Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parabolist (talk | contribs) at 08:47, 3 March 2020 (→Jack Langan: You may have misunderstand the transcription language here.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Christopher Langan. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Christopher Langan at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template:WikiProject Intelligent design Education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. Christopher Langan (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection. DrL (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2006) Archive 2 (January–March 2007) Archive 3 (March–April 2007) Archive 4 (May 2007–Oct 2009) Archive 5 (Oct 2009- )

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher Langan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Follow-up

I hate to have to interject again so quickly, but new issues have just arisen with respect to the first paragraph of this article. Certain details are disparaging and improperly sourced. I'll comment on each sentence separately.

1. "Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is an American horse rancher known for his claim of a very high IQ, frequently reported to be at 'around 195'."

I typically don't make claims regarding my own IQ, and I certainly hadn't done so prior to being profiled by Esquire Magazine and other mass media outlets. Instead, when pressed on the issue, I have usually cited estimates published by the mass media without discussing their accuracy. The phrase "his claim" seems designed to make it appear that my notoriety is strictly a function of self-promotion. But in fact, I have never requested media coverage, and anyone who says otherwise would be lying. I was informed by media sources that I had been contacted because, in their preliminary investigations, I had been recommended for coverage by various members of the high IQ community.

2. "Many of his claims met not without controversy, since Langan only scored a 42 out of 48 on his first try on Ronald K. Hoeflin's Mega Test (equivalent to an IQ of 164, sd=15) published in Omni Magazine."

This is evidently a pretext to insert alleged information regarding my first application to a certain high-IQ club which had initially promised admission for a certain test score, but then reneged without warning (this kind of turnaround is sometimes called a "bait and switch"). It is immediately followed by a reduced estimate of my intelligence, which is apparently supposed to have something to do with the "controversiality" of unspecified "claims" I'm supposed to have made. In fact, the media were fully informed, by me and others, about the circumstances under which I took the particular test in question, and exactly why I was forced to repeat it.

3. "A second attempt gave a score of 47 out of 48 under the pseudonym 'Eric Hart', after Marilyn vos Savant published some of the answers in Omni IQ Quiz Contest."

I don't know Marilyn vos Savant, and I have never before heard that she released answers to the Mega Test. If she did, then it was certainly unknown to me (and many others) at the time I took the test, which was all the way back in the mid-1980's. In any case, I see no source, let alone a reliable source, for this statement. As for "pseudonyms", several people who took the Mega test did so under pseudonyms, and I made it clear exactly who I was not long after joining.

4. "As a result of his score, he has been described as "the smartest man in America" as well as "the smartest man in the world" by some journalists."

This is an unsubstantiated causal inference. Yes, it is perfectly true that I've "been described as 'the smartest man in America' as well as 'the smartest man in the world' by some journalists." But it has always been my impression that I was chosen to be profiled for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the abovementioned personal recommendations by other members of the high IQ community. It is unclear why the Mega Test should be identified as the sole reason.

In short, while I and my work - especially the CTMU - are certainly notable by Misplaced Pages standards, and while it is indeed true that "Christopher Michael Langan, an American horse rancher who is known for having a very high IQ (frequently reported to be around 200), has been described as 'the smartest man in America' as well as 'the smartest man in the world' by some journalists," speculative and/or improperly sourced additions and disparaging insinuations obviously have nothing to do with it.

I respectfully request that the recurrent violations of WP:BLP and other Misplaced Pages policies to which this article has been subject for the last 15 years or so be expeditiously corrected whenever they (re)appear.

My sincere thanks to the Misplaced Pages community for your attention. Chris Langan (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chris Langan: I changed the lede a bit to make it sound less like an expression of doubt, which hopefully addresses (1) and (4) I'm not seeing the text from (2) and (3) currently in the article. It might have been removed between the 5th and now... My take here is that this article would really benefit from a more typical Misplaced Pages-style of referencing (e.g. using citation templates and named references). This is especially true since it seems many of the sources are early 2000sish and mostly exist in archives now. With the way its referenced now WP:V is more difficult than it needs to be which makes arbitrating disputes more difficult. I started doing this in the lede. Many of the citations mentioned there are no longer appear in the article and I had to do some hunting to find them. Step one would be to do that for the rest of the article, step two would be to complete the citation templates appropriately (populating all the necessary attributes, naming, reusing the names instead of citing independently). - Scarpy (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

__________________________

There is no such thing as a verifiable IQ beyond the 160-164 range. All these HIQ tests are unrecognized and invalid.

Regarding the psychologist that tested langan,

1- we haven’t seen the test itself 2- the psychologist isn't known for psychometrics , and it there is no source that he even specializes in administering IQ tests. 3- the psychologist has had several infractions on his psychology license. 4- the test doesn’t break the ceiling of 160 anyways. 5- there is a conflict of interest because ABC hired him to precisely validate their click bait story. Nigerian chess player (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

__________________________

These are all good reasons to doubt Langan's IQ. I suggest that Langan's page be edited to make it absolutely clear to readers that the "sources" who have estimated his IQ are dubious at best. EarlWhitehall (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This happens to be my field. I have been studying and researching high-end assessment for more than 20 years (starting with the Prometheus Society Membership Committee report, which you obviously haven't read) and was recently awarded a grant to develop such a protocol that could be administered at a distance. You and ZenMechanic know little of what you speak. This matters not, however. Misplaced Pages is not the place for OR. They simply report what is said by others. That is the way the site works, for better or worse. ~ DrL (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is imprecise to put eugenics in this context as from what I could gather Mr. Langan is in favor of anti-dysgenics. It's an important difference. Also, he is not blaming Third world immigrants per se, but rather those who unreasonably and forcibly are trying to uproot the Western culture by irrational immigration policies. So, the changes I have put in more precisely represent the author's views. Mich.Szczesny (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

_________________________________________

These are your opinion, under the pseudonym eric heart he did clearly espouse positive eugenics. Regardless, it is a distinction without a difference.

And yes he is blaming third world immigrants, and you are vandalising the page and starting another edit war. Now be careful , get back to reason , because the facts are all on our side. Nigerian chess player (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

__________________________________________

The terms "anti-dysgenics" and "eugenics" are synonyms. Langan has publicly argued in favor of eradicating genetic traits that he feels negatively impact on a person's quality of life. In his essay, "On the Differences between People, Birds, and Bees", he includes low IQs and physical unattractiveness in this category. He is an open supporter of eugenics, and using the obscure term "anti-dysgenics" could be seen as a way of sugar coating this. We have a duty to present the facts to our readers in the most unambiguous way possible.

The word "eugenics" ought to remain in the article. EarlWhitehall (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

_________________________________________

Yes and it should be noted that Langan also expressed far right white nationalist views and has also endorsed Donald Trump.

If the anyone wishes to view the evidence I can post it here, but a google search suffices. Nigerian chess player (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

__________________________________________

Well, to me the term anti-dysgenics isn't obscure and has got a different shade of meaning, which is important if one wants to be precise. So, it is an important distinction. I didn't think that trying to be more precise and accurate would be classified as "vandalising the page" and "starting another edit war". That is exactly what I am trying to do: be careful with my words and the meaning they convey. Mich.Szczesny 20:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Langan himself referred to “benign eugenics” in the Morris video, which nonetheless still is eugenics. I’m sure Hilter thought his eugenics was also “benign” . Food for thought...

That said, the reason you're hiding behind semantic trickery and word games is because you think its “bad marketing” to call a spade a spade.

Regarding “precision” , what is precise is that there is jo such thing as a recognized , scientifically valid psychometric test that discriminates above the 160s range. So there is no such a thing as an IQ of 195 or 200, unrecognized tests notwithstanding.

Nigerian chess player (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I could also share a source where Mr. Langan expresses his support of anti-dysgenics, and where he says he doesn't advocate for eugenics. But anyhow, even if we decide to use the word "eugenics", there seems to be a certain emotional baggage, the one which makes people immediately mention Hitler. But the word itself is older and entered the English language in 1883. Anyhow, in a world where overpopulation has become a problem, advocating self-restraint and rational procreation isn't a bad thing. Mich.Szczesny 11:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Langan’s own words in Errol Morris said “ a benign form of eugenics” .

He also mentioned the term eugenics in his Eric Hart paper.

The term eugenics and anti-dysgenics are synonymous.

As to your personal opinions regarding overpopulation and eugenics, that is all irrelevant here. This talk section is about reflecting accurate information about Langan and his views and exploits to the public. I trust the public can decide thereafter. Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Until there are reliable, third-party sources that can back up that Langan supports eugenics or anti-dysgenics or whichever term, this whole conversation is pretty pointless. It's should not be added to the article in any form without them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Gorrilawafare I respect your attempt at professionalism, but for anyone who can speak English, it takes literally a few seconds on Youtube to check whether Langan himself agrees or disagrees with eugenics. Regardless of what ad hoc arbitrary rules wikipedia has imposed , I’m sure a reasonable person can agree the truth is what ultimately matters, correct?

This is all a manufactured “controversy” . There is no controversy, the facts are as clear as the sun for anyone who wants to find out. Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: My point is that general discussions about Langan's beliefs that do not have anything to do with what should be added to the article are not appropriate for this talk page. Myself and other editors here have been quite clear that interpretation of Langan's views based on YouTube videos of him speaking, no matter how obvious the interpretation may seem, will not be added to the Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages talk pages are intended to be used to discuss improvements to the article—they are not for general discussion of the article subject (see WP:TPNO and WP:NOTFORUM). There are plenty of online forums where I'm sure you can discuss Langan's views as much as you want; this is not one of them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article states that Mr. Langan was criticised for excessive use of ill-defined neologisms. I think it's important to present the views of peole who appreciated his mastery of the written word and would like to add the following paragraph: "On the other hand, Pierre R. Latour has appreciated Mr. Langan's work and precise use of words by writing: 'He has devised a deep philosophical foundation for the principles of proper scholarship and enquiry (...). His logic language is king'." Mich.Szczesny (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

____________________________________________________

“Mastery of the written word” ?

Your obviously not an objective observer. His use if word salad is the consensus amongst almost everyone save a small minority of sycophants of his. Nigerian chess player (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________

I agree with Nigerian Chess Player. This part of the article was not specifically about Langan's writing skills, so including the opposing (minority) viewpoint is unnecessary here. EarlWhitehall (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________

Well, yes, I used the expression "mastery of the written word" because that is what the expression "His logic language is king" is synonymous to. I thought it's important to present the views of people who think exactly that. "Consensus amongst almost everyone" is very imprecise and unscientific and can't serve in my opinion as grounds for exclusion of opposing views. Also the expression "word salad" is offensive as implies that Mr. Langan's work is incomprehensible and that is untrue. A lot of words have entered the English language to describe for example new inventions and concepts. And that is what Mr. Langan did: coined new words to precisely express new concepts. From my understanding of his work, the words he used are not just empty terms but neologisms which express very important and deep truths about the reality we inhabit. Mich.Szczesny, 20:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please read the neutral point of view policy carefully (especially WP:FALSEBALANCE) before making any further requests. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a space to argue about the validity of Langan’s theory, its about Chris Langan and what the majority of notable and valid sources say about him and his views, your personal opinions notwithstanding.

Whether you think the earth is flat or there is a conspiracy against the west is your own views, but scholarly consensus is the arbiter I’m afraid. Keep that in mind! Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Word salad or not, the prose of a cosmological theory is rubbish anyway without some equations making falsifiable predictions. So, Did he make any novel, falsifiable predictions? is the only question that matters in this respect. Physics isn't literary criticism. If he did not make falsifiable predictions it is merely a story or merely metaphysics, it isn't a theory of physics. If he made good, novel predictions, neologisms are not important and if his predictions failed, neologisms are not important—in both cases the use of neologisms says nothing about the merits of his theory, it is just a heuristic used to attack woolly speech. AFAIK, nobody answered the question Did he make useful predictions?, which is the main concern in respect to a theory of physics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He did not. Although Langan styles his theory as metaphysics he has frequently claimed it is also scientific. Nigerian chess player (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: We need a WP:RS for such claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem, https://web.archive.org/web/20011015141736/www.popsci.com/science/01/10/14/brainiac/index2.html

In it he claims to have a theory od everything that explains “quantum mechanics and consciousness”.

He also claims to answer riddles that scientists have failed to answer.

Here is a video that shows Langan’s quora posts about how his CTMU is the greatest breakthrough for science, philosophy..etc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sO7PTB--jJ0

Regards Nigerian chess player (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

What claim are you hoping to see be added to the article based on the Popular Science article? That is a usable source; the YouTube video is of course not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare and Nigerian chess player: That article does not say anything about the validity of CTMU. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

ALERT

I would like to point out that the article disproportionally weights the content of facebook quotes over any of Chris's scholarly writing. Is this what the norm is on wikipedia now; analysis of the social media postings of its biographical subjects? That's just what is going on here. I suggest that entire baffler nonsense be removed.

And categorized as an Intellectual Pursuit? Now that is a bit silly. That entire paragraph is biased and per WP:BLP should be removed while it is reworked. Thanks in advance. DrL (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to just edit your comments just a little bit here, nobody will notice. Make a new section at the bottom and detail your complaints with the material GorillaWarfare has added. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

At the top of this "talk" page, we see the following notice: "Asmodeus and DrL are banned from editing this article." DrL was banned from editing this page for her bias and malicious behavior. She is violating Misplaced Pages's rules by being here. EarlWhitehall (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@EarlWhitehall: The arbitration remedy allows that she may make suggestions on talk pages if is not disruptive GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I see. Thanks for making me aware of that.

Thanks for the input Gorilla warfare. Nigerian chess player (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

What follows are edits from the individuals who have an IRL grudge against Langan

I would like to add a personal views section with direct quotations from chris langan himself sourced to his own knowledge base website.

There appears to be confusion about his social and political views, so lets let langan settle it with his own mouth. Nigerian chess player (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

___________________________________________________

Hi, Nigerian Chess Player. I think this is a good idea. Langan is active on social media sites, and many of the views he expresses online are highly controversial. I think it's important that people reading Langan's Wiki page be made aware of these views. EarlWhitehall (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

___________________________________________________

Calling them high controversial is an understatement but lest I be accused of bias, lets put them up on the article and let the readers and the arbitration committee judge for themselves.

This article is outdated , since 2017 Me langan has been very active on social media and lots have happened since. It is my wish to make the readers of this wiki aware of these changes. Nigerian chess player (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

____________________________________________________

Apparently, Christopher Langan doesn't shy away from venting his eugenicis ideas in his Facebook group. Of course that he and his followers will always play semantic games and point to the different shades of grey that may exist (only in their minds) between eugenics and "anti-dysgenics". By simply following the discussions there, one can easily see that, either way, they pontificate, according to their own white supremacist views, what are the unwanted characteristics their ideal program should get rid of.

Regarding the CTMU, it doesn't even worth mention because, it's unoriginal- being a rip off of Eastern Spirituality and Philosophy, Wheeler's PAP, Charles Peirce's Triadic Model, Kashmir Shaivism and many others. It's intentionally obscure, 100% self-referential, thus defining truth within itself. Any attempt to rational criticism would be tantamount to a dog chasing its own tail.

The reason I think this Misplaced Pages page should be edited is that many inaccurate claims are being made, the sources are questionable, serving as a marketing tool for the individual in question.

Thank you.

ZenMechanics (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I could also share a source where Mr. Langan expresses his support of anti-dysgenics, and where he says he doesn't advocate for eugenics. But anyhow, even if we decide to use the word "eugenics", there seems to be a certain emotional baggage, the one which makes people immediately picture the worst, e.g. Hitler (a few posts above). But the word itself is older and entered the English language in 1883. Anyhow, in a world where overpopulation has become a problem, advocating self-restraint and rational procreation isn't a bad thing. Mich.Szczesny 11:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Well, I could also share a source where Mr. Langan expresses his support of anti-dysgenics, and where he says he doesn't advocate for eugenics.".

For every link you share with such statements, I have at least other two where Langan himself advocates eugenics (let's not play semantic games, ok?).

"Anyhow, in a world where overpopulation has become a problem, advocating self-restraint and rational procreation isn't a bad thing.".

Rational procreation as long as they aren't "low IQ" latinos, arabs or blacks, right?

Give me a break. ZenMechanics (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If wiki allows Langan’s own quotes, the matter is settled. Langan openly advocated for armed rebellion and violence against European politicians and governments for being “too soft” on immigration, not to mention inciting violence against what he deems to be “criminal immigrants” . Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change 'The CTMU was criticized by mathematician Mark Chu Carroll' to 'The CTMU was criticized by software engineer Mark Chu Carroll' Johnnyyiu (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Markchu carrol is a computer scientist and a software engineer which involved lots of mathematics .

If Dr Mark Chu is not a mathematician neither is Langan a philosopher. Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made the change, as Chu-Carroll describes himself as a computer scientist in his about page: . If there is a source that describes him as a mathematician we could amend it to "computer scientist and mathematician". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that, thank you Gorrrilawarfare. Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverting to a neutral version per WP:BLP

While discussions of the new content is being debated and before we reach a consensus as of what to include, I am reverting back to a neutral version per WP:BLP. Johnnyyiu (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Langan's IQ has been estimated by various sources to be between 195 and 210"

This is not true. What sources? Even inside the High IQ community these claims are taken to be veey exaggerated. There isn't a single reliable test that give such score interval while maintaining a modicum of accuracy and reliability.

ZenMechanics (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Its an outdated version skewed by langan himself and his lackeys to present him in a positive light .

zenmechanics is correct , there is no such thing as a recognized IQ above 160. Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, one of such sources, for example, would be the Omni magazine, April 1990 (the Mega Test comment). Anyway, Mr. Langan has a very reasonable approach to the whole issue, please feel free to go through some of his Quora answers.

Mich.Szczesny 12:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

langan was banned from Quora for repeatedly violating BNBR policy. With the last straw being a post where he compares Gorrilas to Somalis and claims gorrilas to be more intelligent with a lesser crime rate, then asks for Europeans to admit them as refugees.

You consider that a rational approach? Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mich.Szczesny. There are multiple new sources pointing to Langan's 195 - 210 IQ, and reliable and third party sources should not be disregarded on Misplaced Pages. Regarding his post on gorillas, if you read carefully between the lines, you will see that the post was really a tongue in cheek approach to the trolls on Quora. 221.124.51.249 (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@221.124.51.249: Misplaced Pages doesn't do "reading between the lines". We simply report what is contained in reliable, third party sources. EarlWhitehall (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The sources pointing to Langan’s IQ aren’t reliable sources, they are all commercial magazines. Do you have a respectable scientific publication mentioning his IQ?

Regarding his Koko the Gorrila being somehow a tongue in cheek against “trolls”, seriously? Do I even need to respond here? Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: Those commercial magazines are reliable sources as Misplaced Pages policy defines them. Academic sources would be preferable, but the magazines are acceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate part of article needs removing , langan didnt publish “many books and articles over the years”

Langan’s book hasnt been published since he appeared in 1989, this is almost 31 years. The only “book” he published is a collection of essays half of which were already in the public domain called “art of knowing” .

Parts about his recent exploits need to clarify that the journal is not scientific and has an impact rating lower than 1 . Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

________________________________________________________

I agree with Nigerian Chess Player. Here is what an Amazon search for Langan's name returns:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=chris+langan&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

Langan's "book", The Art of Knowing, is simply a collection of essays. The other two "books" he has published are (1) a collection of his social media posts, and (2) a 36-page paper that he published in the discredited Cosmos & :History journal, which is available for free online: http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/788 EarlWhitehall (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

________________________________________________________

Agreed, except the last two is a fan collected material and the other a paper not a book.

So this leaves that one book which is a collection of essays .

Anyone disagrees ? Nigerian chess player (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The books have been published on Amazon and assigned ISBN numbers; additionally, the text there included had been re-organised and typeset to meet the book standards. So, by any reasonable measure those two publications are books. Mich.Szczesny 11:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough but the statement “many books over the years” when is still inaccurate. 1 or 2 short booklets in 31 years is hardly “many books over the years” , esp insofar as Langan has not published his long awaited book on his theory until today. Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Mich.Szczesny is correct. Books published on Amazon have to be considered books. There are actually 3 books on amazon that Langan published, but since this is under the 'Intellectual Pursuit' section, we should mention his other writings. I would say we change it from “many books over the years” to "multiple papers, books, and articles over the years" Johnnyyiu (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyliu: That sounds fine. But please stop including Goertzel's review of the CTMU as an endorsement of Langan's work. I have checked the source, and Goertzel criticizes the CTMU quite heavily, arguing that it does not establish proof for the existence of a godlike entity. He both praises and criticizes the theory, so you are misrepresenting him by mentioning only his positive remarks. EarlWhitehall (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: Since there ware no references provided for the claim that Langan has published "papers, books and articles over the years", I have removed this claim from the page. EarlWhitehall (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple, sounds fine to me. But there is no reliable third party sources that mention he has published “multiple books and articles over the years” , is there? Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:I see that you have removed the paragraph saying there aren't third party sources. I did reference the peer reviewed academic journal "Cosmos & History" Langan published with, does it not count as a third party source? Johnnyyiu (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyiu: Correct. Linking directly to the publication verifies that it was published in the journal, as claimed. But without a third-party reliable source discussing the fact that he published an article in C&H, there's no indication it's relevant to mention in the WP article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Eugenics claim

I have removed the following underlined content:

In an essay for the Mega Society’s journal “Noesis”, Langan – writing under the pseudonym Eric Hart – argued in favor of implementing a worldwide eugenics program to increase the overall intelligence of the human race. He also argued for eugenics in an interview with Errol Morris. Because of his strong views on eugenics, race realism, and what he perceives as the deliberate replacement and genocide of the white race by Third World immigrants, Langan has amassed a following among members of the alt-right.

References

1. "On the Differences between People, Birds, and Bees".
2. Morris, Errol. (August 14, 2001). "The Smartest Man in the World". First Person.
3. "The Man With The World's Highest IQ, Christopher Langan, Is Gaining A Following On The Far Right". 2019-03-20.

I have no idea if Langan supports eugenics or not, but any claims that he does so must be sourced to a third-party, reliable source. It's not acceptable to read an essay and interview by Langan, interpret from it that he supports eugenics, and then claim as much in the article—that is original research. Furthermore, while the Forward article says that Langan has a following among the alt-right, it does not say the reason for it is any of those described. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: The article already contains a reference to Langan's Errol Morris interview, in which the man himself explicitly endorses eugenics. He says, and I quote, "That would enable us to solve our population problem right off the bat, and enable us to practice a benign form of eugenics." See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA0gjyXG5O0

If the words of Langan himself are not evidence enough, what is? Even if it cannot be shown that Langan's support of eugenics is the reason for his following among members of the alt-right, the fact that he is an open proponent of forced sterilization ought to be included on his Wiki page, don't you think? EarlWhitehall (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As I have said, what would be enough would be a reliable, third party source saying that Langan supports eugenics. The same goes for any claims he supports forced sterilization. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: So the words of the man himself don't count for anything? I have to find some random journalist who can confirm that he did in fact say those words? That's absurd, but whatever. EarlWhitehall (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We need a reliable third party to infer from what he is saying that he is supporting eugenics. If it is as obvious as you say, it should not be hard to find. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Actually, it's extremely hard, because very few people have ever bothered to discuss the man or his views. But how's this instead? The Baffler article by Justin Ward states the following: "The denizens of /pol/ grant Langan the honorary title of 'based' for his screeds against miscegenation and the 'dysgenic' effects of the welfare state." Here we have a reliable third party source confirming Langan's opposition to miscegenation. So, will you at least edit the page to state that he has spoken out against racial interbreeding? Thanks. EarlWhitehall (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If very few people have bothered to discuss the man or his views, then Misplaced Pages should not be the place where they are first discussed. Misplaced Pages is meant to repeat information available from other sources, not act as its own source. As for the Baffler stuff, that does look like it can be added. Give me a moment to read that source entirely—it looks like it may be useable for some of the additional claims surrounding why he has amassed a following in the alt-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I've made this change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Can't fault your changes. It's a big improvement over the original. Thanks for your time. EarlWhitehall (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, I'm happy we could come to some sort of agreeable solution. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Langan himself supports eugenics, there is multiple quotes to that effect all with sources. Nigerian chess player (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The article contains unscientific views like an IQ of 195-210 which is impossible because valid IQ tests are capped at 160 anyways.

Yet the article gives the impression that such a thing is not only possible but that this man has somehow achieved it . Nigerian chess player (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: If you have reliable, third-party sources that verify that Langan supports eugenics and/or that IQs that high are not possible or valid, please present them. As I've told EarlWhitehall, quotes from Langan alone are not sufficient to make a claim like that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

GW is right. On WP, WP:BLP applies. I found a newsarticle that mentions both Langan and eugenics , but it doesn't help the argument for inclusion. I note that even RationalWiki only mention it in passing, so this angle doesn't seem to have much coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well then we can include the quotes of langan himself, just as there are quotes from him on the page already.

If I am reading you correctly, you’re saying it is fine to include his quotes but we can’t interpret them in our words. If that’s the case, no problem , include the quotes then.

Thanks Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Direct quotations are not meant to be used to circumvent the fact that there are no reliable, third party sources that can support a claim about a BLP. Per WP:QUOTE and WP:IINFO, Misplaced Pages articles don't just include every single piece of information that is possible to verify—you need to be able to make a convincing case for the inclusion of a quote. Without third party, reliable sources, I don't think that's likely to be possible. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable 3rd party sources in addition to Langan’s own statements on Eroll Morris interview and mega society as Eric Hart (pen name), they are the following:

1-https://rationalwiki.org/Christopher_Langan#Eugenics

2-http://greyenlightenment.com/worlds-smartest-man-supports-eugenics/

3-https://peoplepill.com/people/christopher-langan/

4-Langan’s own Mega foundation book interview of Arthur Jensen question 25 http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Discussions%20of%20Genius%20-%20Interview%20with%20Arthur%20Jensen.pdf#page85

5- https://onemansblog.com/2007/11/06/smartest-man-in-the-world-has-diarrhea-of-the-mouth/

2- Nigerian chess player (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: Please review WP:RS, a policy that has been linked many times over in discussions here. RationalWiki is not a reliable source, per WP:UGC. The PeoplePill content pulls directly from Misplaced Pages—first of all, Misplaced Pages is not considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages (again, see WP:UGC), nor can we cite the Christopher Langan article to support claims in the Christopher Langan article (see WP:CIRCULAR). Grey Enlightenment does not appear to meet the requirements at WP:NEWSORG. Regarding #4, an interview with Langan is not a third-party source. Regarding OneMansBlog, see WP:BLOGS. None of these sources are usable because none of them are "reliable third party sources" as you claim them to be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Controversy section

Is the sourcing in the "controversy" section really good enough to present these statements in Misplaced Pages's own voice, rather than attributing them to individuals? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Yes. The Baffler is a credible source of information. EarlWhitehall (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

For it's own views perhaps. You need more than that to make such statements in Misplaced Pages's own voice. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: If you don't think that The Baffler is a reliable third party source, please provide a reliable third party source to back up that view. Thank you. EarlWhitehall (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, almost everything else on Langan's page is written in Misplaced Pages's own voice, including the contentious claim that he taught himself advanced maths and physics in high school. The source for this claim is Esquire. Why is this a more credible source than The Baffler? It is suspicious that you are ignoring this and only suggesting that the "Controversy" section be changed. Smells like bias to me. EarlWhitehall (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to stipulate that the Baffler is a reliable source for the views of Justin Ward. You might want to read WP:BLP if you intent a long career on Misplaced Pages editing biographies, as it will help you understand proper sourcing. But given your edit history I suspect that you are and are likely to remain a single-purpose account. Any relation with the other two recents SPAs that you would like to declare at this point? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Okay, I'm reading it. Hmm... I don't see anything suggesting that The Baffler is not a credible source of information. Tell me why you think it is less credible than Esquire or 20/20.

By the way, I am not the one who edited Langan's page. It was GorillaWarfare (a notable Misplaced Pages contributor), and she evidently deemed The Baffler to be a reliable enough source to use Misplaced Pages's own voice. EarlWhitehall (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that The Baffler is sufficiently reliable. I did want to bring up a point here, though -- I don't think the new "Controversy" section is appropriately titled. The views described in it are certainly controversial, but there isn't actually any controversy described there. I wonder if we could find a better section heading? Though I'm having trouble thinking of a good name. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Since the "Controversy" section is all about his racist views and growing support among the alt-right, perhaps it could be re-named "Racist Views" or "Links to the Alt-Right". EarlWhitehall (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest it be called “controversial views” rather than controversy. Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: That works too. In fact, now that I think about it, "Racist Views" would probably draw further objections from Langan's wife and supporters, so better to use "Controversial Views" instead. EarlWhitehall (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We can short circuit disagreement that way. Nigerian chess player (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems like an improvement to me. I've made the suggested change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this seems reasonable. Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

ALERT

This article that was edited by two individuals that know my husband IRL and have personal grudges, need to be reverted to the last neutral version (Johnnyyiu) who reverted the vandalism by these two.

I would like to point out that the article now disproportionally weights the content of facebook quotes over any of Chris's scholarly writing. Is this what the norm is on wikipedia now; analysis of the social media postings of its biographical subjects? That's just what is going on here. I suggest that entire baffler nonsense be removed.

And categorized as an Intellectual Pursuit? Now that is a bit silly. That entire paragraph is biased and per WP:BLP should be reverted while it is reworked. Pls refer to my complaint at BLPN. Thanks in advance. DrL (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Hi . If you are referring to me, I would like to assure you that I have no personal grudge against your husband. I first heard of him about a week ago, and have never communicated with him personally. Furthermore, it was GorillaWarfare – a trusted and respected Misplaced Pages contributor – who is responsible for the latest edit of Langan's page. In my opinion, she did a wonderful job, making sure that the information was accurate and able to be verified by reliable third party sources. The Baffler is a reputable journal, so we have no reason to doubt the veracity of Justin Ward's article.

Also, Langan's "scholarly" work (please provide a reliable third party source to verify that his work meets scholarly standards) is not what gained him public recognition. He first gained attention for being a barroom bouncer with a high IQ, and these days he is known for his outrageous social media rants and growing popularity among members of the alt-right.

Warm regards, EarlWhitehall (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Misplaced Pages articles reflect how subjects are discussed in reliable, third-party sources. If those sources spend more time discussing his Facebook posts than his scholarly work, so should we. If we have missed reliable sources that do discuss his scholarly works, please present them and the can potentially be added as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose another edit: "Langan's *alleged* high IQ". ZenMechanics (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to use "alleged" unless there are reliable sources questioning Langan's IQ being high, which I have not seen. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@ZenMechanics: Again, there are multiple reliable sources pointing to Langan's high IQ. If your proposals do not have strong backing evidence, they are clearly obstructive to the development of a neutral article per WP:BLP. Johnnyyiu (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For further information on the validity of the Mega Test, please take a look at the analysis made by Dr. Roger Carlson on the statistics of the Mega Test.

While Langan's performance isn't being questioned, the construct validity of the test per see isn't free from criticism. Ok, some may view it as collection of puzzles that holds similarity with culture loaded IQ tests but the fact is that it isn't approved as an IQ test per see. Also, no psychometric tool, high range or not, can accurately measure scores above a certain threshold. Super high scores are given as extrapolations.

ZenMechanics (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't post the link here. ZenMechanics (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The topic of discussion here is whether there are reliable, third-party sources pointing to Langan's IQ, and indeed there are. So per WP:WS, adding the word "alleged" is unnecessary. Johnnyyiu (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnyliu: I think Langan's page should mention the fact that IQ tests alone cannot be used as an accurate measure of intelligence. This is the consensus among psychologists and neuroscientists, and here is a reliable third party source to back this up: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html

Since Langan's title of "world's smartest man" is based solely on his IQ test results, and IQ tests alone cannot be used to accurately measure intelligence, it follows that Langan's title is disputable.

I think this fact needs to be included in Langan's article. Who agrees? EarlWhitehall (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Please WP:INDENT. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@EarlWhitehall: I found opposing evidence saying IQ is a fair measure of intelligence on these articles: Charles Spearman, Arthur Jensen, and Richard Lynn. In fact, there is a multitude of theories on intelligence and I don't think the discussion should appear on Langan's page. Rather, you may consider editing the g factor (psychometrics) and Human intelligence articles. Johnnyyiu (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyylui: The discredited opinions of alleged racists does not constitute opposing evidence. Here is a second reliable, third party, multi-award-winning source to back up the claim that IQ tests are fundamentally flawed: https://www.popsci.com/why-iq-is-flawed/ Now, where are your sources?

I am not asking to include an in-depth discussion on intelligence and IQ. I simply think the reader should be made aware, by means of a single sentence, that the vast majority of scientists do not consider IQ tests to be an accurate measure of intelligence. Not including this information gives the false impression that Langan's title of "world's smartest man" is indisputable. EarlWhitehall (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@EarlWhitehall: What you claimed, that "the vast majority of scientists do not consider IQ tests to be an accurate measure of intelligence" is as controversial, if not more, than the validity of IQ tests per se. If you actually look at the articles I provided, you would easily find sources pointing to the relevant research, for example, this one: https://psyarxiv.com/uv673/ . Spearman's statistically robust results, aka my source, cannot be automatically disproved and labelled as "discredited opinions" by your source, which was written by "Sara Chodosh", an "assistant editor + occasional graphics producer @popsci | aspiring gardener" (according to her Twitter), whose claims are not backed by any citation to any notable research. So per WP:BLP, controversial descriptions should be avoided and it follows that what you proposed is inappropriate under the current context. Johnnyyiu (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyliu: Sorry that I didn't look at your source. I was too busy looking at all these mainstream sources that suggest IQ tests are not a reliable way to measure intelligence:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/raise-your-iq-instantly

https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/biggest-intelligence-test-exposes-the-limits-of-iq/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm

http://trendintech.com/2016/07/28/scientists-prove-traditional-iq-tests-useless/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/the-uselessness-of-iq-tests/

If the articles themselves don't include links to the studies, look them up yourself. EarlWhitehall (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It's quite shocking when someone says that the construct validity of a test "irrelevant" in this case. It's even more shocking because the result on this particular test was the only reason that made Langan famous.

How can it he irrelevant, as the Mega Test IS NOT an IQ tests, therefore unable to give such score, even if it was possible? ZenMechanics (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree , none of the magazines and journals are reliable to post about IQ because it is simply not a matter of simple opinion. I agree with Zen, all the sources point to

1- the mega test, which isn’t a verified standardized test, and has been criticized by qualified psychometricians as Zen has already posted evidence to.

Btw, Langan’s first attempt at this test was 42 out of 48, which corresponds In Ro. Hoeflin’s schema to a score in the 170s. Langan took the test a second time under the pseudonym Eric Hart and got 47, this is the score that the media has picked up on.

But in any case the test is not a real standardized test as Zen has posted.

And 2- http://web.archive.org/web/20030811145631/http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html ABCs 20/20 with a psychologist Dr Bob Novelly. Novelly claims that Langan scored in the 190s-200s range and that he was the highest he ever measures in 25 years. Problem? Bob Novelly is not a psychometrician, its not his expertise to begin with. https://healthprovidersdata.com/hipaa/codes/NPI-1861609083-dr-robert-a-novelly-phd , this shows his expertise to be in clinical psychology, particularly mental and behavioral health, with a special focus on psychopathology. No mention of psychometrics or IQ tests.

On top of that he has multiple disciplinary actions on his psychology license. One which resulted in a probation of 3 years and a penalty of 3000 $, and another which resulted in probation.

To sum up Dr Novelly specialized in clinical psychology, mental/behavioral health and not psychometrics and he has had 2 disciplinary actions taken on his license.

So I’m afraid that neither the Mega test nor Dr Bob Novelly is going to verify Langan’s 190+ IQ.

Thanks for your attention. Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Again: are there reliable, third-party sources that connect concerns over Dr. Novelly's credentials with the accuracy of Langan's IQ test? Or is this just your own synthesis? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Do not remove the cited review by Ben Goertzel

@EarlWhitehall: The review by Ben Goertzel is well-cited. Please do not remove it without a valid reason. Johnnyyiu (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyliu: By all means, include Goertzel's review. But make sure to point out that he not only praised the CTMU, but argued that it failed in its central purpose of proving the existence of a god-like being. EarlWhitehall (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnnyyliu: Never mind. I added it for you. EarlWhitehall (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The Goertzel article is published on Blogger, a blogging platform. He doesn't appear to be an expert on the topic he's writing about, and his blog appears to simply be a personal website (unlike Chu-Carroll's, which was hosted on what was then a significant blog network). How does it meet our standards for self-published source, especially on an article about a living person? Guettarda (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Goertzel has a PhD in mathematics. The CTMU is supposedly a mathematical proof of God. I would say this makes Goertzel more of an expert on the CTMU than Langan himself, who is a college dropout.

According to Misplaced Pages rules: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Because Goertzel is a well-respected academic who has published many mathematics papers (see his résumé here: https://goertzel.org/ben/resume.html), I submit that his blog review of the CTMU merits inclusion. EarlWhitehall (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Simply having a PhD has never been considered adequate, per SPS. You need something that demonstrates that reliable sources, or at least notable ones, consider him an expert on this topic. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guettarda: The topic is mathematics, and Goertzel has taught the subject at graduate level and published numerous mathematics papers. Again, see his résumé. What more do you want? Here are some of the papers published by Goertzel in the field of mathematics:

Goertzel, Ben (1992). Measuring Static Complexity, Int. J. Math. and Math. Sci. 15-1, p.161

Goertzel, Ben (1992). Global Optimization by Multilevel Search, J. of Optimization Theory and Applications 77-2, p. 423

Goertzel, Ben, Harold Bowman and Richard Baker (1993). Dynamics of the Radix Expansion Map, J. Math. and Math. Sci. 17-1, p. 143

Goertzel, Ben (1994). Simulated Annealing on Uncorrelated Fitness Landscapes, Int. J. Math. and Math. Sci. 17-4, p. 791

Goertzel, Ben and Harold Bowman (1996). Walks on Random Digraphs, Applied Mathematics Letters, 9-1, pp. 43-47

Goertzel, Ben (1996). Mobile Activation Bubbles in Kohonen Networks, Applied Mathematics Letters.

Clearly, he is considered an expert in mathematics by the journals publishing his work and the college that hired him to teach their graduate students. EarlWhitehall (talk)

What more do you want? Secondary sources that attest to his expertise on this topic. As I said before, having a PhD, having published in your area of expertise, having taught grad level courses - none of that means your blog posts are good enough to use in a biography article. Guettarda (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears some here want to climb the wiki ladder by competing in the pedantry olympics. Is his university not a source that verifies his expertise? And what is exactly “the topic of expertise” ? Langan’s theory features alot of computation theoretic concepts, Dr Goertzel is an AI expert, what is the controversy here again?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/people/bengoertzel/#30b85fe3f790

This is dr Goertzel on Forbes

https://www.roboglobal.com/insights/sophia-the-robot-ben-goertzel/

This is him on roboglobal, as an AI expert...etc

https://thenextweb.com/author/ben-goertzel-alexey-potapov/

Where his accolades in AI are listed.

With that said , his published work range from AI to mathematics and philosophy.

Needless to say there is no such a thing as “being an expert in Langan’s theory” ? Nigerian chess player (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

These aren't secondary sources, these aren't independent sources, and they do nothing to demonstrate either the notability of Goertzel's opinion on this topic, or the reliability of it as actually being Goertzel's blog. Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry your writing is incomprehensible to me. Nigerian chess player (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I apologise, I made the mistake Wikipedians often make of assuming too much background knowledge. I think you should start by reading Misplaced Pages:No original research, especially the section on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Then read Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, paying special attention to the section on Questionable and self-published sources. The Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, especially the section on self-published sources. After that, take a look at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to get a sense of what sort of sources are considered reliable or not. Finally, and most importantly, read Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, especially the section on self-published sources.

It's really important to read these thoroughly and in context. It's important to understand how the pieces fit together. Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Agreed. I think both User:EarlWhitehall and User:Nigerian chess player should retain from writing in the style of original research. Johnnyyiu (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

no I meant you weren’t even making grammatical or coherent sense.

None of these sources are self published, are you sure you’re in the right discussion page? Nigerian chess player (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for community sanctions at WP:AN

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Christopher Langan and comment there if wanted (not here). Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see a comment space there. Nigerian chess player (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

? I see plenty of people commenting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they figured it out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP and tabloid Journalism.

It is clear that much of the claims this article fall under tabloid journalism, for example Muscle and Fitness magazine or a short TV segment from ABC 20/20 . These are not reliable sources with respect to the enormous claims being made in them, and they should be challenged and scrutinized carefully.

Some of the claims being made here is a verifiable IQ of 190-200, a perfect score on the SATs while sleeping, skipping grades ( while in the same Errol Morris interview Langan claims they kept him there for 12 years!!) and other bizarre claims like dropping out because he knows more than his teachers..etc

All of these claims are self reported and unprovable by any valid journalistic ethics standard.

On the other hand , the claims about his controversial views which journalists have attributed to him, can verifiably be sourced back to the individual himself. Because they are mere opinions rather than positive and sensationalist claims about his life, it should elicit a different treatment.

That’s my take on the whole thing, its one thing to say “ I have an IQ of 200 and can teach my teachers” and its another to give a political opinion about the undesirability of non-white immigrants or subscribing to the white genocide conspiracy theory.

Extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence , as the saying goes a man is entitled to his opinions but not to his facts. Nigerian chess player (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nigerian chess player: There is an important distinction to be made here, which is that these claims are being properly attributed, which allows room for exactly the kind of doubt you have. Nowhere does the article say Langan has an IQ of 200, it says "Langan's IQ has been estimated on ABC's 20/20 to be between 195 and 210". Nowhere does it say he scored perfectly on the SAT despite napping, it says, "He has claimed that he earned a perfect score on the SAT (pre-1995 scale) despite taking a nap during the test". Nowhere does it say he was smarter than his teachers, it says "Faced with severe financial and transportation problems, however, and believing that he could teach his professors more than they could teach him, he dropped out".

I'm not sure I'm following your remarks relating to the controversial views—how would you like to see these claims be treated in the article? Do you have a suggested wording? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The article has been re-edited again btw, have you reviewed these changes? Nigerian chess player (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The IQ score claim is not written as “claimed IQ score” but as a matter of fact. So is the skipping grades claim.

The rest I’m inclined to agree, but the article has been messed with already, by Langan sock accounts I persume. Nigerian chess player (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If you have an edit that you would like to make, open a section and discuss. If you have a complaint about users, this is not the place (see Nil's comments). Regarding adding "claims" to everything, remember, Misplaced Pages relies on what it considers to be RS and the entire encyclopedia is written that way. To put claim in front of everything would be a cumbersome task and make the encyclopedia look silly. I suggest you complain about the rules on a more appropriate page. ~ DrL (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Third Party Source for Removed Paragraph on QMM paper

This is a third-party source verifying the publication of "An Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics (QMM)": https://usiassociation.org/2020/01/13/usia-executive-vice-president-christopher-langan/

It is a third party website situated in South Korea and we have no access to it. I see other bios that simply link to papers on journal sites (e.g., Cosmos & History) so this third party site is a bonus. I have more if you need but I don't want to raise the bar over what is typically required in BLPs. This should be sufficient. Thanks in advance for replacing the paragraph. ~ DrL (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That isn't an independent source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Tgeorgescu has already said the source isn't independent, but I wanted to expand a little bit to address two potential misconceptions I'm seeing in your comment. Firstly, you say "we have no access to it", I think to try to point to it being independent. However, if you look at the policy you'll see that independent does not only mean "not published by the article subject" (although that is also true), but also not published by closely-affiliated groups. In this case, because the Langan is the Executive Vice President of the USIA, publication from them relating to him are not independent.

Secondly, you mention "I see other bios that simply link to papers on journal sites". I have no doubt you have. However, we have a concept on Misplaced Pages usually referred to as "other stuff exists". In a nutshell, just because you've seen something done on another Misplaced Pages article does not necessarily mean it's best practice (or even necessarily in compliance with policy). As for "raising the bar", why wouldn't you want this article to be properly sourced even if the "bar" for other articles you've seen is low? If the sourcing is out there, it would be valuable to know about it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Is Quora better? https://www.quora.com/Could-someone-with-an-understanding-of-quantum-mechanics-critique-this-paper-written-by-Christopher-Langan-the-self-professed-smartest-man-in-the-world?fbclid=IwAR2JN--pmhluDhLv4IRqLqcCkaUIXv2w9KkAsdoiB0Nq90fgW21kpxqec-8

Sorry for the long url. It provides the link to Cosmos & History and contains an independent review on a reliable third-party site. Maybe we can use it present a more balanced view of Mr. Langan's work? ~ DrL (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: No, Quora is not usable, as it is user-generated content and so not considered to be reliable. What we need is something like a newspaper or magazine article mentioning that Langan published the C&H paper. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:PC Request

I respectfully request that this BLP be protected under Misplaced Pages Pending Changes. It's been established that numerous SPA with a prior history with Mr. Langan have been attacking his bio for the past week. In matters concerning BLPs, Misplaced Pages Policy is to err on the side of caution. It would make sense to further protect the article until things settle down (and before certain users bans expire). Thanks in advance for your consideration. ~ DrL (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is currently under discussion at the open thread on the administrator's noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard#Christopher Langan. You may wish to add this comment there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - I will. I saw that but wasn't sure I could post there. ~ DrL (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep! Despite the name, non-administrators are welcome to post there to weigh in on discussions and request administrator attention. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in this sentence violate NPOV and OR

I suggest the following defamatory sentence be edited from this:

"In 2018, Langan wrote an obituary on Facebook for Koko the gorilla, in which he argued that the Western world should be admitting gorillas as immigrants instead of Somalis, claiming that gorillas are more intelligent."

To this: "In 2018, Langan wrote a satirical obituary on Facebook for Koko the gorilla, in which he argued that the Western world should be admitting gorillas as immigrants instead of Somalis. "

My rationale is that it is clearly satirical (a la Swift proposing eating children during a food shortage) and in neither article does it state that Langan asserted that gorillas are more intelligent than Somalians. Because this information is not asserted in either article, it violates WP:OR and should be immediately revised while under discussion per BLP and NPOV.

I would appreciate an admin or editor effecting this reasonable request. Thanks in advance. ~ DrL (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Agreed. Further interpretations extended from its literal meaning would violate WP:OR Johnnyyiu (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have re-added the part that Langan wrote that gorillas should be accepted as immigrants instead of Somalis. As it was written by Johnnyyiu it sounded like the controversial view was that Langan thought gorillas should be citizens of the US. This should hopefully be non-controversial, as it was included in DrL's suggested wording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you. I think the edit is very reasonable. Johnnyyiu (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in this sentence citing Baffler violates NPOV and OR

As it currently reads:

"Langan's views have been described as racist and antisemitic by journalist Justin Ward in The Baffler."

At no point in the article does Ward state this. This is actually what the article presents:

"In an article appearing in the Baffler, the writer describes some of Langan's posting as racist and accused him of using veiled antisemitism in some of his other posts."

The former violates NPOV and OR. The later is much more in line with the handling of such material per WP:BLP. The name of the non notable author was removed because he is not notable at all. Baffler is the RS, not him.

I respectfully request this edit in the spirit of WP:BLP and to place it more in line with policy. ~ DrL (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No reference to support claim that Langan "supports" conspiracy theories in the Forward article that is cited.

This unsupported sentence should be removed immediately as that is not at all what the article says:

"Langan's support of conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement and the white genocide conspiracy theory, and his opposition to miscegenation have contributed to him amassing a following among members of the alt-right."

And frankly, of what relevance is the fact that he has alt-right followers? He's not a politician and has never belonged to any alt-right groups.

I appreciate the pending removal of this unsourced sentence. ~ DrL (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrL: Agreed, there are little relevance. In fact, I also notice some members of Langan's Facebook group are clearly left-leaning, and I don't see them being mentioned here. So yes, the sentence should be removed in any case. Johnnyyiu (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrL and Johnnyyiu: Langan's alt-right followers are described by two separate reliable sources. That appears to be the focus of recent coverage of Langan (as opposed to coverage of his IQ, which was the topic of the coverage from the late 90s/early 2000s).

Furthermore, the sentence about conspiracy theories, etc. is sourced to The Baffler: One of Langan’s more fantastical claims is that he can prove the existence of God mathematically. 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. In the same post, Langan transitions seamlessly into a white genocide conspiracy theory, arguing that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq set the stage for Obama to import “fake ‘refugees’” to replace America’s white population. Posts like this one have made Langan something of a cult hero among the alt-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessarily biased phrasing

This article contains some sentences that are unnecessarily biased against Chris Langan, and which I think should be changed to reflect their speculative nature.

1. "However, Goertzel pointed out that "most of this has been said before in various ways and context" and argued that the CTMU fails in its attempt to prove the existence of God"

The suggestion that the CTMU is merely a repackaging of old ideas is not an established fact, but merely one man's opinion. The phrase "he pointed out that" makes it sound like he is making an objective observation. This sentence should be edited to read:

"However, Goertzel cautioned that "most of this has been said before in various ways and context" and argued that the CTMU fails in its attempt to prove the existence of God"

2. "Chu-Carroll criticized Langan for his poor understanding of set theory, as well as his excessive use of ill-defined neologisms."

The phrasing of this sentence makes it sound like Misplaced Pages is siding with Chu-Carroll over Langan in this dispute. Quotes should be added around "poor understanding" and "ill-defined" to maintain objectivity:

"Chu-Carroll criticized Langan for his "poor understanding" of set theory, as well as his excessive use of "ill-defined" neologisms.

3. "In 2018, Langan wrote an obituary on Facebook for Koko the gorilla, in which he argued that the Western world should be admitting gorillas as immigrants instead of Somalis, claiming that gorillas are more intelligent."

The actual text of his posts reveals that he was taking a more nuanced position than that "gorillas are more intelligent". It was at most a suggestion.

Proof from the post:

""

"Obviously, this raises a question: Why is Western Civilization not admitting gorillas? They too are from Africa, and probably have a group mean IQ at least equal to that of Somalia."

I propose that "claiming that gorillas are more intelligent" be changed to "suggesting that gorillas may on average be more intelligent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow1 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I do not know about your first two suggestions but this last one violates WP:OR as Langan never stated that "gorillas on average are more intelligent" than Somalians or any other humans - your speculation violates WP:OR - I suggest that you take a break and review the rules before you make suggestions in the future. TIA ~ DrL (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

An IQ Test vs. Multiple IQ Tests

Suggest "multiple IQ Tests" because the 20/20 piece shows and discusses board certified neuropsychologist Dr. Novelly administering a neuropsychological test battery to Mr. Langan. He certainly wasn't administering the Mega Test, because Langan took that years before. Multiple = more than one. The tests do not have to be named in order to be enumerated. I happen to know that he was given at least 5 tests that day but that would be OR so let's just stick with the facts as presented: multiple. ~ DrL (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

1)Which five tests were that? How were they normed?

2) You've questioned Justin Ward's credentials but I don't see Dr. Novelly's credentials nor notability;

No one is questioning Langan's smartness, what is being questioned is that is highly exaggerated

ZenMechanics (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The names or normings of the tests are not relevant and cannot be introduced per WP:OR that's just the way it is on Misplaced Pages. If you read any of his papers, for example his four in Cosmos & History, you would not feel that his IQ has been exaggerated. I would recommend "Metareligion as the Human Singularity" as being particularly accessible. ~ DrL (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I won't discuss his papers here, as it's not the proper place, but he and you are welcome to discuss this and his last paper at Math or Physics Stack Exchange, I'll be waiting for you inputs. Here the discussion is irrelevant. Regarding multiple IQ tests, yes, claiming a certain IQ score raises questions about norming, sample size, reliability, construct validity, so on and so forth. Remember, the article is being vandalized again in order to a certain narrative but I'm sure Misplaced Pages's admins will take care of it. Thank you. ZenMechanics (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

High-end testing happens to be my field. I have been studying and researching high-end assessment for more than 20 years (starting with the Prometheus Society Membership Committee report, which you obviously haven't read) and was recently awarded a grant to develop such a protocol that could be administered at a distance. Having taught research design at the graduate level for more than 20 years, I know all about reliability, validity, norming, etc. You and EarlWhitehall know little of what you speak. This matters not, however. Misplaced Pages is not the place for OR. They simply report what is said by others. That is the way the site works, for better or worse. ~ DrL (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Your credentials are not in question here, just like my credentials are also not in question. The mysterious "multiple" tests mentioned in the article are. I've heard about High Range IQ tests and, although they're not the object of my interest, I don't see how mentioning any society could validate the claims made in the article.

Best regards.

ZenMechanics (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

ALERT Possible SPA

Please note the contributions of user "ZenMechanic" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/ZenMechanics

This newly created account is only editing the Langan bio in a negative way. Can and admin block this user from editing the page? TIA DrL (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The changes I've made were minor and properly described. They were in no way "negative", disruptive or disrespectful. On the contrary of what I did, Johnnyyiu and MakeaWay vandalized the article again, against what was decided by the Misplaced Pages administrators.

ZenMechanics (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

By your user contributions, it is easy to see that you have only come to Misplaced Pages because you are upset that Langan gets more attention than you feel he deserves. This really speaks to a particular issue that you have with Langan, with whom you have likely had some interaction with in the high IQ community or are otherwise fixated. The admins are on alert so start editing some other articles and then maybe they will believe that you are not simply a Langanphobe. ~ DrL (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing could be farthest from the truth. I don't have anything against Langan and, as I've already explained before, some discussions in Quora, from where Langan was banned, called my attention. Again, I'm discussing the technical aspects of the article, that was vandalized again to serve as a marketing tool that is totally unjustified.

As for my account, I've had to open it, I've used to contribute here a long time ago, sometimes anonymously ("Frank Wilczek", "Samael, the Archangel", "String Theory" and some other articles). Always being respectful and changes made being minor and cogent.

Thank you.

ZenMechanics (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - you may be interested in my comments on high end assessment in the section above. The point is moot, however, because we cannot conduct OR on Misplaced Pages. We just report what the sources say. ~ DrL (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrL:User:ZenMechanics's edits violated Misplaced Pages's regulations (like WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS), while mines are constructive - my intentions are to divert readers away from unreliable sources. I have already shown efforts to clarify with admin User:GorillaWarfare certain rules on WP:IS and I intend to stand by these rules. It is also a responsible editor's obligation to revert anything that are libelous, and do not conform to WP:BLP when editing biographies. @ZenMechanics: If you were what you claimed, that you 'used to contribute here a long time ago', then you would have read the aforementioned rules long ago and would not have made these rookie mistakes - but your editing behavior says otherwise. Also, please make use of indents ;) Johnnyyiu (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless, you've violated what was decided by the adminstration. Again, regarding my older contributions, I've never used "Talk" pages before and, as I've said, only made few minor edits. Also, I'm on a mobile, which makes it difficult to properly use the indentation. I didn't edit the article before, only commented here. Don't drag me down to any issues you may have with others. ZenMechanics (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand now - you have a misunderstanding of exactly what the administrators' did. They stabilized the article at a certain point and semi-protected it. Now we must make a case for each new edit on the talk page before using WP. That is what I am doing. You are not. If you want to make a change, discuss first and make your case. Only then should you be editing. This is the Wikiway with contentious articles. Now you know. ~ DrL (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZenMechanics:Of course it is pointless, because I haven't violated anything. I discussed what should be included with editors before adding them into the article, according to Misplaced Pages:Principles. But for your case - you are unequivocally biased. Your edits here show that you are strongly opinionated against Langan and his work. As for "I didn't edit the article before, only commented here" - Nobody said you edited the article, but what you proposed on the Talk page would have violated WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, had anyone taken your proposal. You have already taken a position that could lead to a topic-wide ban on the grounds of WP:BADFAITH. Everything is recorded on your user page so there is no escape, mind you. Johnnyyiu (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The point is: I don't have anything to hide. Let's see, you're trying to justify your vandalism *against the admins decision* by accusing me of being biased. Nothing of what I've said is inaccurate or can be considered a personal. You're accusing me of being biased while you're being biased yourself. I'll not engage in further discussions with you. ZenMechanics (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@ZenMechanics: Not a problem. But you may want to look at User:DrL's reply - there were nothing 'against the admins decision'. As for your accusation on my 'vandalism', read up on WP:VD. Actually, I will quote it for you - "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". My edits are in accordance with WP:GF, while yours WP:BF. (As shown here in the form of Help:Diff) Johnnyyiu (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, let the admins decide. Have a nice day. ZenMechanics (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think everyone here is aware of the discussion on WP:AN. That is the place to discuss editor behavioral issues or proposals to restrict an editor not here. There is already an ongoing proposal which will prevent everyone here from directly editing the article. At this time, it won't affect MakeAWay, but that could change. May I also remind editors that while it won't directly restrict anyone from editing this talk page, editors here could be prevented from doing so if their editing is bad enough, so editors may want to consider their talk pages comments more carefully in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Will do. ~ DrL (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind reminder, Nil Einne. Johnnyyiu (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Roll this article back to Gorillawarfare last edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.99.198 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, SPA. ~ DrL (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Gorillawarfare has made a good edit just now, thanks. Johnnyyiu (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Jack Langan

I respectfully request that this sentence be revised per WP:NPOV and OR.

"Langan claims he was brutally beaten by his stepfather, Jack Langan, who denied this claim."

I don't remember that denial by Jack appearing any where and request the sentence be changed to:

"Langan described his brutal treatment at the hands of his stepfather." or similar.

The revision is verified by every family member (FWIW) and stated clearly in several RS. The original denial by Jack, who is now deceased, is not.

DrL (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The denial is verified in the 20/20 source: GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, GS, I could not find that in the archive. Still I am wondering if this can be considered a RS when it declares itself that it is not. Note that at the top of the page just under the title, the following caveat is declared: "(This is an unedited, uncorrected transcript.)" Without a RS, it would seem best to remove. PS Thank you also for your advice about the template. I will be patient before employing it. ~ DrL (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Uncorrected, in this usage, means not being amended after the fact. Similarly, it being unedited means it hasn't been cut up. How would these things detract from its reliability? Parabolist (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggest removing the following sentence

"Journalist Justin Ward in The Baffler also argued that it "isn't particularly scientific—or original", saying "it was rather a repackaging of intelligent design"."

Aside from the fact that the CTMU predates "intelligent design", making it difficult to be categorized as a "repackaging", Justin Ward has zero credentials in the field of science or mathematics. He is a self described "activist" having only written a handful of articles on "far-right extremism." I don't see that his opinion should be included. Thoughts on this are welcomed. ~ DrL (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed education articles
• Unknown-importance education articles
• WikiProject Education articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors