Content deleted Content added
Response to anville |
argued to keep |
||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
*'''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'''. 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|<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) |
* '''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) |
||
* '''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) |
Revision as of 20:38, 14 July 2006
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
AfD submitted by Byrgenwulf with comment "Added an article, will discuss it right away." This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. See also the article's Talk page. Tevildo 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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!
- P.S. I'm not sure what the etiquette/norm is here but obviously my own view should be obvious: Delete --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. :) Tevildo 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Still Neutral. 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 Orcadian for a similar example.The article needs a lot of work by a neutral editor, but I think it's entitled to stay.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.) Asmodeus 20:30, 14 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. --Christopher Thomas 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable sophistical gibberish. Badly written to boot. 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- I therefore vote for NON-deletion, and request that the moderators do something about the situation ... preferably sooner rather than later. DrL 15:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment DrL has only edited the CTMU article, its talk page, this AfD, the article on the CTMU's inventor and a couple pages directly related to him. Anville 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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.--IQ Prophet 16:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment user has only edited this article, its talk page and this AfD. Anville 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable theory, confusing as heck. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable confusing fringe science gibberish. And before the nominator started editing it, incidentally, it already was gibberish. Sandstein 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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.] Asmodeus 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response I don't want to get bogged down in stupid argument here. Suffice it to say I think Asmodeus has the wrong end of the stick anyway about who I am and what I do, and is both distorting my words and making assumptions. Asmodeus, ad hominems only make you look puerile. What is at issue here anyway is not whether or not the CTMU is a valid theory; what is at issue here is whether the Wikipedia article on the CTMU meets the standards and criteria for inclusion. This is the issue. If Asmodeus and DrL wish to indulge in debate on the merits of CTMU as a theory, they are welcome to let me know on my talk page, and we can organise that elsewhere: I think they will find that I am not quite the starry-eyed first year grad student I have been characterised as (LOL). Nonetheless, if my personal qualifications are necessary to make raising a query about a theory, I know I have two nice fancy certificates I can fax to Wikipedia: Langan, who came up with the theory under discussion here, seems to be proud of the fact he never completed college.--Byrgenwulf 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Byrgenwulf, I'm afraid that you got yourself bogged down in an argument about the CTMU itself early on in the discussion (see the Talk page). Nobody forced you to do this. Furthermore, you repeatedly tried to claim that you are a professional philosopher of physics. I believe that you did so dishonestly - you've demonstrated far too thorough a misunderstanding of the theory and its underlying issues for it to be otherwise - and I think that's relevant to this entire dispute. Again, nobody forced your hand when you made that claim. As far Langan is concerned, he is well-known not to have finished college - that's part of what makes him and his theory highly notable (not too many high-IQ "blue-collar cosmologists" out there). By the way, Wikipedia is not a venue for contemptuous (and contemptible) displays of academic snobbery; if some notable, verifiable academic wants to rebut the theory and expose himself to rebuttal in turn, he is and always has been free to do so. Until then, negative judgments on the scholarly integrity of the CTMU are worthless. The CTMU is out there, it is notable, and your attacks on it clearly stem from two factors: your personal philosophical leanings, and your highly evident inability to understand the new concepts that it introduces, despite the fact that they are comprehensibly explained in Langan's writings (to some people, anyway). So please dispense with all the posturing. Asmodeus 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Asmodeus, I did not repeatedly claim that, and any literate person who has read the talk page can see this for themselves. I mentioned, once, that I work in the field professionally, which I do (that's where what little money I have comes from), and, if necessary (which is not necessary here) I can prove my claim. So don't misrepresent me. As I say, I am more than willing to indulge you and DrL, and Langan himself if he's so inclined, but elsewhere. This is not the place for that sort of debate, and whether or not my very brief, facetious and playful criticism of it on the discussion page is valid or not is not what is at issue. We are discussing whether this article merits inclusion. It doesn't matter who I am, where I work, or what I said on the talk page. It's that simple. I would love to debate this theory with you elsewhere, though: believe me, I understand it far better than you think. In fact, I see through it.--Byrgenwulf 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Byrgenwulf, you stated that you "work in the field (the philosophy of physics) professionally", thereby hoping to convey a false impression of knowledge and authority. Admittedly, your statement could mean that you are a professional philosopher of physics, or that you are a secretary for some actual member of the philosophy department, or that you get paid to sweep the floor and carry out the trash after class is over. But only in the first case could you have made this statement in all honesty. Citing the work of Godel, you then launched into a sweeping, misbegotten attack on "theories of everything", in the process displaying serious incomprehension regarding the meaning of that phrase, and regarding the definition of "theory" as used in and with regard to the CTMU. All of this information is relevant to the vote - it was you who called for the vote, and you who intially started this entire brouhaha. By putting the information on this page, we can allow the voters to gauge your level of expertise, emotional involvement, and honesty for themselves, and cast their votes in light of that important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmodeus (talk • contribs)
- ResponseYes, I started this. I am a grad student who teaches undergrad tutorials, and my field of expertise is the foundations of quantum mechanics (believe it or not, I really do know the thing or two I claim to ;)). I earn my money for teaching, and I am registered with a tertiary institution as a research student in that field. You tell me what that makes me: I said I'm, professional, not a professor :). And I didn't lie: you have exaggerated and distorted my claims (like "repeatedly" when I said something once). Langan is a bar bouncer, not a "blue-collar cosmologist"; not that this precludes him from coming up with worthwhile thoughts, but his qualifications are not under dispute here; and if it were to come to a toss off like that, I would win. I am also proudly against both intelligent design and other forms of pseudoscience. I was forced to study postmodernism, and yes, I have a chip on my shoulder, and yes, Alan Sokal is a personal hero. None of this has anything to do with what is under dispute here: we are not discussing whether or not my motivations, my criticisms or my qualifications are valid. Not to mention my personal character. We are discussing whether this article merits encyclopaedic inclusion, and the consensus among most people here seems to be that it is gobbledygook. If you (and Langan) want, as I have said, let me know, and I will discuss the theory on its merits elsewhere. Now cease and desist.--Byrgenwulf 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Thanks to Byrgenwulf for the belated dose of honesty. Byrgenwulf has now admitted that he is merely a student, that his field of "expertise" is neither logic nor metaphysics (if a student can yet be said to possess "expertise" at all), and that he is a "proud", if not positively torch-bearing, member of the Worldwide Legion of ID Critics with "a chip on his shoulder". This informs us of his non-neutral philosophical orientation and helps to explain why he does not understand what a "theory of everything" is (see Talk page). Perhaps it also explains why Byrgenwulf does not understand the term "pseudoscience", which can be properly applied only to theories which explicitly, but falsely, claim to be scientific in nature. Unfortunately for Byrgenwulf's new semblance of forthrightness, the CTMU does not make such a claim and has never made such a claim, rendering his continued use of that epithet nothing more than another dishonest attempt to sway the issue, given that a few others here may be unclear on this distinction as well. Finally, despite Byrgenwulf's personal challenges to me, DrL, and the author of the CTMU himself, this is not about a comparison of academic credentials, or Byrgenwulf's contention that he could somehow prevail against any of us in a debate (a possibility that strikes me as rather unlikely, given the basic misconceptions that he has already publicly exhibited). In fact, Byrgenwulf's Quixotic challenges merely betray his obsessive emotional involvement and thereby inform us of the real reason for this vote. Specifically, they tell us that this vote was emotionally conceived in philosophical bias and ignorance of not only the CTMU, but the very terms and concepts that are now being inappropriately used to attack it. Voters take heed. Asmodeus 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Asmodeus, I did not repeatedly claim that, and any literate person who has read the talk page can see this for themselves. I mentioned, once, that I work in the field professionally, which I do (that's where what little money I have comes from), and, if necessary (which is not necessary here) I can prove my claim. So don't misrepresent me. As I say, I am more than willing to indulge you and DrL, and Langan himself if he's so inclined, but elsewhere. This is not the place for that sort of debate, and whether or not my very brief, facetious and playful criticism of it on the discussion page is valid or not is not what is at issue. We are discussing whether this article merits inclusion. It doesn't matter who I am, where I work, or what I said on the talk page. It's that simple. I would love to debate this theory with you elsewhere, though: believe me, I understand it far better than you think. In fact, I see through it.--Byrgenwulf 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Asmodeus, anyone with even the most basic undergraduate knowledge of philosophy will recognize this, in Jefffire's words, as "non-notable sophistical gibberish.". It's unfortunate that some journalists don't possess even that level of knowledge, but I hope that Wikipedians in general are different. Tevildo 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response to ongoing silliness. You last comment was feeble, Asmodeus, and demonstrating once again your own ignorance. If I am working in philosophy, but in questions of the foundations of physics, that work is, by its very nature, a combination of epistemology and metaphysics. As it happens, mathematical logic comes into what I am doing as well (I've wikified the terms to help everyone understand them). Not that that has anything to do with the price of cheese. I'm not only a student, but a graduate as well, and work in the field in question, which is more than can be said for the originator of the theory. I don't think that many of the other people here, most of whom having been contributors to one or more scientific articles, are under any misconception as to the distinction between science and pseudoscience - well, other than the chirping chorus of once-off editors. If a theory purports to refute basic ideas on relativity (which CTMU does in the form of "conspansion", no matter how "isomorphic" Langan claims it is), and says in a label to a diagram that it constitutes a "new interpretation of quantum mechanics" (again which the CTMU does, the "sum over futures"), then it is making claims of a scientific nature which need substantiation. If no substantiation is given, then the claims are questionable. Theories (and it may be disputed that the CTMU is even a theory) which make questionable but grandiose claims like this are normally called pseudoscience.
- I have never been dishonest, but on the contrary you have been caught lying outright (accusing me of saying something "repeatedly" when I said it once). My intentions are not what matters here. What matters is the article as it stands. Your intentions are also questionable, since you seem Hell-bent on conducting a character assassination against me, refuse to even comment on the actual concerns about the theory (other than making snide references to the intelligence of those who think it is jargon-riddled claptrap). And since I have made my motivations so clear to everyone, maybe you would like to tell everyone how it is that you and DrL have the ability to state what it is that Langan thinks and believes?
- I have said it once, I will say it again. This is not the place for this manner of dispute. I am not obsessed with conducting a debate with you, but merely saying that since you seem so intent on claiming that I have "been caught in serious error about the theory" (which I haven't, I merely refused to respond to your facile arguments on an encyclopaedia talk page, but similarly said we could do it elsewhere), I have said that I am willing and able to give good acquittance of myself. As a bar bouncer, Mr Langan is no doubt familiar with the expression "Shall we take this outside, gentlemen?": well that's what I am saying we should do here. This is not the place for debating the merits of the CTMU, we are talking about the article and its merits. Which you have not really addressed.
- And I always wanted to be called quixotic! Now cut this out.--Byrgenwulf 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response to sophistry. "[...] the term "pseudoscience" [...] can be properly applied only to theories which explicitly, but falsely, claim to be scientific in nature. [...] the CTMU does not make such a claim and has never made such a claim" — so, it's not science after all! Heh heh heh. Anville 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response That's right. It's not science and never claimed to be. It's philosophy. So answer me this: what kind of idiot would vote to delete an article about a new strain of philosophy, on the explicit grounds that it's "not science"? You might want to think carefully before answering. (Or maybe not.) Asmodeus 20:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response to sophistry. "[...] the term "pseudoscience" [...] can be properly applied only to theories which explicitly, but falsely, claim to be scientific in nature. [...] the CTMU does not make such a claim and has never made such a claim" — so, it's not science after all! Heh heh heh. Anville 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- CommentUser:Asmodeus has likewise only edited the CTMU article and articles relating to its inventor and his high IQ society.--Byrgenwulf 19:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response Byrgenwulf, I'm afraid that you got yourself bogged down in an argument about the CTMU itself early on in the discussion (see the Talk page). Nobody forced you to do this. Furthermore, you repeatedly tried to claim that you are a professional philosopher of physics. I believe that you did so dishonestly - you've demonstrated far too thorough a misunderstanding of the theory and its underlying issues for it to be otherwise - and I think that's relevant to this entire dispute. Again, nobody forced your hand when you made that claim. As far Langan is concerned, he is well-known not to have finished college - that's part of what makes him and his theory highly notable (not too many high-IQ "blue-collar cosmologists" out there). By the way, Wikipedia is not a venue for contemptuous (and contemptible) displays of academic snobbery; if some notable, verifiable academic wants to rebut the theory and expose himself to rebuttal in turn, he is and always has been free to do so. Until then, negative judgments on the scholarly integrity of the CTMU are worthless. The CTMU is out there, it is notable, and your attacks on it clearly stem from two factors: your personal philosophical leanings, and your highly evident inability to understand the new concepts that it introduces, despite the fact that they are comprehensibly explained in Langan's writings (to some people, anyway). So please dispense with all the posturing. Asmodeus 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response I don't want to get bogged down in stupid argument here. Suffice it to say I think Asmodeus has the wrong end of the stick anyway about who I am and what I do, and is both distorting my words and making assumptions. Asmodeus, ad hominems only make you look puerile. What is at issue here anyway is not whether or not the CTMU is a valid theory; what is at issue here is whether the Wikipedia article on the CTMU meets the standards and criteria for inclusion. This is the issue. If Asmodeus and DrL wish to indulge in debate on the merits of CTMU as a theory, they are welcome to let me know on my talk page, and we can organise that elsewhere: I think they will find that I am not quite the starry-eyed first year grad student I have been characterised as (LOL). Nonetheless, if my personal qualifications are necessary to make raising a query about a theory, I know I have two nice fancy certificates I can fax to Wikipedia: Langan, who came up with the theory under discussion here, seems to be proud of the fact he never completed college.--Byrgenwulf 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hand-wavy claptrap of the first order. -- GWO
- 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. --Danielmryan 18:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User's only edit. 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 Joywords.) -- Danielmryan 19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User's only edit. Tevildo 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- To quote Alan Sokal, "As a physicist, I am not impressed." Delete as soapbox-standing, probable OR and vanity. 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 --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?) Anville 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN scientific theory, of little use to the reader of an encyclopedia. The appropriate place for this proposal and resulting discourse is in the scientific literature.--Nick Y. 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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. --Blaine Steinert 20:23, 14 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. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The CTMU has received extensive coverage in the mainstream media, including Popular Science [1], 20/20 [2], 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 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. Tim Smith 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)