Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Responses to Asmodeus

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)

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)

Comment Cite your sources. Jeffire is no better a source than you are...in fact, he appears somewhat inferior. In view of your insupportable comments elsewhere on this page, such a weighty conclusion as that to which you here give utterance cannot be taken on the word of you and Jeffire alone. You've chosen to involve yourself in an editorial procedure here; therefore, Like Byrgenwulf, you have an editorial burden to meet. Unless, that is, you wish to have your unkind remarks dismissed as the nonsense they are, particularly by people with an actual understanding of philosophy. Asmodeus 00:35, 15 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.

Response Here at Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the editors. This is clearly stated in Wikipedia Policy, and you've been playing that rule up for all it's worth, to a fault in fact, against me and anyone else who disagrees with you. Can you provide a verifiable citation which refers specifically to the CTMU and states that the CTMU purports to refute basic ideas on relativity, in the form of "conspansion" or otherwise? Of course you can't, and in fact, that's a bald-faced lie. The CTMU nowhere disagrees with relativity, as anyone who has read and understood the paper understands. You seem to think that one has to know Langan to know this; no, one doesn't have to know Langan, and it wouldn't make any difference even if one did. All that one has to do is read the material. Here's another one for you: provide a citation which refers directly to the CTMU and shows that it cannot be construed as an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Can you do that? We're not talking about your ongoing efforts to earn a degree at whatever school it is that you attend; we're not talking about your opinions. We're talking about citation, and you meeting your editorial burden of proof regarding Langan, the CTMU, and his claims regarding the CTMU, which - once again - have been extensively reported on and deemed notable by ABC News, Popular Science, and other reputable sources. Don't argue, just give the citations. Asmodeus 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The CTMU has been resoundingly ignored by scholarly journals, except for behind the scenes sniggers, I guess. Can you provide a single citation in a scholarly journal which refers to the "theory" at all? Saying that "conspansion" does not refute relativity is equally opinionative. Can you cite a single scholarly paper that proves that "conspansion" and relativity agree, other than the CTMU? Moreover, my point is not to show that the CTMU is false, I merely mentioned some of the claims it makes. It does make those claims, doesn't it? If not, why does the article say so?--Byrgenwulf 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Response First, Byrgenwulf, why don't we see if you can meet your editorial responsibility and provide citations for "sniggering" about the CTMU by the editors of scholarly journals? (In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that qualified academics are guilty of that kind of shallow derision, only pretentious schoolboys.)

Asmodeus, you clearly don't have the slightest clue about academe if that is what you think: just look around at the miscellany of opinions and comments made about crackpot theories (whether or not the CTMU is one of those).--Byrgenwulf 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Who cares what you, a mere hopeful outsider, hear when you eagerly press your ear to the door of the faculty lounge? Based on the scientific and philosophical prowess you have exhibited to date, the only letters I ever expect to see after you name are the South African equivalent of ABD ("All But Dissertation"). We're talking specifically about the CTMU here. No real academic (as opposed, for example, to you, a pretender) would slur the CTMU in the light of day under his real name, because he has a reputation to protect, and in all probability, Langan would make him look like an idiot on rebuttal. You couldn't prove the CTMU a "crackpot theory" if your life dependend on it; you simply don't know enough to even try, as we've conclusively established here and elsewhere. In short, you're just a little atheist-materialist-ID critic ("Bright") inappropriately using Wikipedia for a joyride. Asmodeus 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, cite the exact Wikipedia policy statement that limits verifiable sources to the particular kind of "scholarly journal" that you subscribe to, wish that you could afford, or peer at sullenly without a glimmer of comprehension. I'd be interested in seeing it, and it would be highly relevant to this dispute. As you attempt to meet these obligations, please try to wrap your mind around something that is very, very important here: neither Langan nor the Wikipedia editors writing on Langan need, in any way, shape, or form, to justify Langan's claims regarding the CTMU. Why not? Because reputable sources like ABC News and Popular Science have already deemed Langan and the CTMU notable, from which it immediately follows that Langan's claims regarding the CTMU are notable as well, insofar as they clarify the meaning of the theory in the eyes of its author. Your opinions regarding those claims are absolutely insignificant; all that matters is that Langan made them, be they right, wrong, or somewhere in between.

Right here. If the CTMU is a "model" or a "theory", then it is using the terminology of science (philosophical doctrines aren't "models" or "theories"), and hence to be evaluated as such. Once again you are demonstrating your own ignorance. I could similarly rip into you, and your bar bouncer idol, if I were feeling nasty and vituperative enough to do so, about your complete lack of understanding of both science and philosophy. The number of gaffes you have made, when obviously desperately trying to be serious, only makes you look bad, as do your repeated attempts to call me a liar and ignorant, when I have amply proven that this is not the case: you have twisted my words, exaggerated, and outright lied. I have not done anything of the sort. You continue to misrepresent me, but do remember that I am doing Langan the courtesy of not making similar snide remarks about him and his lack of education and understanding.--Byrgenwulf 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Get real. First, you ARE nasty and vituperative; that's what this attack on the CTMU article is all about. Secondly, you're not even in my league, let alone Langan's, as has been demonstrated on this page and elsewhere. I have no respect left for your level of acumen...none, and that's based exclusively on experience. Thirdly, the terms "theory" and "model" do not belong exclusively to science, mathematics, or medicine. Fourthly, the PCID paper clearly explains the sense in which the CTMU legitimately qualifies as both a theory AND model in the technical sense. Indeed, it is unique in this respect; this is part of what makes it so notable. Langan is the only person who has ever presented such a construct - which is by nature tautological, as Langan makes very clear - and the CTMU deserves positive recognition for that alone (among other things). The CTMU is arguably revolutionary, as you'd know if you had even a small fraction of the brains you think you do, and if you had read the PCID paper as you claim. As a wannabe scholar, you should be kissing Langan's feet. Instead, you seem intent on biting them. Asmodeus 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you understand this? It's bad enough that you can't even begin to meet your editorial burden, and that you've repeatedly been caught in atrocious, gutbusting howlers regarding your alleged field(s) of would-be expertise; you don't even understand the barest rudiments of Wikipedia policy! Asmodeus 23:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where? Should I start listing the terminological howlers that Langan makes? And your constant transgressions of not only Wikipedia policy but basic personal etiquette as well.--Byrgenwulf 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Who are you to mock your betters for "terminological howlers"? As we have already clearly established, you don't even know the meanings of basic terms and phrases like "theory of everything", "pseusoscience", and "science", to which we can now append "theory" and "model"! In the language of the philosophy of science, you're positively aphasic. Asmodeus 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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?

Response I have just shown that you are dishonest, and demanded the citations that would refute it. Regarding character assassination, that's a laugh - you're trying to erase another person's theory from this encyclopedia using every slimy, dishonest trick in the book. To have one's "character" assassinated, one must have character in the first place. Asmodeus 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus, your comments are becoming increasingly below the belt. You are accusing me of being slimy and dishonest? You are behaving like a lying, prevaricating, malicious, uptight little schoolgirl. I have tried to keep my cool, but you really are pushing me. I am not trying to erase this article, I have opened up a debate on what the community consensus on the nature of the article is. For the umpteenth time, I must ask you to stop.--Byrgenwulf 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Now Byrgenwulf is getting nasty. Therefore, I have no choice but to go ahead and demolish what little remains of his own "credibility" as a wannabe academic and editor for this article. That will be easy. Byrgenwulf has stated above that if the CTMU "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." Now, Byrgenwulf has called himself a professional university instructor; you all heard it right out of his mouth, and anyone who missed it can read it here and on the discussion page. But something is badly amiss, for no philosophy instructor or scientist or even a grad student worth two cents could possibly have uttered such a statement. In fact, it is common knowledge that interpretations of quantum mechanics do NOT fall within the domain of science; they are unequivocally philosophical in nature! By necessity, that's the level on which they are formulated. In other words, Byrgenwulf doesn't know his rear end from his elbow about EITHER philosophy OR science. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what this Vote is really about...the gall and pettiness of a third-rate pretender who wouldn't know what the CTMU was saying if his very life depended on it. Let the Word be carried forth. Asmodeus

Asmodeus, you once again are demonstrating your ignorance. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are generally published in physics journals, written by physicists, and spoken about by other physicists. It is by no means clearcut as to whether or not they are philosophical or physical, and usually the line can be drawn based on the ontology assigned to various parts of the theory: as Langan doesn't analyse this, nor does he provide anything like the rigour or depth of analysis offered by, say, Everett in "The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction", it is extremely difficult to say why his outrageous claim shouldn't be dismissed outright. Moreover, I take it that "Sum over futures" is meant to be a juxtaposition with Feynman's "Sum over histories"? Well, and this might come as news to you, the "sum over histories" idea is a formulation, not an interpretation: it is a method for expressing quantum mechanics mathematically, that makes solving certain calculational problems much easier. A sentence in a diagram's caption cannot even begin to compare to the depth, insight, and sheer practical brilliance of Feynman's idea.--Byrgenwulf 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response You still don't get it, do you? You are not in a position to arbitrarily define "interpretation of quantum mechanics" on publication in selected journals, or on the basis of authorship. Langan's claim that the CTMU can be thusly interpreted has been duly treated as a claim, and nothing more, which clarifies the author's meaning and intent regarding the theory, that is, regarding the topic of the article. Again, you are conflating the CTMU, Langan's claims regarding it, and the Wikipedia article itself. A real philosopher would never be guilty of this sort of confusion; philosophers can keep better track of their concepts. Regarding the path-integral formulation of QM, save it for someone who knows less about physics - I just finished a paper on quantum Lagrangians, and whether or not you think so, could hand you your rear on a plate on that topic. You made a fundamental error, and you need to admit it...for the good of your own soul if nothing else. You have made error after error after error, and you do yourself, and the readers of Wikipedia, no service by failing to own up to it. Asmodeus 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus, I have no soul. Byrgenwulf 17:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

Response Meet your editorial burden and provide the requested citations. That's all. Scroll up if you don't know what citations have been requested. Asmodeus 21:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

• My final response to Asmodeus' ongoing personal assaults. Asmodeus, if Langan thinks his "theory" is so incontrovertibly brilliant, he can publish it in a non-biased scholarly journal and see what reaction it gets among the general scientific or philosophical community. If it even passes peer-review in a journal of which Langan is not a fellow, that is. This is deviating waaaay off topic. Byrgenwulf 16:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to editors

This is NOT the place to debate the validity or otherwise of CTMU, but to discuss the deletion of the article. Please also cease personal attacks, incivility, and outright hostility immeadiatly. Jefffire 15:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to jeffire

This discussion of CTMU content was initiated by Byrgenwulf, who began this dispute and called for the Vote. It is therefore clear that the Vote was, at least in part, inappropriately motivated by Byrgenwulf's notion that the CTMU is flawed, as can be amply confirmed on the discussion page for the original well-supported, well-verified article. This information is relevant in every way; having already planted seeds of doubt in the minds of his readers, thus hoping to sway the issue, Byrgenwulf's sour opinion of the CTMU, which is quite evident here and elsewhere, must not be allowed to stand unopposed.

Editor jeffire is himself an interested party who is attempting to paint the CTMU as a "non-notable" theory, ostensibly because it has not been published and critiqued in the sort of academic journal that jeffire believes appropriate. In jeffire's view, Wikipedia is to this extent an extension or appendage of academia, beholden to academia and academic journals for its scientific or philosophical content. Possibly due to an alignment of interests, jeffire has persistently attempted to shield Byrgenwulf from the criticism that Byrgenwulf's antisocial behavior has rightfully evoked. This is reprehensible.

This entire charade is a mockery of Wikipedia and everything it stands for, and everyone - voters in particular - should be made aware of this. Asmodeus 16:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Remarkable number of beliefs that I hold without knowing about! Jefffire 16:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Please. Either you know what you've been doing (and writing) here, or you don't. If you do, you should admit it; if you don't, then your behavior is essentially that of a zombie or automaton, and you have no business pretending to edit Wikipedia articles.

I am editing to fix violations of Wikipedia's core polices, and proposing this article for deletion as being irretrievable in violation of those polices. If you believe that makes me an automaton you are free to do so. Jefffire 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Unfortunately, jeffire, you are yourself in massive violation of Wikipedia core policies pertaining to neutrality and verifiability, and therefore additionally guilty of hypocrisy. You cannot offer a single verifiable source indicating that the CTMU is non-notable; all of the evidence except academic journals points to its notability, and there is plenty of evidence to that effect. Similarly, you cannot show, in any way, shape, or form, that the original CTMU article was not neutral prior to the current paroxysm of opinionative pseudo-editing. In short, a careful reading of Wikipedia policy reveals that as a Wikipedia editor, you are simply a disgrace. Of course, you are free to think otherwise, for what little that would be worth. But I'm afraid the evidence speaks quite loudly enough for itself. Asmodeus 17:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Charmed. I'm going to let the result of the AfD respond for me. Jefffire 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTc)

Response You mean, of course, the phony charade that you have helped engineer and execute. It has been established that the VtD was not properly motivated according to Wikipedia policy; therefore, it should not be counted. It is additionally clear that some of the voters in that process do not understand their own editorial burdens, and are not meeting them. Technically, their votes should not be counted. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no shortage of people who are full of spleen and do not understand or meet their editorial responsibilities, and you've been playing this undesirable element to what you consider, for some reason, to be your advantage. In other words, you've been playing a slimy little game here, and it is in every way despicable. Now do everyone a favor - keep your promise, go away, and stay gone. Asmodeus 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Flattery will get you everywhere. Jefffire 12:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This article and notability

This theory was in fact published in a journal:

• Paper Published September 2002 in Progress in Complexity, Information and Design, the journal of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.

Also, you can use this web site found here to source the article. Main websites may in fact be used. I hope this helps out. SynergeticMaggot 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Journal has no impact factor, website is written by adherants. Neither are proof of notability. Jefffire 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Objective measure of notability: 14,500 google web hits for "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Compare and contrast to 45,000,000 for time cube. Jefffire 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly both are notable ideas. I didn't say they were credible. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that time cube is notable, and that the CTMU isn't, which the 3000 times more hits for time cube testifies to. Clearly both are garbage. Jefffire 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it shows that one is more notable than the other, not that one is notable and the other isn't. And your inference drawn from the shaky premise is still a non-sequitur: garbage <> unnotable. Only a herd animal would argue thusly. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Charming, please read our policies on personal attacks WP:NPA. A mere 14, 000 hits suggests very strongly that the topic is non-notable. And I have never suggested that garbage = non-notable. Jefffire 13:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

After your claim of un-notability you said "Clearly both are garbage." --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I also said that time cube was notable. Even if I hadn't that doesn't explain your rudeness. Jefffire 13:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

:::This AfD isn't only about notability, anyway. The quality of the theory itself isn't really the issue, even though it has arisen. The issue is whether or not the article is a neutral, legible account of an extremely obscure fringe theory, or whether it is an overinflated soapbox to reflect the author and his fans' opinions of it. The latter seems to apply here, and moreover Google hits aren't the only things that count when it comes to this sort of thing: one has to look at publication, and while the author has been written about by many, his theory has not been the subject of a single article, either popular or academic. That's why the theory article is up for AfD but the author bio isn't. Even most of those google hits will focus on the fact that this chap has such a high IQ, and that he has a Theory of Everything, bla bla. The actual content of the theory will be a much smaller percentage of those hits. I would say that 14 000 hits hardly constitute notability either. Byrgenwulf 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- up to the last sentence. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that the administrators issue "Linas" a warning or a block and remove libel from history. Statement below edited per Wiki policy. DrL 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While Tim Smith's overall summary is presumably correct, I do not beleive a "close with no consensus" is the correct resolution. linas 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment to closing admin by Tim Smith

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. Tim Smith 04:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that if the article is kept, they will revert to your last edit before this storm and include a neutral criticism paragraph. Thanks for creating a great article on a complex and controversial topic and for somehow managing to keep it NPOV for nearly a year. I hope to see it back one day. DrL 05:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While Tim Smith's overall summary is presumably correct, I do not beleive a "close with no consensus" is the correct resolution. Wikipedia should not encourage trolls, cranks, crackpots and the mentally deranged to create wacko articles on non-sense theories. These people need to find an alternate output for their energies, instead of draging the WP community into these moral-sucking debates. We should all be working for a higher purpose, instead of playing editorial psychiatrist to every whackjob that comes along. Delete this mess for what it is: a word salad by a non-notable, unbalanced individual. linas 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved libel to talk page. DrL 14:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I restored it. Deleting other users' comments is out of line, and I find your understanding of defamation law less than impressive. —Caesura^(t) 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, in fairness I should add: Linas, WP:NPA please. —Caesura^(t) 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:NPA, "Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse." Tim Smith 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

DrL, what Linas wrote was not libel, and what you just did is a prime example of the wikilawyering he was talking about. It is a particularly insidious way of removing an opinion conflicting with your own (and don't forget how you changed what I had written here before).

• Byrgenwulf, I changed the word "socks" to "others" in a passage where you were falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet. I was unaware of Talk page etiquette at that time. DrL 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with Tim's summary to a point, I do not agree that the attempts of various editors to make something salvageable out of the article should in any way cast doubt on this process. Indeed, those of who opted for deletion but still tried working on the article were thwarted at every step by DrL, Tim Smith, and Asmodeus. Indeed, DrL was blocked for reverting constantly, while Asmodeus was blocked for continued personal abuse of myself and other editors. Of those who opted to keep the article, most were "once-off editors", other than three I mentioned and a couple of others. By far most legitimate editors, with a history here extending past last week Friday, opted to delete the article as non-notable badly-written vanity. The reason it remained for so long is that it was largely in a "walled garden" of itself, Langan's bio, and the high IQ clubs he founded. Otherwise, if was fully linked to other articles, I am sure something would have been said by one of the many people who thought it should go, long before I happened upon it. Byrgenwulf 14:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do please note that while Bygenwulf called for mediation, only Tim Smith and I participated in the mediation process. I think it would have been great if all of the editors would have agreed and not just two. At points I thought we were beginning to work cooperatively (at least three of the editors) only to have our efforts fall to a 4th party mass delete. 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 (we were close in a couple of spots). This last constructive edit by Byrgenwulf might be a fairly neutral place to start. DrL 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment regarding linas

Let's see if we can get to the root of this.

First, linas says that "Tim Smith's overall summary is presumably correct." Since Tim Smith created the CTMU article, and "correctly", he is not deranged.

But then linas suddenly does a queer turnabout. Specifically, linas says that "Wikipedia should not encourage trolls, cranks, crackpots and the mentally deranged to create wacko articles", and furthermore, that the article is "a word salad by a non-notable, unbalanced individual".

Again, Tim Smith created the article. Therefore, linas is now calling Tim "deranged". In addition to being counterfactual and unmistakably non-neutral, this constitutes a glaring violation of civility. It is, beyond any shadow of doubt, a personal attack for which linas needs to be officially chided, or perhaps blocked.

Furthermore, it seems to suggest that linas occupies an extremely volatile state of mind in which it is possible, perhaps likely, for him to suddenly switch from the idea that Tim Smith correctly created the article, to the idea that Tim Smith is deranged, within the space of three (3) sentences. The question thus arises: is this a balanced state of mind, or any state of mind becoming a Wikipedia editor? Surely not, even though we see other Wikipedia editors wallowing in it with all four feet.

But even more tellingly, it betrays a muddled conflation of the article with the theory it describes. It is as though linas, and all of those supporting him, really wanted to attack the CTMU - which was explained to, and evidently deemed sane enough by, some very picky, discerning journalists and their fact-checkers and technical advisors - as the product of a "deranged" mind, but couldn't connect with the author himself. So instead, they decided to lynch poor Tim instead, just to make themselves feel better and get all of that negative emotional energy off their chests.

These people are clearly confused, and they clearly have a lot of emotional energy wrapped up in this topic...enough, as we have just observed, to seriously compromise their thinking. But then why are they professing neutrality? Why are they so intent on convincing everyone else that they are the Voice of Reason and the Soul of Wikipedia, when this is clearly anything but the case?

Perhaps Jimmy Wales was wrong after all. Perhaps Wikipedia will soon melt down in a welter of confusion and invective, destroyed by victims of terrible emotional storms raging inside them. But meanwhile, let's all hope that those who pass judgment on Tim Smith's accurate, informative, well-written, and well-documented article are better able to keep it and its subject matter in proper perspective, and are better attuned to the nature and purpose of the courageous and benignly-conceived project that is Wikipedia. Asmodeus 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)