Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe and Louis Vuitton: Difference between pages

Revision as of 23:28, 16 July 2006

Revision as of 20:15, 10 June 2007

Line 1:

{{Advert}}

===[[Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe]]===

{{afdnewbiesIncoherent}}

{{cleanup-rewrite}}

{{Infobox Company

AfD submitted by [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] with comment "Added an article, will discuss it right away." This is a procedural nomination - <s>my own opinion is '''Neutral'''</s>. See also the article's [[Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe|Talk page]]. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

| company_name = Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy.PA (LVMH)

| company_logo = [[Image:Louis Vuitton Logo.PNG|250px]]

| company_type = Public

| foundation = [[1854]]

| ___location = [[Paris]], [[France]]

| key_people = [[Bernard Arnault]], [[Marc Jacobs]], [[Antoine Bernheim]], [[Ed Brennan]]

| industry = Luxury goods ([[leather]] goods, [[prêt-à-porter]])

| subsidiary = [[LVMH]]

| parent = [[LVMH|Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton]] (LVMH)

| products =

| revenue =

| num_employees =

| homepage = http://www.louisvuitton.com

}}

[[Image:Louis-Vuitton-Paris.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Louis-Vuitton situated on the famous [[Champs-Elysées]], Paris]]

''Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy LVMH.PA'' more commonly known simply as Louis Vuitton, is a [[luxury]] [[France|French]] fashion and leather goods brand and company headquartered in [[Paris, France]].

The company is named after its founder Louis Vuitton ([[August 4]][[1821]]-[[February 27]][[1892]]), who designed and manufactured luggage, as a [[Malletier]] during the second half of the nineteenth century. Vuitton was born in [[Jura (département)|Jura]], [[France]] (now part of the commune of

:This theory is not a generally recognised notable scientific theory. It doesn't meet Wikipedia policy for notability for scientific theories, not having been published in a proper scientific journal.

[[Lavans-sur-Valouse]]), but moved to Paris in 1835. The trip from his home town to Paris was over 400 kilometers long, and he traveled by foot. On his way there he picked up a series of odd jobs to pay for his journey. Two years later, at the age of 16, he apprenticed for the luggage manufacturer Monsieur Marechal. In 1854 he founded the company, which is now owned by [[LVMH]], a French [[holding company]] helmed by [[Bernard Arnault]].<ref>[http://stocks.us.reuters.com/stocks/fullDescription.asp?symbol=LVMH.PA Reuters Description of LVMH]</ref>

:Moreover, the way it is written is almost completely unintelligible, with too much jargon that is unique to the theory the article is meant to explain.

:See the article's talk page for the concerns that have been raised and the manner in which they have been handled. Edits attempting to "fix" it are simply reverted by ardent proponents of the theory.

One hundred and fifty years after its eponymous founder began creating and selling trunks in [[Paris, France|Paris]], Louis Vuitton's signature leather goods are considered a [[status symbol]] around the globe and are highly regarded in the [[fashion]] world. The company's iconic Monogram Canvas design can be considered the first designer label in contemporary history; the design was created in 1896 by Vuitton's son Georges and was intended to prevent counterfeiting. Ironically, Louis Vuitton has become the most counterfeited [[brand]] in fashion history, with just over 1% of all items branded with the Vuitton logo ''not'' [[counterfeit]].<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/25/business/google.php European trademarks vs. Google]</ref>

:So far as I am aware, this is not the first time either that this article has come up for deletion. However, I do believe that the proponents should be given the opportunity to respond. So over to the community!

*'''Update''' I was right, in fact '''this article ''was'' deleted before''', for similar reasons, and was re-introduced with a hyphen in the name so as to bypass Wikipedia policy. See [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive_Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe|this record]] of the process. What happens now? Is this spam, since nothing has changed materially since the last deletion?--[[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Louis Vuitton company has carefully cultivated a celebrity following and has used famous models and actresses in its marketing campaigns, most recently [[Uma Thurman]] and [[Scarlett Johansson]]. Other models and actresses who have lent their name to the Louis Vuitton line include [[Jennifer Lopez]], [[Chloe Sevigny]], [[Christina Ricci]], [[Gisele Bundchen]], [[Kate Moss]], and [[Naomi Campbell]]. [[Hayden Christensen]] has also appeared as model for the company's luggage and [[prêt-à-porter]] lines. The company commonly uses print ads in [[magazines]] and billboards in [[cosmopolitan]] cities.

::I belive the article becomes a candidate for Speedy Deltion. Best to ask an admin. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 14:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vuitton bags and [[purses]] have a considerable list of [[celebrity]] adherents who are frequently seen in [[tabloid]] and magazine photographs carrying the brand. [[Madonna (entertainer)|Madonna]], [[Beyonce Knowles]], [[Lindsay Lohan]], [[Kimora Lee Simmons]], [[Ayumi Hamasaki]], [[Jessica Simpson]], [[Ashley Tisdale]], [[Paris Hilton]], [[Nicole Richie]], [[Angelina Jolie]], [[Anna Kournikova]], [[Pamela Anderson]], [[Katharine McPhee]], [[Carmen Electra]], [[Mariah Carey]], and [[Victoria Beckham]] are included in this list.

The Vuitton collection has also created a cult-like following among consumers. Owners of the bags and accessories often refer to the products as their “Louis.” This cult following by both celebrities and wealthy consumers has elevated the Vuitton brand to the foremost position in accessory design alongside houses such as [[Gucci]], [[Prada]], [[Fendi]], and [[Hermès]].

:::Where do I find one of those? [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

==History==

::::You just do I suppose... <s>I'll ask one on your behalf</s>.

===Early Days (1854-1892)===

[[1854]] - Vuitton opens his first store in Paris on Rue Neuve des Capucines, founding Louis Vuitton ''Malletier a paris.'' Before his quality trunks, French philosopher, Denis Diderot & Jean Le Rond d'Alembert makes mention of a Malletier and his techniques about 140 years earlier. (1713-1784)<ref>[http://portail.atilf.fr/cgi-bin/getobject_?p.138:109./var/artfla/encyclopedie/textdata/IMAGE/ COFFRETIER - MALLETIER - BAHUTIER]</ref>

Vuitton began by selling flat-topped trunks that were lightweight and airtight. All trunks before this had rounded tops for water to run off and thus could not be stacked, it was Vuitton's gray Trianon canvas flat trunk that allowed the ability to stack for ease with voyages.

::::Since there isn't anyone who remember the original, we can't be sure it is a direct recreation under the Speedy Deletion criterion. However, it is likey that this will count against it in the current AfD. Doesn't seem worth the effort basicaly as the article will probably get deleted anyway. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 14:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1860]] - Vuitton opens a larger factory in [[Asnières-sur-Seine]] to accommodate increased demand.

::'''Comment.''' The deleted article was insufficiently referenced and contained only a few paragraphs, none of which were reproduced in the new article. Since the articles were not "substantially identical", the [[Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Criteria|recreation of deleted material]] criterion does not apply. The current title includes a hyphen because the name of the theory includes a hyphen; see [http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory]. The deleted title was incorrect. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1867]] - Vuitton enters the Universal Exhibition at the World's Fair in Paris, winning the bronze medal.

:P.S. I'm not sure what the etiquette/norm is here but obviously my own view should be obvious: '''Delete''' --[[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

::It's generally advisable to make it explicit in an AfD that's likely to contain a lot of text, as this one already does. :) [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:::*'''NB'''Anyone reading slurs on my personal character here is asked to please read the discussion on the talk page, which should help put things in a bit more perspective.--[[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:::*'''Comment''' My original approach ''was'' to try to edit the article. However, Asmodeus, DrL and others simply reverted absolutely every attempt to try to make it more legible and balanced, even referenced concerns, as being "vandalism". As they made the article completely uneditable, and even removed tags saying that there was a dispute about quality/neutrality/factual accuracy (when it was empirically obvious there ''was'' a dispute like that), this seemed the next logical move: that article is being used as a soapbox. In my sandbox is an alternative, more balanced article following the usual layout for these "disputed theories": if you have suggestions, do add them to my talk page. --[[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:::*Bergenwulf, there are a lot of people interested in the CTMU. Take false and unsubstantiated accusations (e.g., "socks") to the discussion page (or, more appropriately, to the trash). Your attempts to "edit" the article began with the insertion of links to "pseudoscience" and "crank" and escalated to attempts to equate the CTMU with "Creationism". When the other editors wanted you to slow down and discuss changes, you balked (after all that might have taken hours as opposed to seconds) and threatened to call in the moderators. When the moderators didn't respond to your editing emergency quickly enough and you were thwarted in your attempts to insert your anti-Creationist platform (into an article that has nothing to do with Creationism), you threatened to nominate the page for deletion. Interestingly, you started out by saying the article belonged in Wikipedia, just needed a few changes (according to you). So clearly you have used this Wikipedia procedure in a totally coercive manner and because you were unsuccessful with regard to both the speed and content of your anticipated wholesale changes, we now have this page and this debate. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 11:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Anyone who wishes to see the sordid details of this petty little saga is more than welcome to review the history, and the talk pages, of the CTMU, and count how many times I mentioned "creationism" (none). I did go in heavy-handed at first, but I rapidly toned it down. But, as usual, we aren't debating the theory, we are debating the article. My major complaint is that "disputed" tags were just removed, on the grounds that they were "vandalism", and not an empirically true description of a state of affairs. This is soapboxing, and an attempt to take out the fly swatter to squelch critics (a metaphor Langan once used about those who disagree with the CTMU). Why not address the article itself, DrL, instead of me? Do you deny that it is in need of revision? Moreover, while at first I thought the article did merit inclusion, my subsequent reading of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, etc., as well as a consideration of the popular press attention (focusing on Langan, not his "theory") has convinced me otherwise.'''BTW''': should this and DrL's comment not be moved to the talk page as well? I'll leave that to someone more experience than I.--[[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1872]] - Vuitton creates a red and beige striped canvas, which he uses to line the interior of his trunks.

'''WARNING REGARDING THE FOLLOWING TABLE'''

[[1876]] - Vuitton creates the [[wardrobe trunk]], which contains a rail and small drawers for storing clothing.

The following table has been identified as a confused or dishonest attempt to mislead the Wikipedia community. The problems with it are as follows:

[[1880]] - Vuitton's son Georges is married and (on the same day) is given control of the business. Georges is credited with developing the unique five-number combination lock found on Vuitton trunks.

1. Langan is not "discussing" the CTMU in Wikipedia. Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, and is notable in his own right. It is those who wish to dispute the CTMU, or declare it non-notable, who must show their credentials and prove their authority.

[[1883]] - Georges' son Gaston-Louis is born.

2. Again, Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, not merely the owner of a website which talks about the CTMU or which contains archived materials regarding it. This is a very important distinction which the table fails to reflect.

[[1885]] - The first Louis Vuitton store in London opens.

3. Langan did not write the Wikipedia article on the CTMU. Langan is the AUTHOR of the CTMU, the notable, widely-publicized theory ABOUT which the article was written.

[[1888]] - The Damier Canvas pattern is created by Louis Vuitton in collaboration with Georges, and bears a logo that reads "marque L. Vuitton déposée," which translates to "mark L. Vuitton deposited" or, roughly, "L. Vuitton trademark".

In short, the table below is irrelevant or worse, misrepresenting the situation at hand and encouraging the misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines.

[[1889]] - Vuitton wins the gold medal at the World's Fair in Paris.

Maybe that's why nobody signed off on it. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1892]] - Vuitton dies; the Vuitton company begins selling handbags.

'''''Delete''''' -->

{| td bgcolor="#FFFFCC" border="1" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4"

|-

| <b>CTMU Article</b>

| <b>Wikipedia guidance</b>

|-

| <i>Langan is of limited means and largely self-taught.</i>

| <b>Beware false authority</b><br>Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree.<br>Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.

|-

| <i>(Langan's) first paper on the theory, "The Resolution of Newcomb's Paradox", appeared in the December 1989–January 1990 issue of Noesis, the journal of the Noetic Society (now the Mega Society)"</i><br>(Langan was editor of the Noetic Society when the cited paper was published in Noesis [http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html#mega].)<br><br>Cites Langan's self-published works on [http://www.megafoundation.org his website].

| <b>The first question to ask yourself is,</b><br>"What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?"<br><br>Anyone can post anything on the web.

|-

| Cites <i>Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design</i> (PCID)<br><br>Cites the Christopher Langan biography at ISCID.<br><font color="blue">ISCID and PCID, parts of the same oganization, of which [[http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php Langan is a "fellow"], have [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISCID an obvious agenda].</font>

| <b>Also ask yourself:</b><br>Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?<br><br>Check multiple sources. Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source.

|}

===Golden Age of Louis Vuitton (1893-1936)===

{{unsigned|207.58.130.228}}

[[1893]] - Georges displays Vuitton products at the World's Fair in [[Chicago]] and begins his campaign to make the company into a worldwide corporation.

[[1894]] - Georges publishes his book ''Le Voyage''.

*<s>'''Still Neutral'''</s>. As philosophy, it's just warmed-over [[Neoplatonism]] that ignores the past 2000 years of metaphysical thought, but our duty as editors is not to assess it as philosophy, but as an encyclopaedia article. It _does_ assert the notability of the subject adequately, although more than one link to the claimed plethora of media articles and interviews would help. It's rather too POV at the moment, but deletion is not a solution to that problem - see [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orcadian|Orcadian]] for a similar example. <s>The article needs a lot of work by a neutral editor, but I think it's entitled to stay.</s> [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:::'''Response''' If you actually think that the CTMU is "nothing but warmed over Neoplatonism", Tevildo, then you obviously have a few holes in your knowledge of philosophy. Similarly, if you think that the CTMU ignores 2000 years of progress in metaphysics, then you should have concentrated a bit more when reading Langan's paper(s). As you probably know, you couldn't even begin to coherently justify either of these assertions. By making this kind of sweeping, unwarranted statement here and now, you're merely encouraging others to vote down an article whose only crime is that it takes a bit of honest effort to understand. By the way, the disputed article contained plenty of links confirming notability and verifiability; they've simply been disputed and tampered with by those who don't appreciate their content. ABC News, Popular Science...come on, give us a break. Either those are reputable sources, or Wikipedia is really just an appendage of academia which limits its sources to a small set of journals under direct academic control. I don't think that's the case, and if you reflect on it for a moment, I think you'll have to agree with me. (If I'm wrong, please quote the Wikipedia policy statement that effects this limitation - I've looked hard and can't find it.) [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:::'''Comment''' I will concede that no student of philosophy can put together an argument against the ''ad lapidem'', so will decline your implied offer. This AfD is too long anyway. I would still urge, however, everyone who reads it to take into account all the opinions expressed, and make their judgement accordingly. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:::'''Response''' I think one of the biggest problems with CTMU is that the bombastic and needlessly sesquipedalian language in which it's worded does lend credence to the theory. However, it seems most of the criticism of the theory arises from this single complaint, which says nothing of the theory's validity. Regardless, it has garnered considerable media attention and is certainly noteworthy in that respect. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article provides an overview of the theory which is free of the needlessly sesquipedalian language, and in that respect I also find the article useful. Those who wish to criticize the theory should create a "Criticism" section, not simply request to delete the article. [[User:Tarcieri|Tarcieri]] 07:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' as gibberish. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and the few fragments that seemed coherent enough to read and not statements singing the praise of the inventor were incorrect ("all meaningful theories conform to 2-valued logic" overlooks [[fuzzy logic]], "the axioms and theorems of 2-valued logic are tautological" overlooks [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]] if I understand correctly). If the popular press links are valid, they also should be linked from the relevant press sites in any rewrite, not the invetor's mirror. --[[User:Christopher Thomas|Christopher Thomas]] 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', non-notable sophistical gibberish. Badly written to boot. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep - Do Not Delete''' - The Wikipedia article entitled "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU) is subject to ongoing vandalism, largely by one highly dedicated person (and now by others).

[[1896]] - Georges designs the Monogram Canvas. Its graphic symbols, including quatrefoils and flowers, are based on the trend of using Japanese and Oriental designs in the late [[Victorian era]]. This can be considered the first contemporary designer logo, as Georges is driven to create the pattern to prevent counterfeiting, which has already begun. The same year, Georges sails to the [[United States]], where he tours various cities such as [[New York City|New York]], [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania|Philadelphia]], and [[Chicago]]. He sells Vuitton products during the visit.

:Christopher Langan and his theory, the CTMU, have been the recipients of extensive media coverage. Sources include ABC News, Esquire Magazine, Popular Science, and other journalistic periodicals and television documentaries which seriously investigate and employ fact-checkers regarding the material they cover. Both Langan and the CTMU were featured in virtually every instance. The CTMU is a complex, and in my opinion valid, theory. While some laymen complain that they cannot understand the CTMU, there is no reason to believe that this does not owe at least in part to their own negative attitudes and low level of expertise in its subject matter (logic and metaphysics, with broad implications regarding science in general). While there is no expert consensus on the CTMU, neither has it been found wanting. The theory has been out there for a number of years and is therefore eligible for peer review; if this has thus far been inadequate, that is certainly not the fault of the theory or its author, and does not detract from the theory itself.

[[1899]] - Georges exhibits Vuitton products at the maiden [[Paris Auto Show]].

:The editor calling himself "Byrgenwulf" appears to be negatively obsessed with Christopher Langan and the CTMU. What began as an offhand attempt to tar the CTMU and its author with misdirected, unverifiable and decidedly non-neutral epithets like "pseudoscience" and "crank" has now seemingly escalated into a full-time vendetta, to the extent that one wonders where Byrgenwulf finds the time to eat and sleep. He appears to have no understanding of Wikipedia policy; even when various aspects of this policy are patiently explained to him, he attempts to restore past edits, or rewordings thereof, which have already been found in violation.

[[1900]] - Georges Vuitton is given the honor of setting up the ''Travel Items and Leather Goods'' section of the 1900 [[World's Fair]] in Paris.

:Although Byrgenwulf has repeatedly claimed that he could effortlessly rip the CTMU to shreds were he so-inclined, he has been caught red-handed in a number of critical errors regarding that theory; and although he claims to have thoroughly read Langan's paper in PCID, he has boldly denied that it contains things which it can be plainly seen to contain (sometimes after falsely stating that he has carefully searched for them). Unfortunately, he appears immune to the sort of embarrassment that anyone else would feel under similar circumstances, merely redoubling his destructive efforts in retaliation. In short, he seems to have no idea what the CTMU is, what it does, how it does it, or for that matter why it doesn't do it (if that is indeed the case), and perhaps for these very reasons, appears hell-bent on sabotaging its Wikipedia entry.

[[1901]] - The Louis Vuitton Company introduces the ''Steamer Bag'', a smaller piece of luggage designed to be kept inside Vuitton luggage trunks.

:As I understand it, Wikipedia does not consider this to be acceptable behavior for its contributors. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do know that I have better things to do than ride this article 24/7 to keep Byrgenwulf from corrupting it, and to reverse the falsehoods, innuendos, and accusations he nevertheless manages to plant in it against Wikipedia policy. It seems to me that if the Wikipedia moderators were to read this discussion and explore the history of edits, they would quickly verify the truth of everything I've just written, and deal with Byrgenwulf and his accomplices as they deserve. But meanwhile, in apparent denial of this very possibility, Byrgenwulf persists.

[[1904]] - Georges chairs the jury for the [[Louisiana Purchase Exposition|St. Louis World's Fair]]. The same year, the Louis Vuitton company introduces a new line of trunks that have special compartments for items such as perfumes, clothing, and other goods.

:Needless to say, the personal misgivings and bad feelings of Byrgenwulf et al are not enough to justify repetitive attacks against an accurate, legitimate, and informative Wikipedia entry. And now, to make matters worse, after Byrgenwulf has tallied a string of edits the likes of which Wikipedia has seldom seen, we have an additional flurry of negative edits, dispute tags, and so on, claiming that, for example, ABC News - which repeatedly ran a 20-minute segment on Langan and his theory - is an "unverifiable source". Such protestations are utterly ridiculous. It seems that a tiny handful of critics (or sockpuppets, or fellow travelers trying to strike a blow for their pet philosophy, or whomever) have taken it upon themselves to change history, declare all of Langan's media coverage one big "unreliable source", pretend that the CTMU was not mentioned in those articles and television segments, and so on ad nauseam.

[[1906]] - Georges' son Gaston-Louis marries Renee Versille, and the company introduces trunks for automobiles.

:This article was carefully reviewed for verifiability and NPOV well prior to Byrgenwulf's initial incursion. It was one of the best sources for a lucid overall introduction to a unique and arguably very promising theory which has nothing whatsoever to do with Creationism or "Intelligent Design Creationism" but merely had the misfortune to be published in an ID-sympathetic journal. In fact, as its author states, the theory was intended to give both sides of the evolution debate a common framework for ultimate reconciliation, something which is very badly, and very obviously, needed by all concerned.

[[1914]] - The Louis Vuitton Building opens on the [[Champs-Elysees]]. This is the largest travel-goods store in the world at the time. Stores also open in [[New York City|New York]], [[Bombay]], [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]], [[London]], [[Alexandria]], and [[Buenos Aires]] as [[World War I]] begins.

:I therefore vote for NON-deletion, and request that the moderators do something about the situation ... preferably sooner rather than later. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

::'''Comment''' [[User:DrL|DrL]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=DrL has only edited] the CTMU article, its talk page, this AfD, the article on [[Christopher Michael Langan|the CTMU's inventor]] and a couple pages directly related to him. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Please note that I did not edit the CTMU page prior to Byrgenwulf's initial vandalism. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 11:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom. [[WP:SOAP]] seems to apply here, apparently. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1924]] - The company introduces its iconic ''Keepall'' bag, a forerunner of the duffel bag. The bag is still made by the company today in four sizes; the smallest retails for [[US$]]855.

*'''Keep - Do Not Delete''' - Do not delete this page, DrL I think you are by and large correct however if you carfully read the paper by Langan he expressly includes intellegent design as an interesting implication of his theory and Langan is a fellow of an intellegent design movement.--[[User:IQ Prophet|IQ Prophet]] 16:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment''' user has only edited this article, its talk page and this AfD. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' as non-notable theory, confusing as heck. --[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]][[User:Merovingian|rovingian]] ([[User talk:Merovingian|T]], [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|C]], [[Special:Emailuser/Merovingian|@]]) 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1929]] - The company celebrates its seventy-fifth anniversary and expands its offering of custom-made items. It creates a toiletry case specially for opera singer [[Marthe Chenal]], which can hold bottles, brushes, mirrors, powder boxes, and other toiletries.

*'''Delete''', non-notable confusing fringe science gibberish. And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe&oldid=63170868 before the nominator started editing it], incidentally, it already was gibberish. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1931]] - Louis Vuitton introduces exotic bags, including handbags made from crocodile skin and elephant hide, and presents them at the Colonial Exhibition.

*'''Keep - DO NOT DELETE''' The CTMU is a valuable intellectual contribution which has been erroneously, and in my opinion foolishly, targeted for attack on philosophical and opinionative grounds. It's not easy to understand without the proper background, but that means absolutely nothing, since the same can be said of many of the other legitimate theories covered in Wikipedia. For anyone who knows the relevant technical fields, it displays adequate conceptual integrity - probably far more than the vast majority of what one encounters in the paradox-ridden field of analytic philosophy and the modern philosophy of science - and is unquestionably unique in both form and application. On the other hand, if you can't understand it, then why not do everybody a favor and leave it up for those who can? [By the way, I think it's important that voters know that this vote has not been presented by a "professional philosopher of physics", as Byrgenwulf claims to be on the discussion page. On searching the web, I got a couple of hits on "byrgenwulf". One of them leads to a registered contributor on an anti-ID website. In his personal bio, this person describes himself as a 22-year-old college student from South Africa. Now, while I grant that this may not be the Byrgenwulf that is currently wreaking havoc with the CTMU entry, it is highly probable on orthographic grounds alone (not to mention that he lists "the philosophy of physics" among his interests). This tells me that Byrgenwulf is probably not a professional philosopher of physics, as he claims to be, but just another college kid, perhaps a first-year grad student, drunk on the seemingly boundless knowledge that he has greedily guzzled from the brimming well of academe, no doubt including an introductory course on modern philosophy which devoted almost an entire class period to Godel, whose writings Byrgenwulf has egregiously misapplied to the CTMU (see discussion page), thus displaying that he understands precisely nothing about it. Personally, I find this perfectly consistent with his puerile behavior and the kindergarten level of his criticism. So much for the motivation behind this up/down vote.] [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment'''. Please refrain from personal attacks - [[WP:NPA]] refers. Whatever Byrgenwulf's professional qualifications may be, his views appear to be shared by most of the other contributors to this AfD to date. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:::'''Comment'''[[User:Asmodeus]] has likewise only edited the CTMU article and articles relating to its inventor and his [[Mega Society|high IQ society]].--[[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1932]] - Louis Vuitton introduces the ''Noé'' bag. This bag was originally made for champagne vinters to transport bottles, and is currently sold as a handbag. Prices for this bag now begin at [[US$]]585.

* '''Delete''' hand-wavy claptrap of the first order. -- [[User:Gareth Owen|GWO]]

[[1933]] - The Louis Vuitton ''Speedy'' bag is introduced. It is still manufactured today.

*'''Keep - Do Not Delete''' - Its controversial nature is already noted in the article itself, and the text of the article reinforces this notice through the use of Langan's name throughout it. I don't know why the author's carefulness with regard to highlighting the controversial status of the CTMU through the body of the article itself should be held up as a strike against both it and him. What has not been noted in the argument over this article is whether or not ''Progress In Information, Complexity And Design'' is a peer reviewed journal, regardless of what institute publishes it. If McDonald's, for whatever reason, began publishing a peer-reviewed journal of mathematics, its mathematical contents would still be peer-reviewed. I don't know why complaints which amount to a request for recategorization have to take the form of a motion for deletion. As far as the jargon issue is concerned, the external links should supply the needed information. I would, however, advise that the link to the "20/20" interview be removed, as its text is somewhat inconsistent with the content of the CTMU itself. --[[User:Danielmryan|Danielmryan]] 18:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment''' User's only edit. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

***'''Response''' Thanks for the note. I included that advice as a constructive suggestion which, I hope, would add to comprehension of the article in dispute. (I'll leave the next iteration of the chorusing to [[User:Joywords|Joywords]].) -- [[User:Danielmryan|Danielmryan]] 19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

****How does the theory explain sockpuppets? [[User:JChap2007|JChap]] [[User talk:JChap2007|(Talk)]] 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*To quote [[Alan Sokal]], "As a physicist, I am not impressed." '''Delete''' as soapbox-standing, probable OR and vanity. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*Clearly the piece is openly a hypothesis and intelligent people can read and make up their own mind about its relevance or cogency. Enough people find it cogent and relevant enough to warrant its insertion. I vote not to delete it and to let time be the ultimate vote, i.e. the amount of attention it actually gets from serious people about the themes presented in his work.joywords --[[User:Joywords|Joywords]] 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment''' User's only edit. (Seems to be a bit of a "repeat chorus" situation today, doesn't it?) [[User:Anville|Anville]] 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1936]] - The golden age of Louis Vuitton ends as Georges Vuitton passes away. Estimates credit Georges Vuitton with over 700 new Vuitton designs. Gaston-Louis Vuitton assumes control of the company. The secretary trunk is introduced for Leopold Stokowski, a conductor.

*'''Strong Delete''' NN pseudoscientific theory, of little use to the reader of an encyclopedia. The appropriate place for this proposal and resulting discourse is in the scientific literature or the pseudoscientific literature as the case may be. The press coverage alone does not make it ntoable.--[[User:Nick Y.|Nick Y.]] 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

===Modern Age of Louis Vuitton (1937-1996)===

:'''Comment.''' The proposed [[Wikipedia:Fringe_theories|notability criterion]] for non-mainstream theories requires reference in only one mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". The CTMU easily passes, having appeared in ''Popular Science'' [http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Press/PopularScience/PopSciArt.pdf] (circulation of 1.45 million subscribers; readership of more than 7 million), ''Newsday'' (circulation in the hundreds of thousands), ''The Times'' (hundreds of thousands of copies sold daily), on ''20/20'' [http://web.archive.org/web/20000818083819/http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html] (averages millions of viewers per week), and elsewhere. It is this level of high-profile exposure which makes the CTMU notable, and which makes an encyclopedia article of use to the many readers introduced to the theory through these sources. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1959]] - The company revamps its signature Monogram Canvas to make it more supple, allowing it to be used for purses, bags, and wallets.

[[1963]] - [[Audrey Hepburn]] is seen carrying the bag in the film [[Charade]].

*'''Delete'''. Lacks verifiability. There are only two types of "references" in this article: (1) those pointing to Langan-owned (megafoundation, CTMU) sites, Langan-edited/archived (Noesis) sites, or Langan-is-a-"fellow"-of-an-organization-who,-like-Langan,-has-a-creationist-agenda (ISCID/PCID) sites; and (2) pop-culture periodicals that focus on a weight lifter with a big brain, and not his CTMU "theory." I don't believe Wikipedia policy counts [[The Sunday Telegraph]], [[20/20]], [[Muscle & Fitness]], or even [[Popular Science]] as proper fora for cosmologist '''peer reviews'''. --[[User:Blaine Steinert|Blaine Steinert]] 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1966]] - The company launches the classic ''Papillon'', a cylindrical bag that is said to resemble a butterfly .

:'''Comment.''' To present the CTMU as correct, we would indeed need references of other than these two types. The question at hand, though, is not whether we are to ''assert'' the theory, but whether we are to ''describe'' it. To verifiably and justifiably describe the CTMU here, we need references to (1) its claims, and (2) its notability. The references in the article satisfy these requirements: Langan's writings provide his claims, and the mainstream media coverage establishes notability. (''Popular Science'' focuses [http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Press/PopularScience/PopSciArt.pdf here] specifically on the CTMU, and other articles describe both Langan and his theory.) [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 22:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

**'''Hogwash.'''<br>Mr. Smith, you stated, ''"The question at hand... is ... whether we are to describe it."'' Only if it is something '''notable,''' which apparently it is not (see big, red letters below). Wikipedia is clear that it is '''not''' an indiscriminate collection of items of information. I might ''describe'' my grandmother's theory of Quasars, and she might have even been featured in ''Bluehair & Fitness Magazine,'' but that hardly makes her ideas Wiki-worthy.

**<font color="#FF0000">'''THE POPSCI ARTICLE SEEMS TO BE A FORGERY'''</font><br>Mr. Smith, you (and the CTMU article) seem to rely heavily on the PopSci article "Wise Guy," by John R. Quain. But something fishy is going on here: The "archived" PopSci piece - ostensibly the best Langan-independent citation (read: the only reference to an outside "scientific" periodical) - is quite different '''''from the [http://web.archive.org/web/20011015064515/http://www.popsci.com/science/01/10/14/brainiac/ actual, archived article].''''' As you know, archived web pages from the [[Wayback Machine]] have been deemed as [http://www.researchtheworld.com/CommentariesVersion6.pdf admissible in court], so I tend to think the Wayback Machine's archived version of the PopSci piece is what PopSci actually printed, and the megafoudnation-version of this PopSci piece has been manipulated.<br>Briefly, the ''real'' "Wise Guy" article makes '''no mention''' of "Robert Seitz, a physicist and former NASA executive," who "admits that he 'doesn't fully understand Langan's theory,'" and who goes on to say Langan is "'perhaps the smartest individual'" he's ever met. Indeed, the ''real'' "Wise Guy" article '''''does not even refer to the CTMU.''''' It does, interestingly, recount Langan's interest in [[The_chicken_or_the_egg]] dilemma. Pretty interesting, eh, [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]]? --[[User:Blaine Steinert|Blaine Steinert]] 18:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

**<font color="#FF0000">'''NOTE: THERE ARE TWO POPSCI ARTICLES THAT APPEARED IN THE SAME ISSUE - ONE IS AN ARTICLE, THE OTHER IS AN INTERVIEW - NEITHER ARE FORGERIES'''</font> Please be more careful. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

::Robert Seitz is on the board of Langan's "high IQ society". So much for NPOV, anyway. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

::'''Comment.''' As DrL says, the ''Popular Science'' coverage consisted of two parts, both archived by the Wayback Machine [http://web.archive.org/web/20011015064515/http://www.popsci.com/science/01/10/14/brainiac/][http://web.archive.org/web/20011015141736/www.popsci.com/science/01/10/14/brainiac/index2.html], both stored on megafoundation.org [http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Press/PopularScience/PopSciInt.pdf][http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Press/PopularScience/PopSciArt.pdf], and both linked from [http://ctmu.org/ ctmu.org]. One part interviews Langan; the other part focuses specifically on his theory. As I documented below, other sources also give prominent, attention-getting placement to the theory. Indeed, the CTMU easily meets the proposed [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|notability guideline]] for non-mainstream theories, which requires only that they be referenced in a mainstream publication, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". Again, the question is not whether the theory is sufficiently correct to be ''asserted'', but whether it is sufficiently notable to be ''described'', factually and neutrally. With circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions, the mainstream media in which the CTMU has appeared establish that notability. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 19:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1978]] - Vuitton opens its first stores in Japan, in [[Tokyo]] and [[Osaka]]. (Sales in Japan would come to account for nearly half of the company's total revenue by the 1980s.)

*'''DEFINITELY DELETE.''' Whether it's been mentioned in PopSci or not is irrevelant to the notion of '''''peer review.''''' Popular Science is not a journal of peer review. It's a magazine geared towards '''popularity.''' This ''"theory"'s'' lack of credibility is underscored by the fact the only "science journal" this person/socks has/have in defense of the ''"theory"'s'' notability is [[Popular Science]]! Even the Wikipedia entry of [[Popular Science]] informs us that the magazine is geared "for the general reader on science and technology subjects." [[User:Luis Hamburgh|Luis Hamburgh]] 09:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1983]] - The company joins with America's Cup to form the [[Louis Vuitton Cup]], a preliminary competition (known as an eliminatory regatta) for the world's most prestigious yacht race.

*'''Delete'''. Apparently notable only among creationist pseudo-intellectuals. Possibly could be merged to [[Creation science]]? But, no, they probably wouldn't want it either. &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

* '''Delete''' as per nom. [[User:Dlyons493|<FONT COLOR="#00FF00">Dl</FONT><FONT COLOR="#44FF00">yo</FONT><FONT COLOR="#99DD11">ns</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DDDD11">493</FONT>]] [[User_talk:Dlyons493|<FONT COLOR="#DDDD11">Ta</FONT><FONT COLOR="#00FF00">lk</FONT>]] 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1984]] - Vuitton expands its presence in Asia by opening its first store in Korea, in Seoul.

* '''Keep.''' The CTMU has received extensive coverage in the mainstream media, including ''Popular Science'' [http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Press/PopularScience/PopSciArt.pdf], ''20/20'' [http://web.archive.org/web/20000818083819/http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html], ''The Times'', ''Newsday'', ''Esquire'', and even ''Muscle & Fitness''! Remember, the question here is not whether the theory is correct&mdash;that's not for Wikipedia to decide&mdash;but whether it is notable. The relevant [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|notability criterion]] is that "non-mainstream theories should be referenced in at least one major mainstream publication", explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines". Since the CTMU has been referenced in many such publications, it is notable and deserves an article: not to assert its claims as truth, but to ''describe'' them accurately and neutrally. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''' on a few issues here. Claiming that the CTMU is philosophy and not science is an attempt to hedge the issue. It is not the case that "science" has standards while "philosophy" is a wishy-washy field where anything goes. The CTMU claims to be a [[theory of everything]] (a physical concept), and claims to offer a new [[interpretation of quantum mechanics]], and has a notion of "conspansion" which contradicts much of what the mainstream scientific ''and'' philosophic community acknowledges relativity to be. Moreover, all the popular press articles are about ''Langan'', the originator of the concept, not the CTMU itself. They may mention the theory, but they are not about it. As such, these articles and references can be put on Langan's bio page. And besides, the nomination has nothing to do with whether the CTMU is philosophy, sophistry, science or pseudoscience. It is about the ''article'' as it appears here, and whether or not it is an encyclopaedic article.--[[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 21:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

::'''Response to Comment''' Caveat emptor. Byrgenwulf needs to tell the truth for a change - he attacked the article, and proposed this vote, because he's an anti-ID fanatic who baselessly disputes the content and quality of the CTMU, a theory which he doesn't even begin to understand. There's a record of this on the discussion page, where Byrgenwulf fraudulently intimated that he is a professional philosopher of physics and then proceeded to make elementary errors that no expert in that field could possibly make, and which have now been seriously compounded. In fact, the article IS encyclopedic, or at least was before Byrgenwulf took it upon himself to monkey it up. Indeed, it had been carefully reworded to comply with NPOV and was provided with all of the verifiable source material it needed. All that Byrgenwulf is doing here is attempting to win the game, and get rid of the article, by propagating pathetic misconceptions about science and philosophy that a freshman in English Lit wouldn't lay claim to, thereby polluting the air and muddying the waters as is evidently his habit. (Anyone who thinks that Byrgenwulf knows the first thing about philosophy or science, let alone Wikipedia policy, need merely take a stroll up this page to be disabused.) As far as Byrgenwulf's specific comments on the CTMU, conspansion, and theories of eveything are concerned, forget about them - he has repeatedly been shown not to understand the first thing about the CTMU or anything related to it. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:*'''Comment''': The "relevant policy" noted here is not policy - it is a ''proposed guideline'', which is not finished and does not yet have the support of Wikipedia editors. The pseudotheory is also not referenced in any serious and reputable scientific journal, by the way. --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] ^{[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]} 08:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. There are plenty of references. [[User:SynergeticMaggot|Zos]] 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

::*'''Comment''' Having references doesn't affect the other reasons to delete. Having "references" is standard procedure for pseudoscience that is trying to confuse people by blurring the lines. Not that being pseudoscience is necessarily a reason to delete either.--[[User:Nick Y.|Nick Y.]] 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:::'''Response''' There aren't any "other reasons" to delete. The CTMU isn't science; it's philosophy. Therefore, it can't be coherently labeled as "pseudoscience". It's really just that simple. Furthermore, nobody here is in a position to enforce any particular set of "lines" just because he personally fears that those lines, wherever and whatever they are, may become "blurred". Things can't always remain simple just because somebody wants them to be, particularly with regard to matters of high inherent complexity. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment''', someone please remove all of these '''comments''' and '''responses''' to this nom's talk page. I can barely make out what all the fuss is about. And to let others who wish this article kept, please replace your "'''do not delete'''" with '''Keep'''. This makes it clearer for others. [[User:SynergeticMaggot|Zos]] 21:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' good god what a lot of blather. This is totally meaningless nonsense. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] 00:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' Nonsensical and nonnotable mixture of pseudophysics and pseudophilosophy. My main way of deciding notability on articles on non-completely-insane pseudotheory (this excludes [[Time Cube]], which is treated as notable nonsense) is to see whether the references allow one to create an article that satisfies NOR and NPOV at the same time. If the pseudoscientific theory does not have reputable refutations or notable critics when it obviously should, it does not deserve an article. [[Yoshiaki Omura]] is notable because he has notable and reputable critics, for example. This does not. The main claim to notability seems to be ''popular articles'' articles about the person rather than the pseudotheory. We should delete this, and redirect to the person. --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] ^{[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]} 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. The Wikipedia article describing the CTMU has proved useful to me as a neutral source of information since the time it was originally contributed. --[[User:Convolution|Convolution]] 06:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:* New user's first and only edit. --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] ^{[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]} 08:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. As far as I can tell those who want to delete the article want to because of their views on the CTMU itself and not whether it is sufficiently notable. The ''Popular Science'' article cited appears to be on the CTMU and not on Langan himself. It even includes a quote by a physicist and former NASA executive who (without passing judgement on its veracity) considers the theory worthy of "serious and open-minded review". While I have reservations on a theory presented in such a jargonized manner, many accepted theories have been presented in that fashion, too, unless or until someone good at explaining the theory comes along (a la Schwinger versus Feynman on QED). The CTMU may turn out to be total garbage, but it has received sufficient press and is a significant part of a high-IQ subculture surrounding Langan. [[User:Tox|Tox]] 07:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:* That article is titled "Wise Guy"! It is a less-than-two-page article mainly about the person and his theory. It is ''not'' an article about the theory, such as one might see in a serious journal, like one of the Physical Reviews. This is nothing like QED: it hasn't shown up anywhere in the legitimate scientific community, or any any reputable journal. It only has a handful of popular articles that, if they are not mostly about the person, are initially started because of the novelty of the person's IQ. The opinion of an ''ex''-NASA "executive" who appears to be involved with the person somehow ("the smartest guy I ever met") doesn't really make the subject notable. The fact that the "executive" apparently doesn't merit his own Wikipedia article and doesn't show up in the first few pages of Google results makes me question the word usage of Popular Science writers, and makes the support even less important. --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] ^{[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]} 08:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' The mainstream media attention that CTMU has garnered alone should justify for keeping it. I don't know why the people suggesting it be deleted say it should be treated with the rigors of a scientific theory. It's a philosophical construct, and one which has been published in Popular Science and other magazines. There's plenty of crank theories in Wikipedia, like [[Terrence McKenna]]'s [[Novelty Theory]], which wouldn't be considered for deletion simply because they've had such an impact on popular culture. I personally believe Langan is onto something ''huge'' with CTMU. Others may not... so, how about editing the article, chaps? That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. [[User:Joegoodbud|Joegoodbud]] 09:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment'''. The mainstream media attention has been directed at Mr Langan himself (mainly due to the incongruity between his IQ-test scores and his line of work), not to his theory. I agree that he, as a person, deserves a Wikipedia article, but not that his theory is notable in its own right. The existing description of the theory at [[Christopher Michael Langan]] might be capable of slight expansion (emphasis on _slight_), but I don't believe it deserves its own article, especially when any attempts to edit that article are repeatedly over-ruled by certain individual(s) who seem bent on preventing it reaching an unbiased state. If the version of the article on Byrgenwulf's user page could be safely used, then, although I would still regard the article as superfluous, I would have no objection to its retention. However, I don't believe that we can ensure its integrity. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] 11:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

**'''Comment'''. While I appreciate your mediating tone, Telvido, I'd like to emphasize a couple of things. First, I've been watching the CTMU article since it first appeared and have seen it go back and forth and find its way to a reasonable middle before Bergenwulf appeared. I don't believe I had ever bothered to make an edit prior to that.

[[1986]] - The company introduces its Epi leather line.

::Byrgenwulf's first edits were "admittedly over the top" (his words) and made for a poor entrance, leading other editors to believe his motives were political and less than sincere. I did delete many of his edits but mainly because he was pushing them through too quickly. I repeatedly asked him to slow down and discuss edits on the Talk page first and indeed thought we were negotiating changes to the Controversy section, but I guess we weren't moving quickly enough (it was taking hours as opposed to seconds). He is not the only editor on Wikipedia and should know enough about Wikipedia etiquette to negotiate changes more slowly and reasonably with the other editors and readers. He only came upon the page, and Langan's work, a few days ago. Shouldn't one spend a little time absorbing the material before editing any article on Wikipedia?

[[1987]] - [[Moët et Chandon]] and [[Hennessy]], leading manufacturers of [[Champagne (wine)|champagne]] and of [[brandy]], respectively, merge with Louis Vuitton to form the world's largest luxury goods conglomerate, [[LVMH]]. The group is partly owned by the [[Christian Dior]] group, and [[Bernard Arnault]] is chairman and CEO of both companies.

::What you are suggesting (that the article be retained but it be Byrgenwulf's edit) is coercive, whether or not you mean it that way. While some clean-up may be in order there was not much wrong with the article as it stood when Byrgenwulf came on the scene (or, indeed, when Tim Smith originally posted it). Further, Byrgenwulf's version is misleading on many points. For example:

[[1988]] - Vuitton reports profits up 49% from the prior year.

::It is categorized under "pseudophysics" and "pseudoscience". This makes about as much sense as categorizing a Brahms concerto as pseudoscience because it doesn’t follow the "scientific method". The CTMU is a logical model that is not claiming to be empirical science. Such categorization is designed to lower the perceived credibility of the work.

[[1988]] - The company hosts its first [[Louis Vuitton Classic]] car show in Paris.

::"The CTMU has close ties to the Intelligent Design movement." Here, "close ties" implies political involvement and I see no evidence of that. What I see is an openness on the part of ISCID toward Langan's ideas and a response to that from Langan by submitting his material for publication. After all, he may perceive himself cut off from mainstream academic venues due to his lack of degrees and see ISCID and PCID as an opportunity for at least some level of peer-review. If you read his chapter in Uncommon Dissent, he clearly criticizes aspects of both ID and strict neoDarwinism (mostly in terms of limits of interpretation).

[[1989]] - The company's stores total 130 worldwide.

::"While not being of quite the same order as the time-cube, the CTMU can nonetheless be categorised as pseudoscience." By even putting a concept in the same sentence as "time-cube", you are eroding credibility. Again, the CTMU is erroneously categorized as pseudoscience.

[[1990]] - Yves Carcelle is named president of the company.

::"This is an intelligent design journal, the content and nature of which has been the subject of a large amount of criticism by mainstream scientists, including in US courts. This is because these scientists feel that the journal lacks impartiality and rigour in its editorial policies[1]. As such, any paper published in this journal cannot be regarded as being part of established scientific thought.[2]."

[[1992]] - The first store in China is opened at the [[Palace Hotel]] in Beijing.

::The fact that PCID is an ID journal is fair enough for inclusion but this rant against intelligent design journals should be contained in the article on PCID or ISCID, not here! This proposed text links to two footnotes featuring anti-Creationism material. What on Earth is that doing here? The CTMU has nothing to do with "Creationism". In fact, I would expect that Creationists might not care for the CTMU at all. I feel that Byrgenwulf's motives are political. His dogged insistence on the inclusion of these two articles is odd and it almost seems as if he has been given this material along with instructions to push it whenever he has the opportunity.

[[1993]] - The Taiga leather line is introduced.

::These are some of the most glaring errors and the points I was hoping to be able to negotiate with Bergenwulf. It would be nice if they could be fixed, but I expect that there is an underlying political agenda here so I don't hold out much hope. [[User:DrL|DrL]]

[[1996]] - The [[centennial]] of the Monogram Canvas is celebrated in seven cites across the world, marked by parties at stores and the release of limited-edition items bearing the signature design.

:::Railing against a single editor will no change the result of an AfD. I suggest that you clearly and ''concisely'' list your points, then wait. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 13:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

===Millennium Age of Louis Vuitton (1997-present)===

::::Jefffire, I am not railing against anyone. I was responding to Telvido's suggestion that the page be retained but using Bygenwulf's edit. My points outlined factual errors and NPOV conflicts in that edit. I am making every effort to respond to the content and primary issues and not the personalities here. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[[1997]] - The company hires designer [[Marc Jacobs]] to be the label's artistic director. In March of the following year, he designs and introduces the company's first ''[[prêt-à-porter]]'' line of clothing.

[[2001]] - [[Stephen Sprouse]], in collaboration with [[Marc Jacobs]], designs a limited-edition line of Vuitton bags that feature [[graffiti]] written over the monogram pattern. The graffiti says ''Louis Vuitton'' and, on certain bags, the name of the bag (such as 'Keepall' and 'Speedy'). Certain pieces, which feature the graffiti without the Monogram Canvas background, are created and only available to the customers on Vuitton's [[Very Important Person|V.I.P.]] customer list.

*'''Delete''' - one person's theory, not in any way in contact with academic reserach. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 13:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:'''Response''' Who cares how many people wrote it, or whether it is "in contact with academic reserach"? If you want to read about things that are "in contact with academic reserach", you should subscribe to academic journals. Wikipedia is not an appendage of academia, and the CTMU nowhere relies on "contact with academic reserach" to make its points. Please, let's keep our eyes on the ball here. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

::'''Comment'''. Wikipedia is also not an indescriminate store of knowledge. The charge is that the subject is non-notable, as per the notability policy. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:::'''Response''' But notability has already clearly been satisfied in the form of verifiable sources like ABC News and Popular Science. This is nothing but a flimsy charade undertaken by you and one or two others to remove the article because you don't like its subject matter, on the grounds that it has not been published in academic journals. You seem to think that Wikipedia is an appendage of academia, and you're simply mistaken. Don't muddy the water.

[[2003]] - [[Takashi Murakami]], in collaboration with [[Marc Jacobs]], masterminds the new Monogram Multicolore canvas range of handbags and accessories. This range includes the monograms of the standard Monogram Canvas, but in 33 different colors on either a white or black background. (The classic canvas features gold monograms on a brown background.)

*'''Merge''' with [[Christopher Michael Langan]]. The other isues like the pseudoscientific aspects and the fact that it is not noteable can be addressed later. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[2003]] - Takashi Murakami creates the "Cherry Blossom" pattern, in which smiling cartoon faces in the middle of pink and yellow flowers are sporadically placed atop the Monogram Canvas. This pattern appeared on a limited number of pieces, which sold out quickly; the production of this [[limited-edition]] run was discontinued in June 2003.

:'''Response''' This contains a terminological error. The CTMU never claimed to be "science"; therefore, it cannot be coherently labeled as "pseudoscience" (this issue is discussed in more detail on this page and in the discussion area). By its nature, it is philosophical. Ample proof of its notability has been duly provided. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 16:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

::You're in error, Asmodeus. Here's how Langan describe his "theory" in [http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Time.html |this essay]:<blockquote>A cross between John Archibald Wheeler’s Participatory Universe and the Stephen Hawking-James Hartle "imaginary time" theory of cosmology proposed in Hawking’s phenomenal book A Brief History of Time, the CTMU resolves many of the most intractable paradoxes known to physical science while explaining recent data which indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.</blockquote>. This seems to indicate that it is [[cosmology]]: philosophy doesn't deal in expanding universes or "conspansion", really. And, a bit of a slip up here, the Hawking-Hartle model wasn't "proposed" in Hawking's pop science book, but in Phys. Rev. D28, 2960 (1983). [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 18:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[2005]] - Takashi Murakami creates the Monogram Cerises pattern, in which cherries with faces on them are placed over Monogram Canvas on select pieces.

:::'''Response''' You know, I hate to seem impatient. Really I do. But if you don't stop it with these howlers of yours, I may end up climbing the walls of my office. Let me spell this out for you. The only kind of theory capable of "resolving an intractable paradox of physical science" is a theory formulated on a level above that of the paradox itself; thus, using the theory, one can define a function which resolves the paradox by mapping its (otherwise conflicting) elements consistently into observables. Say that one of your college professors were to ask you whether this new theory is "scientific" in the same sense as the scientific theory which generated the paradox. You just answered this question "yes!" But unfortunately for your grade point, the answer is "no". By definition, the paradox has been generated BY a theory of science; in effect, one train of scientific reasoning is slamming into another within a single theory (or conjuctive set of theories), with no chance to avoid the collision. Hence, one needs a metalanguage of that scientific theory (or set of theories) to resolve it...a higher language in which the trains can be re-routed and the collision avoided, with one train passing around the other. Sometimes, it may happen that we can extract falsifiable observation statements from this higher-level theory and thereby construe it as science in its own right...a higher level of science than passed before. Otherwise, it remains interpretative and therefore philosophical. But no matter which way it turns out, the theory remains valuable for resolving the paradox. So here's an extra-credit question for you: given that you call yourself a "philosopher of physics", why don't you appear to understand the first thing about your field of "expertise"? (Now enough already - I'm not getting paid to do your homework for you.) [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 23:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[[2006]] - The company launches a new line, called Damier Azur, a reinvention of the oldest pattern created by Louis Vuitton (the original Damier).

'''Comment.''' The mainstream media coverage is about both the person and the theory, and features the theory prominently. ''The Times'', for example, begins its article (Wigmore, Barry (February 7, 2000); "Einstein's brain, King Kong's body") with:

[[2006]] - Louis Vuitton launches the Winter 2006 show collection, which includes styles called "Monogram Miroir", giving new life to the classic Speedy 30, Keepall, Alma, and Papillon in a flashy, reflective silver and gold bag. Also included is the "Monogram LV-Inyl", "Monogram Embossed Leather", "Monogram Mink" (Multicolor Monogram canvas on [[Mink]]) and "Monogram Léopard" (Monogram canvas with leopard print done by Stephen Sprouse in 1989 and introduced by Marc Jacobs). Louis Vuitton was an amazing man he helped make a landmark of amazing handbags.

<blockquote>Every age has its great thinkers: Plato looked at metaphysics, ethics, and politics; Descartes tried to rebuild human knowledge; Bertrand Russell gave us mathematical logic; from Stephen Hawking came ''A Brief History of Time''. Now there's Chris Langan, the brainy bouncer, with his Cognition-Theoretic Model of the Universe.</blockquote>

[[2006]] - The Monogram Mini line is discontinued throughout the world except for the [[United States]]. The Monogram Mini Lin will assume its position.

''20/20'' uses the theory as a framing device:

[[2006]] - Louis Vuitton opens its first store in [[Norway]], located in [[Akersgaten]] in [[Oslo]].

<blockquote>...I found arguably the smartest person in America in eastern Long Island. [...] His name is Christopher Langan and he’s working on his masterpiece: a mathematical, philosophical manuscript, with a radical view of the universe.[http://web.archive.org/web/20000818083819/http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html]</blockquote>

[[2006]] - Louis Vuitton opens its tenth [[UK]] store in the upmarket [[Leeds]] [[Victoria Quarter]]. The store is the first [[UK]] Louis Vuitton store outside [[London]] that has its own [[Very Important Person|VIP]] area. The store sells most of Louis Vuitton's lines except its ''[[prêt-à-porter]]'' lines.

The ''Popular Science'' header says:

[[2006]] - Louis Vuitton reopens its Malaysian flagship store at the upscale Starhill Gallery. The store is 6,000 square feet - the largest in southeast Asia.

<blockquote>He's a working class guy with an IQ that's off the charts. What does he have to say about science? Everything -- a theory of everything, that is.[http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Press/PopularScience/PopSciArt.pdf]</blockquote>

[[2006]] - Louis Vuitton reopens a Global Store in [[Guam]], 27 years after they opened the first store in there. The store is 3 floors high with a high display wall called the Bags' Bar. The outside wall is built with laser-cut LV logo shaped stones.

The caption of the article's photo reads:

[[2007]] - Louis Vuitton opens its first store in the Dutch Antilles, in Aruba. The store features the new Louis Vuitton concept and is located inside the Renaissance Hotel & Casino.

<blockquote>Christopher Langan spends his downtime coming up with a solution to a problem that philosophers and scientists have pondered for thousands of years.</blockquote>

[[2007]] - Louis Vuitton's [[Nagoya]] store opens its doors in [[Midland Square]], [[Japan]].

So the CTMU has not just been "referenced in at least one major mainstream publication" as the proposed [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|notability guideline]] for non-mainstream theories requires, explicitly allowing "large-circulation newspapers or magazines", but has received prominent, attention-getting placement in many such publications, with circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions. It deserves its own article. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 16:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

==Counterfeiting==

:*'''Comment''' A small number of overhyped headlines do not constitute notability. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 16:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:CIMG0185.JPG|right|thumb|A genuine Louis Vuitton purse from its new line.]]

:::'''Comment''' So, the mainstream media coverage (which says vanishingly little about the content of the "theory" itself) still calls this theory ''science,'' despite the claims of the dramatic chorus. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The brand is highly [[counterfeit]]ed, and just over 1% of the items bearing the trademark [[Image:LV_Icon.svg|20px]] monogram are authentic. Ironically, the signature Monogram Canvas was created to ''prevent'' counterfeiting.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/25/business/google.php European trademarks vs. Google]</ref> In 2004, Louis Vuitton fakes accounted for 18% of counterfeit accessories seized in the [[European Union]]. LVMH, Vuitton's parent company, said that it employed "some 60 people at various levels of responsibility working full time on anti-counterfeiting, in collaboration with a wide network of outside investigators and a team of lawyers."<ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-2220038,00.html Special Report: Trying to stub out the fakes]</ref>

::::'''Comment.''' As visible above, ''Popular Science'' says the theory is ''about'' science, not that it ''is'' science. Philosophy is allowed to be about science; that's [[philosophy of science]]. ''20/20'' explicitly calls the theory philosophical. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to prevent counterfeiting, the company closely controls the distribution of its products. Until the 1980s, Vuitton products were widely sold in department stores, such as [[Neiman Marcus]] and [[Saks Fifth Avenue]]. Today, Vuitton products are primarily available at Louis Vuitton boutiques, with a small number of exceptions. These boutiques are commonly found in [[upmarket]] shopping districts or, less commonly, inside high-end department stores. The boutiques within department stores operate independently and have their own managers and employees.

*'''Delete''' The mainstream media no doubt like the [[Good Will Hunting]] angle to this, but this is still an emerging theory and all the work on it is centered on one man. Wikipedia has articles on pseudo-scientific and fringe theories like creationism, but as of now there is no reason for there to be a separate article on the theory. It can be discussed in the article about the man himself. [[User:JChap2007|JChap]] [[User talk:JChap2007|(Talk)]] 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

::From the ''20/20'' piece: "The more he talked, the more Christopher reminded me of that character Matt Damon played in the movie 'Good Will Hunting,' a brilliant guy who almost slipped between the cracks. That's Christopher’s story too." Read that how you will. . . . [[User:Anville|Anville]] 17:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' as per the obscurity of the idea. Wikipedia is not a storehouse for every flight-of-fancy made by every random individual. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 16:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:'''Comment''' The idea is not obscure; you simply weren't reading the right sources. If you were asked to prove that Langan is a "random individual" or the CTMU "a flight of fancy", you could not offer a single verifiable source. In fact, you'd find material indicating that Langan is decidedly non-random - indeed, several deviations above the mean in intelligence - and that there are clearly written, publicly available papers regarding the CTMU. You would also find reportage on Langan and the CTMU from verifiable sources like ABC News and Popular Science.

Louis Vuitton's biggest stores are in [[New York]], [[Beverly Hills]], [[Waikiki]], [[Guam]],[[Hong Kong]], [[Tokyo]], [[Boston]], [[San Francisco]], [[Chicago]], [[London]] and their flagship ___location in [[Paris]].

:You are taking part in an editorial process here and are bound by Wikipedia policy. By casting this vote, you have failed to meet your editorial burden regarding neutrality and verifiability. If this encyclopedia is such that content can be kept or removed on the basis of unverifiable and counterfactual opinion and innuendo, then it is founded on "truth by democracy". Since that's an insupportable concept, Wikipedia would have no good reason to exist. For the sake of Wikipedia and its users, I hope that's not the case. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 17:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The rise of internet retailing created an extra challenge for the company in the fight against counterfeit goods. In 2006, Louis Vuitton and its sister company [[Christian Dior]] sued [[eBay]]<ref>[http://www.tech2.com/india/news/websites-internet/ebay-to-be-sued-for-counterfeit-products/1303/0 eBay To Be Sued For Counterfeit Products?]</ref> for failing to adequately prevent the sale of counterfeit products. According to the suit, which was filed in French courts on September 20, 2006, over 90% of the Vuitton items sold on eBay are fake.<ref>[http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/31582-ebay-lvmh-contrefacons.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Debay%2Bmalletier%2Bdior%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-36,GGLG:en Dior and Vuitton want to put at bag the counterfeit on eBay]</ref>

::I encourage this user to read about [[WP:CON|consensus]], [[Wikipedia:notability|notability]], and [[WP:V|verifiablity]] before engaging in this sort of rhetoric. The personal opinion of a single human is not [[WP:ENC|encyclopedic]]. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 20:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In 2005, the company successfully sued [[Google]] in France, and Google was ordered to pay [[US$]]250,000 for trademark violations, unfair competition, and misleading advertising. Vuitton has collected half the award, but Google has not settled the suit in full, alleging, in part, that French courts don't have jurisdiction over certain Google ___domain names.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/25/business/google.php European trademarks vs. Google]</ref>

*'''Keep''' - As long as the article properly qualifies the CTMU, I see no reason to delete it. Granted, Wikipedia is not the place for original thought, but this article is only summarizing and paraphrasing what has already been published in other sources. It is not promoting original ideas on its own. It's not as if anyone is going to read an article on the CTMU unless they follow a link to the article, and links to the article will only appear in other Wikipedia articles as relevance and notoriety dictate. Deleting the article only means that those seeking to understand the CTMU will have one less resource on the internet. Per contra, keeping the article does not force anyone to accept the ideas of the CTMU, which seems to be the fear of some editors. --[[User:Wechselstrom|Wechselstrom]] 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In 2006, Louis Vuitton filed suit against Haute Diggity Dog<ref>[http://www.hautediggitydog.com/ Haute Diggity Dog Website]</ref> in Federal Court in the Eastern District of Virginia (opinion published at 464 F.Supp.2d 495). Haute Diggity Dog is a company that sells stuffed toys and beds for dogs under names that [[parody]] the products of other companies. Haute Diggity Dog marketed products such as "Chewnel #5"<ref>[http://www.pawstogo.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=405 Chewnel #5]</ref>, "Dog Perignon"<ref>[http://www.pugcafe.com/catalog/dog-perignon-plush-dog-toy.htm Don Perignon</ref>, "Chewy Vuiton"<ref>[http://www.thepamperedpup.com/shopping/hdd-chewyv-toy.htm Chewy Vuiton</ref>, and "Sniffany & Co."<ref>[http://www.bestinshowsf.com/sncosqdogtoy.html Sniffany & Co.</ref> for sale in pet stores. Louis Vuitton alleged that Haute Diggity Dog’s use of the mark Chewy Vuiton as well as other marks that imitate Louis Vuitton trademarks and copyrights, violate Louis Vuitton [[trademark]], [[trade dress]], and [[copyright]] rights. The court ultimately denied Louis Vuitton’s motion for [[summary judgment]] and granted Haute Diggity Dog’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that while Louis Vuitton is a strong mark and there is some similarity between the products in question, the lack of actual confusion and bad faith, when combined with contemplation of parody acted to vastly outweigh the factors that favor Louis Vuitton’s argument for trademark infringement. Similarly, the court found that no reasonable trier of fact could find for Louis Vuitton on the issue of [[trademark dilution]], [[counterfeiting]], and copyright violation. This case is indicative of the far extent that Louis Vuitton will go to protect its products.

*'''DELETE''' as per the revelation of the PopSci forgery. Tsk tsk! You'd figure a ''wise guy'' wouldn't be so reckless with his forged archives.

Something tells me a fat dude on Long Island is having a tough time keeping track of all his sockpuppets! LOL Keglined 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:'''Response''' Just thought I'd tell everyone that Keglined here is lying about the PopSci article being a forgery - as explained above, PopSci actually thought so much of Langan that its Editors included both an article AND an interview on him and the CTMU! (Hey, Keglined - why don't you go and brush up your jealous edits regarding the penis sizes of porn stars Peter North and John "Johnny Wadd" Holmes? Or maybe just watch some more porn...heh heh!) [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:'''I've Seen the Physical Copy''' If anyone wishes to continue down this route, I can tell you that I own many past issues of Popular Science including the one featuring the CTMU article in question.[[User:68.122.147.181|68.122.147.181]] 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

==See also==

*'''How very unimaginative of you, Chris''' - you assume I'm a ''guy''. OH, and I just looked at the wayback machine stuff - there is NO record of the "other" popular science article. Sorry, Chris/Asmodeus/Dr L/whoever else you need to pretend to be - your charlatan hide has been exposed!!! ;) Keglined 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*[[LVMH]]

:'''Response''' I guess you must be talking to me? (In the future, please address me properly - it's "Asmodeus".) Again, you're either a liar, or too stupid to look in your local library for the article. You see, not every article in PopSci makes it onto the web, or stays on the web, and the wayback machine is still buggy, as many know who have used it. (Popular Science, October, 2001; an archived copy of the article is linked from several Wikipedia entries.) Now why don't you go and glue your sorry little nose, male or female as it may be, to a porn video featuring the penises of your favorite porn stars? ROTFLMAO! [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 19:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*[[Louis Vuitton Cup]]

::No stretch of the imagination could make such statements appear [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Nonetheless, one has to note the irony: Asmodeus was the daemon of lust. And in Paradise Lost, Milton wrote of him that he has a "fishy odour". [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 19:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

::::'''Response''' Obviously, I was merely pointing out Keglined's peculiar editorial history here at Wikipedia, as has been done regarding various others on this page, in a way appropriate to the vicious, defamatory nature of Keglined's own remarks. Would it be too much to ask that you at least try to be civil between your sporadic bursts of fraud and disinformation? Thank you. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 22:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

==References==

*'''Comment to Keglined''' Keglined, please refrain from referring to socks. I really do not see any evidence of that here and it is distracting from the main points. Obviously people are interested in the CTMU. It is certainly notable. The article does not include original research, but rather reports on research that is already out there and possesses a reasonable NPOV in its current state. Tim Smith has posted the Wayback links to both POPSCI articles so please focus on whether or not the article meets Wikipedia criteria. It clearly does. Whether or not you like the CTMU or its supporters is not at issue. Nor is your bizarre edit history. I just hope the admins can sort through this mess. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;"><references/></div>

*'''Holy Megalomania, Batman... 52 Times!''' It’s a [[Vanity_article|Vanity Article]]<br>''Wikipedia: “Vanity information... can come in the form of an entire article... Such information usually detracts from the direct illumination of the central topic of any article.”''<br>The CTMU article seems to focus more on Langan than the [[CTMU]] itself. '''In fact, the word “Langan” appears ''52 times'' throughout the article;''' "CTMU" only 34. A quick check of other Wikipedia articles shows this figure is highly unusual: “Twain” appears in [[Huckleberry Finn]] 14 times; “Gates” in [[Microsoft]] 27 times; “Hawking” in [[Hawking Radiation]] 21 times; “Einstein” 19 times in [[Special Relativity]]; and the word “Darwin” appears in [[Evolution]] 12 times. '''''Pathetically, in the CTMU article, each of the words “for,” “as,” and “in” appear fewer times than the word “Langan”!'''''<br>''Wikipedia: “The most significant problem with vanity articles is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors.”''<br>Yes, there appears to be a number of [[sockpuppets]] at work here; until a couple days ago this article had but a dozen editors, four of which have in one form or another rejected the CTMU. Of the remaining eight, five ([[Asmodeus]], [[CaveBat]], [[DrL]], [[70.20.16.129]], and [[12.207.19.38]]) have contributed nothing to Wikipedia aside from edits to this article, the article on Langan himself, or references to Langan in other articles (also, it is a matter of record that Langan has published pseudonymously in the past [http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/41/index.html]). Oh yeah - '''''delete''''' {{unsigned|207.58.130.228}}

==External links==

* '''FIFTY TWO TIMES??? ROFLMAO!!!''' "the word "Langan" appears 52 times... "Twain in [[Huckleberry Finn]] 14 times; "Gates" in [[Microsoft]] 27 times; "Hawking" in [[Hawking Radiation]] 21 times; "Einstein" 19 times in [[Special Relativity]]; "Darwin" in [[Evolution]] 12 times..." '''''That's all I needed to see!''''' It's a blatant advert. Pure garbage.

* [http://www.louisvuitton.com Official Louis Vuitton website]

* [http://www.americascup.com Official site for the 2007 [[Louis Vuitton Cup]]]

[[Category:Accessory brands]]

**As explained, the POPSCI issue contained both an article AND an interview. Neither are forgeries. Please be responsible and don't perpetuate mistakes. If you check the history, you will see that the only reason "Langan" is mentioned so many times is that critics insisted that many statements be qualified (e.g., "Langan states ...", "Langan claims ...", etc.). Also, there are no sock puppets, so please refrain from such accusations. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 19:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:French designers]]

[[Category:Companies of France]]

[[Category:Clothing companies of France]]

[[Category:LVMH brands]]

[[da:Louis Vuitton]]

*'''Delete'''. Patent nonsense and clap-trap. [[User:Linas|linas]] 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[de:Louis Vuitton]]

[[et:Louis Vuitton]]

:'''Response''' Voting is one thing; unsubstantiated opinions are quite another. They are of no relevance to anything but your own state of mind, and your own ability or inability to comprehend the article and/or its subject matter...unless, of course, you have relevant, verifiable citations regarding the CTMU on which to base them. But then you'd probably have posted them, wouldn't you. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[[es:Louis Vuitton]]

[[fr:Louis Vuitton]]

::Ah, of course. Actually, I claim knowledge in broad areas; [[User:Linas/Articles|here's a list of articles I've made major contributions to]]; based on my knowledge, I am of the opinion that its bunkum. I understood the article -- it doesn't say much, and is mostly hot air. When its not just plain wrong. This is not encyclopedia material. Post it on some blog, if you wish. [[User:Linas|linas]] 00:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[[id:Louis Vuitton]]

[[it:Louis Vuitton]]

:::'''Response''' Now, now, no need to try to impress. Most university instructors do not allow Wikipedia articles to be used as a references, precisely because they are too often found in error; hence, you are not citing verifiable sources, and even if you were, you'd need to prove them relevant. But of course, you can't; otherwise, as a conscientious Wikipedia editor, you'd have done so already. Right? Now, I personally don't care whether you think the topic of the article under dispute is "bunk"; that plus a dollar will get your windshield wiped at 5th and Lex (maybe you'd like to start a blog about it). But when you say the CTMU is "just plain wrong" in a forum like this one, you incur an editorial burden. You can either meet this burden or you can't; personally, I'd bet a grand you can't, and that you can't understand the paper you say you read either. But that's neither here nor there. The fact is, if you want to talk this way, you need to put up, or clam up. By the rules of Wikipedia, we can't simply take your word for things when making editorial decisions; believe it or not, you're not sufficiently notable for that, and probably not sufficiently knowledgable either. You need to verify your sources, just like all the plebes. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[[nl:Louis Vuitton (merk)]]

[[ja:ルイ・ヴィトン]]

::::Instead of expending your energy trying to argue me down, why don't you just edit the article so its not gibberish and hot air? Perhaps people wouldn't be moving to delete if this was actually a reasonable article about some guy who was once interviewed by the press? [[User:Linas|linas]] 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[[no:Louis Vuitton]]

[[nn:Louis Vuitton]]

:::::'''Response''' I have plenty of energy these days, so don't worry about it. You seem to be saying that the article is poorly written, but at this point, it has many authors. So we can't exactly blame the original author for that. As nearly as I can determine, the article was (prior to all the pseudoediting) faithful to the material it covers, albeit highly condensed. Maybe, if it stays up, I'll add my bit. But meanwhile, we have to be careful not to make statements about the theory we can't back up with reputable, verifiable sources. Unverifiable statements about content are a luxury that Wikipedia editors just don't have. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[[pl:Louis Vuitton]]

[[pt:Louis Vuitton]]

::::Under Wikipedia guidelines the burden is upon those wishing to keep the article to prove that it is notable, and not visa-versa. So far all that exists is a few interview with Langon, and nothing else. It is very unlikely that these will be regarded as evidence of notability. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[[ru:Louis Vuitton]]

[[fi:Louis Vuitton]]

:::::'''Response''' Please stop lecturing people about Wikipedia guidelines, jeffire; I've already established to my complete personal satisfaction that you have no respect for them yourself and cannot be trusted in any way regarding them. You are not some sort of Prime Bureaucrat who can keep demanding additional sources, when the sources already provided are sufficient. If you don't believe it, consider that neither you (jeffire) nor any of your friends could get an idea into Popular Science if your lives depended on it, except maybe in the Letters to the Editor (if one of you were extremely lucky). Sources like ABC and PopSCi wouldn't have touched Langan with a ten-foot pole if they hadn't satisfied themselves, through a variety of channels, that he's the real deal. Please either stop your nonsense, or go away. [[User:Asmodeus|Asmodeus]] 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[[sv:Louis Vuitton]]

[[zh:路易·威登]]

*'''KEEP''' - with the priviso that way is found to 'permanently' attach a POV and DISPUTED tag. If this is impossible (and the claim is that it is) then regretfully '''DELETE'''. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] ^{[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]} 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''KEEP''' - but with a proviso that '''more work is needed discussing CRITISM of the theory'''. For example see [[George_Berkeley]] [[Idealism]] etc. The debate is very long and thoroughly confusing. If it has attracted this amount of debate, I can't see how it fails the [[WP:notability]] test. However without padding the Critism section out, then I can only see the article being merged with the other Langen topics [[Mega Society]]. :-) Esse est percipi [[User:Mike33|Mike33]] 17:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''DELETE THIS NONSENSE.''' The CTMU article cites numerous publications, but only one reference is to a science-oriented periodical (and it's Popular Science? Sad). In fact, this link points to an archived reproduction on the CTMU author's own website. A search for the original article on Popular Science’s website '''yields no results'''. The [[20/20]] reference revisits an interview wherein the CTMU itself is hardly even mentioned! Instead, the focus seems to this weight-lifting, ''"big brain"'' dude. It's like the tallest man in the world claiming he's the greatest basketball player in history because he was pictured in a non-sports magazine holding a ball next to a hoop. Aside from some references to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 self-published] copies of the CTMU itself, the only other "independent" references are to magazines and TV shows that '''''have nothing to do with science.''''' [[Newsday]], [[The Times]]?, [[Muscle & Fitness Magazine]]??? If you're not a cosmologist, but you ''play one on TV,'' does your TOE really matter?

*::Links to both POPSCI articles in archive.org have been provided by Tim Smith on this page. Please sign your comments. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)