Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive 5) (bot |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk page header|archive_age=3|archive_units=months|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
==Article title== |
|||
{{Calm}} |
|||
{{not a forum}} |
|||
{{Old AfD multi|date=24 June 2007 |result= '''Keep''' |page= Christopher Michael Langan }} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|blp=yes|listas=Langan, Christoper Michael|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|needs-photo=}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ps}} |
|||
{{connected contributor|User1=Christopher Langan|U1-EH=no|U1-declared=yes|User2=DrL|U2-EH=yes|U2-declared=yes|U2-otherlinks=[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=942450579 declared here]|User3=Dylancatlow1|U3-EH=yes|U3-declared=yes|U3-otherlinks=[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dylancatlow1&diff=prev&oldid=1220573372 declared here]}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive index |
|||
|mask=Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive <#> |
|||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|||
|indexhere=yes}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 400K |
|||
|counter = 5 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(365d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Christopher Langan/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2022 == |
|||
Should this article be at [[Christopher Michael Langan]]? That's the name on his ''PCID'' and ''Uncommon Dissent'' papers, and on his e-book ''The Art of Knowing''. Media usage varies from "Christopher Michael Langan" to "Christopher Langan" to "Chris Langan", but the first is how he signs his essays. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 20:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
{{Edit semi-protected|Christopher Langan|answered=yes}} |
|||
:No one's disagreeing, so I've moved the article to [[Christopher Michael Langan]], leaving [[Christopher Langan]] as a redirect. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Change "Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is an American horse rancher and autodidact who has been reported to score very highly on IQ tests.[1] .[3][4][5][6]" to "Christopher Michael Langan is the author of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, horse rancher, and autodidact who has been reported to score very highly on IQ tests." [[User:Tgoloboy|Tgoloboy]] ([[User talk:Tgoloboy|talk]]) 12:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== DOB and/or YOB == |
|||
What are the BLP-good sources for these? Afaict, neither are in Gladwell's book. This [https://books.google.se/books?id=InPSBQAAQBAJ&pg=PR19&dq=%22Christopher+Langan%22+1952&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwsbah_9f7AhUiSPEDHZrnD9UQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=%22Christopher%20Langan%22%201952&f=false] says c.1952. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
And, while we're at it, something BLP-good that clearly states he is married to [[Gina Lynne LoSasso]]. I didn't find anything. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I would like to see references for these assertions, moreover what is the relevance of these to this already dubious topic. I removed the "pseudoscience" and "crank" - why did you remove these I thought they helped put everything into context - links from the "See Also" section as they provided no relevant information and amounted to mere name-calling. I added "metaphysics" as that is the discipline to which Langan has said that his theory belongs. It appears to me that the "pseudoscience" and "crank" labels are due more to Langan's politically unwise linking of the explicitly evolutionary CTMU with Intelligent Design (and thus in mainstream opinion, Creationism) than to the merits of the main line of argument of the CTMU. |
|||
That said, some of the characterizations of Langan's CTMU in this article seem to be more hopeful assertions than demonstrated facts. This article's characterization of the CTMU as mathematical is only partially borne out by Langan's published writings. The mathematics in the CTMU is only occasionally symbolic, rather it is generally presented in verbal form. Also, the applicability of the CTMU to any specific area of natural science has not been demonstrated or refuted, so far as I have seen. [[User:Enon|Enon]] 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Re: a recent counter-revision == |
|||
@[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] Yesterday, you undid a recent revision of mine that I think we should talk about. |
|||
:The reason that I added the "Pseudoscience" and "crank" links is precisely because Langan's ideas are not science, and yet are passed off as such (if one reads the entries for these terms one will see why they fit): while his ideas have certainly not been demonstrated, they are actually fairly easily refuted by anyone with an understanding of what he is on about; the problem is that simply we don't bother, because we have more important work to do than write papers ripping apart pseudoscientific theories. While Langan may claim that his ideas are "metaphysical", they do not conform to the generally accepted norms and standards of [[rigour]] for academic [[metaphysics]] either, belonging more properly to the sort of "metaphysics" one might pick up in the [[esoteric]] section of a bookshop. |
|||
:Perhaps "[[crank]]" is a little over the top, but I really feel that a link should be provided to [[pseudoscience]], perhaps with a proviso included somewhere about how this is how some critics construe his work? If the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to educate, then surely one must allow the reader the opportunity to evaluate the merits of an individual's claims in the light of current scientific opinion, without being misled?--[[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 11:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Your justification was that the source provided was in fact fine. But in reality, it's just one man's interpretation of a single rather ambiguous sentence Chris said on Facebook. It's simply not the case that his interpretation of Chris' words is objectively correct. |
|||
The author wrote: "At times, his grandiose delusions reach epic proportions. He’s a 9/11 truther, but with a twist: not only does he believe Bush staged the terrorist attacks, he wrote that the motive was to distract the public from learning the “truth” about the CTMU." |
|||
This article is a biographical sketch. Aside from the obvious fact that the CTMU does not rely on empirical justification and therefore cannot be classified as "pseudoscience", nebulous criticisms of it have no place here. |
|||
His proof of this was that Chris Langan had said the following on Facebook: |
|||
Byrgenwulf, who hints around that he is an academic expert in the philosophy of physics, should know that in order to credibly criticize Langan's work, he would need to write a well-reasoned paper on the topic, attach his real name to it, and include it in his vitae so that it can be properly associated with him and the academic institution with which he is affiliated and thus exposed to rebuttal. After all, a CTMU paper was published some time ago, and this is how "peer review" is supposed to work. If Byrgenwulf finds the CTMU too "unimportant" to merit this sort of treatment - or if he does not want people to see how coherent his criticisms really are - then he should not be wasting his valuable time carping about the CTMU on Wikipedia, let alone in somebody's bio. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
"The CTMU has already been "all over the news", mostly at the turn of the millennium (just as promised); then professed Christian GW Bush and his decidedly non-Christian neocon vultures did everything they could to distract everyone by immediately staging 9/11, passing the PATRIOT Act, and invading Iraq and Afghanistan, thus immersing us in these last few years of Middle Eastern bloodshed[...]". |
|||
In this context, "did everything they could to" does not necessarily imply that "distracting the public from learning about the CTMU" was a deliberate motive of theirs in "staging 9/11". I asked chatGPT whether it thought the phrasing was clear, and it agreed it was ambiguous. [[User:Dylancatlow1|Dylancatlow1]] ([[User talk:Dylancatlow1|talk]]) 15:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I removed the disputed tags for well-documented items, like the fact that Langan worked as a bar bouncer or has a high IQ. These facts are discussed repeatedly in the reference articles. The fact that Langan owns and operates a horse ranch is common knowledge in the high IQ community. There are photos of his ranch at the megafoundation website as he uses it for get togethers. I would hesitate to link to his ranch website, lest that be seen as an advert. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:As Wikipedians, we are supposed to summarize [[WP:RS]], not editor's analysis of WP:RS, with or without chatGPT. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with you, for a change, DrL...but would like to add (as I've seen this comment before) that for encyclopaedic purposes, consensus among the "high IQ community" counts for less than nothing.--[[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 11:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::We don't have to include every claim made by every "reliable source," though. And what makes this a reliable source? At the end of the day, it's just one man's interpretation of a rather ambiguous sentence said on Facebook, which I doubt few had paid attention to until his interpretation was reproduced in this article. Why should readers of this page be presented with it as though his interpretation were objectively correct? It's simply not. [[User:Dylancatlow1|Dylancatlow1]] ([[User talk:Dylancatlow1|talk]]) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]], other interested, care to have an opinion? This concerns these edits:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Langan&diff=prev&oldid=1220485190][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Langan&diff=prev&oldid=1220507878] [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Pop Sci == |
|||
::At the very least, I think it's reasonable to quote Chris' actual words when presenting readers with "his claim" in this regard. What do you think? [[User:Dylancatlow1|Dylancatlow1]] ([[User talk:Dylancatlow1|talk]]) 15:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I have added dubious proviso links next to the suspect PopSci articles as per [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe|this mention]] of how they might be forgeries. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 18:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Langan&diff=prev&oldid=1220507878 this text] is fine to include, though the sentence should probably be split so as to not be overlong. Dylancatlow1, as Gråbergs Gråa Sång mentions, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources' characterizations of events, not individual editors' characterizations. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 16:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
As previously noted, this is a legitimate source. There were two articles in the same issue. One was an article, the other an interview. The issue (October, 2001) should be available at a local library if you wish to check. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 19:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Totally Disputed Tag == |
|||
This tag was put up by Jefffire and I don't see why. The content seems to be neutral and well-documented. Before I remove it, I would like the other recent editors of this article to please explain what might be lacking in terms of accuracy or NPOV. Please view the early development of this article. I would surmise it was not created by the subject. The references seem to verify the important content. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Merging== |
|||
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. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
'''Response''' (1) The Mega Foundation and the Ultranet are not "IQ clubs". One is a registered nonprofit foundation; the other is a project of that Foundation. (2) You are not in a position to pass judgment on the "merit" of Langan, his work, his Foundation, his fora, or the associated Wikipedia entries. Please try to understand this. (3) You are not in a position to "summarily" do anything related to the Wikipedia articles on these topics. Please try to come to grips with this. These misconceptions run afoul of Wikipedia guidelines in fact and in spirit. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Regarding point 3, Asmodeus, you are wrong. See [[WP:BOLD]] --[[User:Kgf0|KGF0]] ( [[User talk:Kgf0|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kgf0|C]] ) 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC). |
|||
== IQ == |
|||
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? [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Where did you see this 140 figure? It is possible that Langan took a lousy IQ test that had a ceiling of 140. All the certified psychologists that have tested Langan, have speculated that he possesses an IQ that approaches 200 (15 points per SD). Regardless of the fact that the CTMU looks like the work of a 15 year old. [[User:CDiPoce|CDiPoce]] 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::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. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::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. [[User:CDiPoce|CDiPoce]] 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::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 [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that says otherwise, add it, and [[WP:CITE|cite it]]. --[[User:Kgf0|KGF0]] ( [[User talk:Kgf0|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kgf0|C]] ) 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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!). [[User:DrL|DrL]] 14:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Errol Morris Documentary== |
|||
Byrgenwulf, you are attributing comments to Errol Morris that I don't believe were stated by him. Please provide the source of Morris's comments. This was a terrific documentary that won an honorable mention for Morris at the Cannes Film Festival. As far as I know, a transcript does not exist. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 18:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Go [http://www.errolmorris.com/television/index.html here] and hover your mouse over Langan's picture on the mosaic. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I don't deny that it was "hyped" that way by the website; just that Morris never said anything even close to that. Please don't mislead. Watch the documentary. It's very good. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 18:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 07:48, 30 April 2024
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2022
Change "Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is an American horse rancher and autodidact who has been reported to score very highly on IQ tests.[1] .[3][4][5][6]" to "Christopher Michael Langan is the author of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, horse rancher, and autodidact who has been reported to score very highly on IQ tests." Tgoloboy (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
DOB and/or YOB
What are the BLP-good sources for these? Afaict, neither are in Gladwell's book. This [1] says c.1952. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
And, while we're at it, something BLP-good that clearly states he is married to Gina Lynne LoSasso. I didn't find anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Re: a recent counter-revision
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yesterday, you undid a recent revision of mine that I think we should talk about.
Your justification was that the source provided was in fact fine. But in reality, it's just one man's interpretation of a single rather ambiguous sentence Chris said on Facebook. It's simply not the case that his interpretation of Chris' words is objectively correct.
The author wrote: "At times, his grandiose delusions reach epic proportions. He’s a 9/11 truther, but with a twist: not only does he believe Bush staged the terrorist attacks, he wrote that the motive was to distract the public from learning the “truth” about the CTMU."
His proof of this was that Chris Langan had said the following on Facebook: "The CTMU has already been "all over the news", mostly at the turn of the millennium (just as promised); then professed Christian GW Bush and his decidedly non-Christian neocon vultures did everything they could to distract everyone by immediately staging 9/11, passing the PATRIOT Act, and invading Iraq and Afghanistan, thus immersing us in these last few years of Middle Eastern bloodshed[...]".
In this context, "did everything they could to" does not necessarily imply that "distracting the public from learning about the CTMU" was a deliberate motive of theirs in "staging 9/11". I asked chatGPT whether it thought the phrasing was clear, and it agreed it was ambiguous. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- As Wikipedians, we are supposed to summarize WP:RS, not editor's analysis of WP:RS, with or without chatGPT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- We don't have to include every claim made by every "reliable source," though. And what makes this a reliable source? At the end of the day, it's just one man's interpretation of a rather ambiguous sentence said on Facebook, which I doubt few had paid attention to until his interpretation was reproduced in this article. Why should readers of this page be presented with it as though his interpretation were objectively correct? It's simply not. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare, other interested, care to have an opinion? This concerns these edits:[2][3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least, I think it's reasonable to quote Chris' actual words when presenting readers with "his claim" in this regard. What do you think? Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think this text is fine to include, though the sentence should probably be split so as to not be overlong. Dylancatlow1, as Gråbergs Gråa Sång mentions, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources' characterizations of events, not individual editors' characterizations. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)