two links. Note Langan does not control the website that those links lead to. Links are of scans and add color to the article. I also corrected a previous error (wrong link, oops!). DrL 14:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IQ 

message: As Anville noted, the text of the description on errolmorris.com abrubtly changed at about the same time that DrL changed her opinion on the reliability of the source and started insisting that the quote be accurate. This is really suspicious. DrL, did you contact the operators of the website about the text? If so, what did you say? --Philosophus T 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would expect that word may have gotten back to them regarding how their website was being misused. I still think it's a poor source and the entire paragraph should be removed. Please just try to be responsible editors. DrL 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly, it is a strange day when "quoted" translates to "misused".  Anville 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, do not misrepresent old content as being currently displayed at the em.com website. If they removed it, they probably felt it was not accurate. The link to the archive is there so why don't you give it a rest. DrL 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that or they received a legal threat, and decided that the easiest option was just to remove the material. --Philosophus T 17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt that. I think they just realized that material they had placed on the website as "hype" was being used for unintended purposes. A lot of companies do try to be responsible in that way. DrL 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudden changes to errolmorris.com 

message: The whole IQ testing scheme is fraught with difficulty. IQ tests are inadequate. Attempts at "high-end testing have not been successful. For example, there was no restriction on retaking the Mega Test when it first came out so a lot of people took it more than once. After all, there was no time limit and specific feedback was not given with results. It quickly became compromised so probably the only truly accurate results were those early ones. Marilyn's score on the test came after she had been dating Hoeflin! How accurate could that be? DrL 13:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments regarding IQ testing 

message: I hope no one will object to the factual inclusions, minor edits, and mention of the CTMU paper published in 2002. DrL 08:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really - I changed two words, for objectivity's sake, though! Byrgenwulf 08:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor additions 

message: The conversation above has been recreated here to illustrate the involvement of Arthur Rubin in this topic and show his insuitability as an editor of this page. It also speaks to a systematic style of editing that has been involved in the Langan article and led to the deletion of the CTMU article. DrL 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not copy and paste from editors talk pages in such a bad faith and disruptive manner. This is "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" WP:Point, and assuming bad faith. Don't do it. Jefffire 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll recuse myself from taking administrative actions in regard this page (in the future; if I've taken such actions in the past, I apologize).  I will not recuse myself from editing the page.  I don't consider myself biased, but I have no objection to DrL and/or Asmodeus linking to my previous opinions that CTMU is WP:BOLLOCKS.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for officially recusing yourself, Arthur, and also for gratuitously belaboring your unabashedly ill-informed opinion on the CTMU. (By trying to link the CTMU to WP:BOLLOCKS, you evidently mean to insinuate that it "has only the most tenuous connection to reality". Accordingly, I'll once again point out that you are in no position to make such a claim, and furthermore, that you could be effortlessly dismantled were you ever to do so in any sort of meaningful detail. Feel free to stack that neatly, tie it in a ribbon, and take it to the bank. ;) Asmodeus 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, one could argue that philosophy, as a whole, has only the most tenuous connection to reality; so it may be real philosophy, but still WP:BOLLOCKS.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, we see a very great deal of philosophy in Wikipedia, do we not? It would seem to follow that your generally low opinion of it must count for very little indeed, and must be very far removed from WP:POLICY. Asmodeus 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Clarification

message: Mass media is not an acceptable source for Langan's IQ, nor are self published websites. Find a WP:RS for this claim please, rather than repeating information a mass media sources has repeated without proof. Jefffire 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mass media are a perfectly acceptable source for Langan's (or Marilyn vos Savant's, or anybody else's) estimated IQ. Estimated IQ is not "actual measured IQ"; Langan and many others are on record as saying that IQ cannot be reliably measured at this level. In any case, such claims do not pretend to be scientific or mathematical facts, but are merely statements about why the subject is considered notable. That Langan is considered notable for this reason is a well-established fact, and does not require publication of his personal scholastic or medical records. Asmodeus 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:RS, multiple media sources are reliable enough for this "estimate". Based on the McFadden interview alone this is sufficient. 20/20 had Langan tested by a professional neuropsychologist as part of their derivation of this estimate. Although his scores were not released, they were available to 20/20 staff who based their published estimate on this and other information. DrL 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Neutral wording added and source quoted. Hope that's better. DrL 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: I can find no (online) evidence the the film was made or shown at Cannes.  There was an episode of the documentary (TV) series First Person (IMDB entry on series, TV.com entry on episode) which featured Langan.  I believe that section needs to be removed unless sourced.  (The reference is a plausible publisher, but, without a film title, even off-line checking would be impossible.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannes 

message: Thanks for your editing advice. I've made several content edits and many format edits to properly align the references, etc. I hope that you find the article improved and NPOV. Constructive feedback welcomed. --DrL 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks, Arthur 

message: Without mentioning any names, it's been brought to my attention that an active editor on this page has a personal stake in the topic of this article. The edits of this contributor are suspect, and so I'm asking that contributors with personal interests in this topic limit their participation at this article to comments on this talk page and not edit the article per WP:AUTO and WP:COI. FeloniousMonk 17:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter who edits an article as long as the edits reflect a NPOV. While it is frowned upon to edit one's own biography, it is encouraged that the subject correct errors and historical information. Even then it's allowed because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". It's really not up to editors to contend or accuse other editors of having a "personal stake" in one topic or another. The important thing is to strive for a factual, neutral presentation of the material. As long as we don't lose sight of that and have a willingness to work with other editors, then Wikipedia may have a chance of succeeding. --DrL 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no. "It doesn't matter who edits an article as long as the edits reflect a NPOV"  Nice try, but no. •Jim62sch• 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, yes ... it may be time for you to reread the Wikirules. :) --DrL 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, no.  When an obvious crank like Christopher Michael Langan starts editing his own article, well. Hal Fisher 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And both WP:AUTO and WP:COI apply to relatives and family members as well. FeloniousMonk 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personally involved editors and [[WP:AUTO]] & [[WP:COI]] 

message: Removed because it does not include an appropriate citation and is therefore speculative (and arguably in violation of WP:OR). Please don't put it back without an appropriate supporting source. I think it would be great if editors could stick to verifiable facts. I will do my best to do the same! --DrL 14:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-styled expert? 

message: Removed pending verification. The citation used does not support this speculation. Please do not attribute ideas or positions to biography subjects without clear supporting references. To do so is a clear violation of WP:LIVING. --DrL 14:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID Advocate? 

message: Removed "and his views on various topics are not widely accepted within the mainstream scientific community" for several reasons. First, it is too ambiguous. Exactly which of his "views on various topics" are being referred to? Unclear. Second, there is simpy no citation. Without such, it represents new research or an otherwise unpublished synthesis and is therefore in violation of WP:OR. --DrL 14:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views 

message: I've compared the chapter list and the ISCID fellow list and at least three of the authors are not ISCID fellows. Unless this is stated as a conclusion elsewhere, a comment that all individuals contributing to a writing project share a particular viewpoint is little more than speculation and also in violation of WP:OR. Please stay with verifiable facts when entering information into a persons' bio, particularly a living person. --DrL 14:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncommon Dissent 

message: ::Since CTMU is only explained by Langan and not reviewed by any independent publications, it fails WP:OR and WP:RS. Secondary sources are vital for encyclopedia writing in order to satisfy WP:V. This is why there is no CTMU article separate from Langan. --ScienceApologist 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CTMU has been mentioned and/or described by secondary mass media sources, and that (along with its primary publications)suffices to establish that it satisfies RS and NOR. Therefore, this cannot be the actual reason that "there is no CTMU article separate from Langan." You know very well what went down. Asmodeus 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTMU is not explained by the mass media sources. It is only obliquely referenced as one might say, reference a hobby or an interest. That a notable person has a hobby or interest does not make said hobby or interest notable. What went down is that people realized that Langan-original-research-vanity-cruft didn't belong in the encyclopedia anymore than any other vanity cruft one may see deleted on a day-to-day basis. --ScienceApologist 21:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To put it as bluntly as possible, that's false and seemingly mendacious, and you know it. (Note that the basic approach of the CTMU is indeed explained in this article.) Please don't waste my time, and the time of others on this site, with anything but the truth. It's inconsistent with the encyclopedic values of Wikipedia. TIA, Asmodeus 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where CTMU is cited/accepted 

message: ::Did I hear you right? Did you say that the Panda's Thumb, an outrageously prejudiced anti-ID site, "meets the bar for inclusion in the article"? What could you possibly be thinking? For that matter, did you say that "having the potential to develop a unique ID research program" is equivalent to "being ID theory?" Do you think that the two terms "model" and "theory" are equivalent? The mere fact that the CTMU is explicitly labeled a model rather than a theory is enough to show that it purports to occupy a higher level of discourse than ID theory per se, and thus cannot be identical to it. Tell the truth, please - are you really presenting yourself to the Wikipedia community as an expert on ID theory? I don't want to be overly judgmental, but I really think that we need to set the record straight about your qualifications and the weight of your opinions here. Asmodeus 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, you heard me right. Panda's Thumb is an acceptable source for what is said at Panda's Thumb. FeloniousMonk 22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but not for what is said about Christopher Michael Langan in Wikipedia. Panda's Thumb is nothing but a political-purpose Internet bulletin board mainly populated by amateur ID critics with heavy axes to grind. I hate to disappoint you, but that's not the kind of "reputable source" demanded by Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Asmodeus 06:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Panda's Thumb (weblog) is run by scientists, who largely discuss the errors in creation science/ID theory (they're basically the same).  As far as blogs go, it is reliable, nothing gets posted there without review, no comments are deleted for being inconvenient.  Nature rates it as one of the top five science blogs.  Its "political" aim is to expose liars like Bill Dembski and cranks like Chris Langan (and Mrs and cat).  This is a mainstream perspective. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia places mainstream sources above cranky sources. Haldane Fisher 09:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Basically what Haldane said. The usual problems with blogs don't apply to PT. The authors are well-known experts in their fields and material is reviewed before being posted. In any event, this is a bit of a red herring since the other sources given by FM in the section above this one would be enough to establish the ID element anyways. JoshuaZ 15:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pile on, PT is "one of the top 5" according to Science, the authors are noted scientists. Not Your Average Blog, Asmo. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panda's Thumb as a source 

message: Please try to follow chronological order when presenting information in bios. --DrL 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological Order 

message: Is this man really qualified to judge Langan's IQ?  --ScienceApologist 15:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Perhaps we should remove that reference.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to 20/20, Novelly is a board certified neuropsychologist. Expertise in intelligence testing is core to this certification. Board certified neuropsychologists are frequently used as expert witnesses in court and typically present on the validity and reliability of IQ and other cognitive ability tests and test results for particular individuals. --DrL 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intelligence testing is not an integral part of the board certification process for neuropsychology. It is obliquely related but it does not seem to be Novelly's expertise. He specializes in being an expert witness for criminal trials, but is that standard up to Wikipedia WP:RS? --ScienceApologist 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Expertise in intelligence and cognitive ability testing is absolutely central in training. Board certification is a verification that the individual has met these training expectations. In fact, clinical psychologists and neuropsychologists (and Novelly is both) are the main source of expert testimony in the field of intelligence/cognitive ability testing. Social workers are sometimes also used, but they are generally considered less qualified (I suppose they are used because they are less expensive also). There is no higher qualification for expert testimony on intelligence testing than a board certified clinical psychologist or neuropsychologist. Definitely meets WP:RS. --DrL 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a court of law, but I think it is important that we look at whether or not intelligence testing at the high-end is part of Novelly's expertise. After all, most of Novelly's work involves testing for neuropsychological disorders. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would expect that someone like Novelly has lots of experience across the board. He is definitely regarded as an expert in the field and is a reliable source. --DrL 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your expectations here are meaningless. Do you have any evidence that Novelly has lots of experience across the board? --ScienceApologist 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  We'd all expect a chef to create tasty dishes, but we've all had substandard meals.  We'd all expect a doctor to be skilled in medicine, yet we routinely seek second opinions.  Perhaps a reading of Dickens' Great Expectations might be in order. •Jim62sch• 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't matter. Wikipedia merely reports on reliable sources and what they say. 20/20 is considered a reliable media source. The quote is accurate and taken from a transcript of the show. It's beyond the scope of the encyclodedia to investigate sources further than that. --DrL 15:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to be kidding. A news-magazine television show is not a reliable source for who is and isn't qualified to make judgements about a person's intelligence. --ScienceApologist 17:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (ri)Correct.  20/20 merely quoted what was said, it did not go into Novelly's qualifications.  News magazine TV shows frequently have "experts" who declare any variety of things, but the expert's qualifications are only very rarely indicated; rather, the shows use the person's title to imply a level of expertise that may very well not exist.•Jim62sch• 17:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Novelly

message: Is ScienceApologist really qualified to pass substantive judgments on the work of Wikipedia biography subjects like Christopher Michael Langan and smugly pass them off as an "expert opinion"? We don't really know. However, if Wikipedia would like to sponsor a test of this (in my opinion) highly erroneous assumption, here I am. I won't need any help, just ScienceApologist and a computer. Asmodeus 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have my support. Please read WP:POINT. --ScienceApologist 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you? If so, why?  FeloniousMonk 19:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should like to see this "test" explained.  Seems quite the challenge, eh? •Jim62sch• 22:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "challenge" you mean "set-up"... It is interesting that User:Asmodeus thinks so much of himself that he believes he is qualified to test me and offer a neutral adjudication of my "qualifications". I wonder if he is a board-certified neuropsychologist. -- ScienceApologist 13:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, SA, my second sentence was TIC.  Is Asmodeus qualified to test you?  Doubtful.  But, his defender might be.  •Jim62sch• 15:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ScienceApologist's Qualifications

message: This whole Christopher Langdon wiki-saga is truly amazing - there seems to be very little merit in having any article at all conerning this person or the organistations associated with him.  The whole thing should be deleted and the wikipedia kept out of such spurious debates.  If wikipedia hosts this material, then every crank in the world will put their own articles in and then wikipedia will become a joke.  
Langdon should endow a new project - wikicrank - and then he can put as much material on as he likes!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazed (talk • contribs) 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazing Tripe

message: The above does not violate "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[2]"  It is an opinion, not the addition of controversial material.  And, as Arthur noted, calling someone a crank is not actionable, although it might be in bad taste.
In all honesty, Langan probably only barely passes the smell-test for meriting an article.  He is really not all that notable.  Hell I have more Google hits than Langan and I too am an autodidact, but that doesn't mean I rate an article (in fact, I definitely don't). •Jim62sch• 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of above