Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Response to byrgie |
m Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (4x) Tag: Fixed lint errors |
||
| (72 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''delete'''. ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])<sup>([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])</sup> 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
===[[Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe]]===
{{afdnewbies}}
'''Please hold any lengthy discussions on the talk page, so that the AfD will not become too cluttered. Likewise, please check this AfD's talk page for more discussion.''' --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]</sup> 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
Line 54 ⟶ 63:
| <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><
| <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.
|}
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:207.58.130.228|207.58.130.228]] ([[User talk:207.58.130.228|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/207.58.130.228|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*<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)
Line 87 ⟶ 96:
*'''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|<
*'''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)
Line 113 ⟶ 122:
:'''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.
**<
**<
::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)
*'''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)
:'''Comment.''' To present the theory as correct, we would indeed need peer-reviewed sources. But again, the question is not whether we are to ''assert'' the theory, but whether we are to ''describe'' it, and not whether the theory is ''correct'', but whether it is ''notable''. Popularity does not establish correctness, but it does establish notability, and the CTMU's appearances in the popular media are numerous, with coverage from ''Popular Science'' [http://web.archive.org/web/20011015141736/www.popsci.com/science/01/10/14/brainiac/index2.html], ''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 more. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Apparently notable only among creationist pseudo-intellectuals. Possibly could be merged to [[Creation science]]? But, no, they probably wouldn't want it either. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' as per nom. [[User:Dlyons493|<
* '''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—that's not for Wikipedia to decide—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)
Line 135 ⟶ 146:
*'''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]] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]</sup> 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]] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]</sup> 08:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
::* I am well aware of the nature of the article. The purpose of citing it has nothing to do with bolstering the veracity of the theory. It is only cited to bolster the notoriety of the theory: namely people are likely to encounter it and seek out more information on what it is about. That is the usefulness of Wikipedia: we can encounter obscure topics we know nothing about and find out about them in Wikipedia, something we could not do with 20th century paper encyclopedias.
::: Please do not take my QED analogy out of context. I am not saying that the CTMU is remotely similar to QED in its acceptance or its veracity. I am only bringing up QED as an example of a correct theory deliberately described by one arrogant prick in the most esoteric manner possible and by another genius who sought the most intuitive and easily understood version he could find.
::: I am '''not''' a proponent of the CTMU. I find its excessive jargonization extremely irritating and because of that I have not bothered to delve into it much, even though I have been aware of it for years (because it is well-known enough that people looking into ToEs, who don't limit themselves merely to academia, eventually encounter it). In fact I am quite leary of it. It is only my steadfast commitment to open-mindedness that does not allow me to reject it until I get around to serious analysis of it. Which is precisely why I'd like to see a Wikipedia article (not written by Langan) on the CTMU: so I have a decent overview of the theory to look at. Anyone else wanting to know about it would find such an article useful, too. So, if the article is flawed, then fix it, don't delete it. This debate is about the philosophy of Wikipedia, not the philosophy of the CTMU. —[[User:Tox|Tox]] 07:30, 17 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)
Line 172 ⟶ 192:
:::'''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)
:::: ''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.'' [[WP:BOLLOCKS]]. Well, perhaps, not, but no such ('''''intractable''''') paradox is discussed here. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
'''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:
Line 218 ⟶ 240:
*'''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)
*'''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''''' <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:207.58.130.228|207.58.130.228]] ([[User talk:207.58.130.228|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/207.58.130.228|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
* '''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.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:207.58.130.228|207.58.130.228]] ([[User talk:207.58.130.228|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/207.58.130.228|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::*'''Note''' above user, who does not sign his posts, is having a conversation with himself. This is the only page on Wikipedia that he has edited. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
::*
:::* There are some very obvious sock/meatpuppets involved in this discussion. --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]</sup> 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Patent nonsense and clap-trap. [[User:Linas|linas]] 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 239 ⟶ 262:
:::::'''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)
::::::Please don't make personal attacks. Although I know I will be admonished for troll feeding, I will note that we could get ideas into real scientific journals, which is what matters. --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]</sup> 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''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]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:* Why not move the coverage to the article on Langan, which is essentially what is being proposed. --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]</sup> 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::*The word "essentially" disturbs me. I would rather the CTMU be kept as a separate article but be clearly labelled as, er, non mainstream to put it mildly. If there is a problem with keeping warning labels attached then this needs to be sorted out at a higher level since it is a more general issue. Sticking the article in with Langam's bio is sweeping the problem under the carpet. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 08:18, 17 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)
:* The topic will be covered in the article on Langan, since it is inextricably linked to him, and only notable because of his situation. Note also that lengths of debates on Wikipedia are not a good indicator of notability - often the least notable pseudotheories have the longest discussions, since their authors will go to great lengths to support them through sock puppets and lengthy rants. --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]</sup> 06:11, 17 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? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:153.26.176.34|153.26.176.34]] ([[User talk:153.26.176.34|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/153.26.176.34|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::*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)
:::* One could say the POPSCI has nothing to do with science. Really, if this is a serious TOE, where are your Physical Review references? --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]</sup> 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::::* The POPSCI articles help to establish notability, which is one of the WP under consideration. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 13:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::*'''Conflict of Interest''' A little research reveals that there is likely a conflict of interest in the above vote. Note in history of CTMU article, user 153.26.176.34 links to crank site www.conspansion.com, which derogates Langan and falsely accuses him of stealing the conspansion idea (with no supporting evidence, of course!). [[User:DrL|DrL]] 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:::* This is not an acceptable reason to discount the opinion (though being unsigned and by an anon may be). --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]</sup> 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' The CTMU, though obscure and seemingly intentionally obscured, appears to meet a minimum standard for notability; the nature and validity of the theory are irrelevent to this discussion. So long as the article does not overstate the CTMU's notability or present a biased view of the subject, it should be kept. Even if those criteria were not met, deletion would be a disproportionate response. --[[User:Tom1907|Tom1907]] 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:* That isn't what we are trying to do. The current article is disproportionately large and highly POV. We want to move coverage of the topic into the article on Langan himself. --[[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] <sup>[[User talk:Philosophus|T]]</sup> 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' WP is not a peer-review journal. It is not Nupedia. We have defined standards for the inclusion of fringe theories. This theory meets them. That is the only burden that such a theory must meet to be included in WP. It should therefore stay -- no delete, no merger. However, that comes with a substantial caveat. This article will require a substantial rewrite that attempts to pare down the CTMU's escalatory jargon to something understandable, and a criticism section will be needed discussing the (substantial) rebuttals to the CTMU that exist. Nevertheless, poor quality of an existing article is not grounds for the deletion of that article, ceteris paribus. [[User:Serpent's Choice|Serpent's Choice]] 09:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
*:'''Note''': This is a newly created account apparently made just to discussion the deletion of articles. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
*::'''Comment''': It is true that my primary focus has been article deletion. My fields of expertise are relatively well-represented on WP at this time, and so I have felt that my time and resources are better spent contributing to keeping WP free of articles that violate its standards (and defending those that do). I am not a sock of any of the actors in this issue (or any other accountname, for that matter). I have no personal stake in the article's fate. For what its worth, as full disclosure, I think the theory is a lot of pseudo-scientific claptrap cobbled together by its creator in an effort at one-upsmanship versus the physics community. ''But even if my opinion is proven true'' in future, that does not mean this topic is not appropriate for inclusion. It has generated mainstream media press and no small amount of critical discussion, all of which makes it a plausible searchbox entry and a notable topic. WP is about documentation, NOT validation [[[User:Serpent's Choice|Serpent's Choice]] 05:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) edit due to failure to proofread own post]. Theories that got it wrong are still worthy of encyclopedia space, especially in an encyclopedia with only the vaguest of space limitations. Regardless, a functional version of this article will probably require a protect. [[User:Serpent's Choice|Serpent's Choice]] 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::::*'''NB''' There have been a few comments now, expressing viewpoints along the lines of the article being kept, but subjected to a massive rewrite/cleanup operation, as well as including a criticism section. It should be noted now that twice in the past 24 hours, [[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]] has attempted to do just that, but had his(?) work reverted by proponents of the theory. The idea seems to be that if there is to be criticism, it is to be entirely on the theory's proponents' terms, and no-one else is allowed to make substantive changes to the article without the proponents' prior vetting, while the proponents may write whatever they like there (even the "reception" section they have belatedly decided to include is grossly slanted). WP is neither a soapbox, nor has the theory itself (as opposed to its creator) earnt much noticeable attention. And while DrL is quite happy to class "conspansion.com" as a crank site (which features an idea either stolen from Langan or which Langan stole or some other sordid little saga), she is adamant that the CTMU does not have a "disputed science" infobox attached to it. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 09:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::*'''Comment''' - ScienceApologist deleted 80% of the article after another editor (not me) had just spent an enormous amount of time setting references. Editors should really respect the work of others. Editing implies constructive changes, not sweeping deletes. That is really all that the CTMU article editors are looking for in an article cleanup. No, a "disputed science" infobox is not warranted. If there is a "disputed philosophy" or "disputed model theory" infobox, one would still need to verify the nature of the dispute (i.e., that it was from a reputable source, content-driven and not political) and that such a dispute was beyond the normal controversy and discussion that goes hand-in-hand with new ideas (and old). The page should not make any claims regarding empirical science, but discussion of the nature of science is fair game (it is part of the philosophy of science). Yes, it's true that I labeled conspansion.com as a crank page because it is void of meaningful content and more than likely put up by a Langan detractor just to bug him. People who are familiar with logic and model theory can follow Langan's ideas. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::LOL, are we resorting to '''scare bold''' now? [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 13:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::That was a typo. I didn't put the marks at the beginning of the word "Comment". For some reason (possibly having to do with my browser settings) my view does not distinguish bold. I have corrected the formatting (I believe). [[User:DrL|DrL]] 15:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
'''Keep''' The article seems to be well-verified and addresses a notable topic (I read about Langan and the CTMU in Popular Science). [[User:Genotypical|Genotypical]] 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::Yet another one of those funny accounts which crop up just for purposes of expressing opinions on this discussion. And I have an extremely strong intuition based on the name that this one is a sock- or meatpuppet, but it could be coincidence. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I came here to add my opinion, not to be insulted. [[User:Genotypical|Genotypical]] 19:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
::I am terribly sorry if I insulted you, I don't think what I said is nearly as insulting as some of the invective that's been tossed around here. I was merely expressing my own opinion. And I didn't make any accusations either, merely aired some thoughts. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment.''' Haven't seen this many socks since my last trip to JC Penny's.
I just read the main article's description of "Expansion QUA Contraction," and had to laugh. No offense, guys (sic), but I'd bet plenty of people on psychedelic drugs have come up with more convincing "alternative" explanations of e=mc2 than this one. :)
'''Keep.''' It meets the notability requirements. Whether or not it is currently accepted by a majority of philosophers, what one considers to be "gibberish," whether one personally accepts the theory, what one's philosophical persuasion is, and what one's opinion of a theory's author is have little to no relevance here.[[User:68.122.147.181|68.122.147.181]] 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipendians - Please move Discussion about the merits of the Theory/Psuedo-science to another page.
If the artcle does have notability and critism outside of bar bouncers or their apologists, the article should stay. I am not a sock, I am an apologist for Berkley Idealism; neither opinions affect me unless I see the argument in real time. I can see this becoming a vanity decision (purely based on the number of socks) deleted on that basis. There is no need for paragraph after paragraph of debate. All interested editors have expressed opinions now (Disregarding ppl who have socked). I can only see what i see now, but it would make it very difficult to decide other than a delete. With the original editors continually rejecting rewrites - a blatent [[POV]] or [[WP:Notability]]. Without allowing other editors to edit text what is the point of the article? Blog it somewhere. With constant RV of critism sections the article it is a shambles.
:Keep - with open access and sourcable critism
:Delete - if apologists continue RV
:Strongly Delete any similar article
:Merge with any other ideas/clubs connected to Langam
(put please read [[User:Serpent's Choice|Serpents's Choice]] post below re: other methods of adjudication/ resolution)
- why prolong a decision with fruitless debate? [[User:Mike33|Mike33]] 07:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC) repost with amendments [[User:Mike33|Mike33]] 08:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:If the primary problem is that efforts to make the page acceptable and inclusive of appropriate criticism are being reverted with prejudice to the improvement of the article, then that is a reason to escalate to dispute resolution, rather than a reason to delete. Indeed, given the widespread sockpuppetry (as well as allegations of the same) and divergence from the topic in this AfD, that may well be the best course of action in any case. Any acceptable version will quite probably require protection. [[User:Serpent's Choice|Serpent's Choice]] 07:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Google search for "Cognitive-Theoretical Model of the Universe" gives only 14,000 hits, most of which are about the author. By contrast [[time cube]] gives 44 million. Clearly non-notable from a google hit perspective. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::Lots of (probably most) articles would get far fewer hits than "only" 14,000 hits. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Then feel free to nominate them. [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::::No, because I have no burning desire to remove articles that I have no interest in, anymore than I desire to burn books I haven't read. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::This is misleading. Though still more than "ctmu," the exact phrase "time cube" produces much less than the more unconstrained search: 117,000 pages. (To avoid any "sock" comments, I'm 68.122.147.181 at a different computer.)[[User:69.238.48.216|69.238.48.216]] 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the reality check: out by a factor of nearly four hundred eh?; shows that [[User:Jefffire|Jefffire]] is not a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]]. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
'''Delete''' - as nonsense. Not a scientific theory. [[User:KarenAnn|KarenAnn]] 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
''' Merge ''' with Langan article. The wide variety of news sources confirms the theory/author as notable, but not as scientific (and most of the writing on the theory itself is gibberish). Re: Jefffire, I don't think >14,000 Google hits is a fair standard at all. (Edit: Whoops, forgot sig.) [[User:Icewolf34|Icewolf34]] 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' It's neither notable nor verifiable. Typical physics hack stuff, but more visible due to the press going, '''''"Hey, this genius is also a bouncer!"''''' Has it not occurred to you all we'd not even know about Langan if he'd been a sickly file clerk in Omaha? And as far as 14,000 hits constituting notability, MichaelCPrice, try Googling the ''exact phrase'' '''"the moon is made of cheese."''' I suppose we should now learn who first suggested the moon is made of cheese, give him or her credit for coming up with such a radical idea, and then create a Wikipedia article about the '''Parmesan Ecliptic Union''' or PEU (pronounced Pee-YOO) Theory? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Phil Thompson|Phil Thompson]] ([[User talk:Phil Thompson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Phil Thompson|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:'''Comment'''. User's only edit. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
::Actually since we are all familar with the "cheese moon" concept it is clearly notable, since we have all noted it enough at some time to recall it now. That doesn't mean it is a credible concept, any more than astrology is. But notability and credibility are two completely different issues, which people here seem to have extreme difficulty in appreciating. --[[User:MichaelCPrice|Michael C. Price]] <sup>[[User talk:MichaelCPrice|talk]]</sup> 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- I read the entire collection ([[Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe|CTMU]], [[Ultranet (High-IQ society)|UHIQS]], [[Christopher Michael Langan|C.Langan]]) and they all read like non-notable, vani-spam covered in technobabble. And ''[[Muscle & Fitness]]'' and ''[[Esquire (magazine)|Esquire]]'' are not proper citations for what presents itself as a scientific topic. Cover with a helping of vandalism, wikilawyering, rulesidestepping and you have yourself a big ole Delete Pie. -- [[User:MrDolomite|MrDolomite]] | [[User talk:MrDolomite|Talk]] 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I didn't read it all, but what I did read tells me that [[WP:SOAP]] applies here. Vanity, thy name is Langan. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:Almost as vain as proudly voting to delete something one hasn't bothered to fully research, eh?[[User:69.238.48.216|69.238.48.216]] 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment to closing admin.''' The CTMU article was created in September 2005 and proceeded peacefully and largely unchanged until last week, when it erupted in controversy. Since then, the article has seen over 220 edits, over 140 of which were during this AfD. An edit war has waged for the whole course of the AfD, with users inserting and deleting huge blocks of text on less than a moment's notice, and reverting each other just as quickly. The size of the article has ranged from 9 KB to 27 KB, the number of sections from 7 to 12, the number of references from 5 to 12, the number of footnotes from 0 to 42. The version of the article that is now protected bears nearly no resemblance to the one originally nominated for deletion.
The AfD discussion itself has obviously also been chaotic. It is filled with one-edit users and IPs, loud accusations of forgery, a large anonymously-added table, personal attacks, irrelevant debates about the validity of the theory, an anonymous user having a conversation with himself, and so on. Many of the reasons given as justification depend crucially on which transitory version of the article the user saw: a user dissatisfied with 5 references might have approved 12, a user calling the article unverifiable with 0 footnotes might have accepted 42; a user calling the 27 KB version gibberish might have found the 9 KB version more understandable.
In short, it is impossible to extract an informed decision from an AfD conducted during an edit war of this scope. At this point, the only option I see is to close with no consensus. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:(Discussion moved to [[Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe|talk page]].) [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This review has been corrupted by moves of '''relevant''' discusion back and forth from the Talk page. Unless a clear consensus to delete can be found (which I think it has), the closing admin (which will not be me, even if I'm an admin by the time of closing) should close and relist. "No consensus" doesn't seem to be a plausible result. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Closing comment from DrL''' - Mediator, SynergeticMaggot, has informed me of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-13_CTMU his willingness to mediate editing] if the article is not deleted. I would like to reiterate that a good solution would be to require that the editors of this article agree to mediation during the editing process until a version consensus is reached (I felt that we were close in a couple of spots during the past week). This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe&oldid=64428334 last constructive edit by Byrgenwulf] might be a fairly neutral place to start. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||