This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe at the Reference desk. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
In 2006 two articles were written on the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). They didn't pass AfD at the time. One was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive_Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe (without the hypen) and the other was this one Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe (with the hypen). The result of the later discussion was a redirect of this page to Christopher Langan, the author of the CTMU. Since 2006 more as been written about the CTMU and there are now more several secondary sources discussing it. There was a "2020 version" of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe this article posted this week in place of this redirect but that has since been replaced with a redirect to Christopher Langan again. This RfC is to see if there if consensus can be generated on the notability of the CTMU with the WP:RS published since 2006, and if deemed notability should the redirect be replaced with a new version of the article along the lines of the one posted this week? - Scarpy ( talk) 05:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines.These guidelines require the topic to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since this is true of the CTMU (see above), it is notable. The new draft by Scarpy could serve as a starting point for further development. Tim Smith ( talk) 02:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. In this case, the journal is indeed independent of the CTMU. Thus, it is a reliable, independent source for the theory's notability.
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.Additionally, per WP:FRINGE,
Reliable sources on Wikipedia may include [...] magazines [...] published by respected publishing houses. Popular Science was published by Time Inc. and has won multiple awards, including the American Society of Magazine Editors award for General Excellence. Thus, it too is a reliable, independent source for the theory's notability. Tim Smith ( talk) 02:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
Yes. There's a lot of interest in the CTMU and people would like to understand it better. I’d like to give just one example, that of Quora, which surely is noticeable enough (with its active Wikipedia article) and can be used as a source of information. If I am right, in 2016 Mr. Langan set up an account on Quora in response to many questions appearing there about his work. During his two years there he answered approx. 250 questions, generated 1.2 milion content views and had 1,657 followers. I was one of them and found many of Mr. Langan's answers very interesting and original, for example this one:
What is logical theology? How does it relate to Chris Langan and the CTMU?
Since 2018, questions about the CTMU haven't stopped flowing in; the last question was asked on 13th June 2020. People want to know more about it and Mr. Langan himself; there IS popular demand. If I may present some interesting numbers to support this claim. Upon checking the following Topics on Quora and all questions asked in relation to them, the following results present themselves:
Please compare the above with the relatively low interest in the below related Quora Topics which are, nevertheless, present on Wikipedia.
The latter having even its own article Simulation hypothesis.
I haven't mentioned this topic accidentally. It's important to recognize that Mr. Langan is the originator of the term “self-simulation” in the reality-theoretic context, and has always followed this path by positing that the Universe is monic (dual-aspect monism) and exhausting logical consequences of this fact.
Interviews with Mr. Langan are also popular (from YouTube):
with Spike Jonze, 50,154 views;
with Steve Patterson, 15,878 views, or the same interview on
another channel, 29,468 views;
People Speak Radio, 48,546 views;
Coast to Coast AM, 80 949 views.
Mr. Langan has published various articles (including the ones in the peer-reviewed C&H with many noticeable scholars in its Editorial Team) and answered hundreds of questions about his theory on numerous websites. His position has been consistent over the years and the answers I have seen are very satisfying. He is a logician, metaphysician (in a precisely-defined sense), philosopher, and thinker whose contributions deserve to be recognized.
If there is an article on Wikipedia about Simulation Hypothesis (276) there definitely should be a separate article about the CTMU (905) on Wikipedia.
People want to know more about the CTMU and I believe Wikipedia should support this wish in order to be consistent with what it is presenting itself to be.
I'd like to vote in favour of the CTMU article publication. -- Mich.Szczesny ( talk) 22:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — Mich.Szczesny ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes. The CTMU has gained steady popularity including coverage on mainstream media and podcasts as stated above. A moderate number of works of Langan were also published on a peer-reviewed journal Cosmos and History, whose editorial board consists of notable academics including a Nobel Prize winner. The CTMU was also cited on Klee Irwin's Self-Simulation hypothesis, I think that's enough back-up for the notability of the CTMU and definitely qualifies a re-creation of the article on Wikipedia. -- Johnnyyiu ( talk) 04:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Johnnyyiu ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes. My argument is the following notable material into which the CTMU found its way. The quotation marks for the verb "publish" in the above comment are not justified at all if you don't mind me saying so:
a) Quote: >>There are many beautifully written papers in the series with both Fritjof Capra and Chris Langan achieving record numbers of downloads.<< ( https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/727/1191 )
b) Quote: >>I include three papers – one each by Leanne Whitney, Jack duVall and Chris Langan – from our “21st century sacred” session on Oct 5 2017 in honour of the Benedicitine monk Sean O Duinn, who passed away on Oct 9 2017 at 83, and we were grateful to have the privilege of honouring him."What have we found out in our 4 years and 150+ papers from over 100 authors? It is worth pointing out that some of our authors do not have Ph.D’s; in fact, Chris Langan, perhaps the most downloaded, does not have a degree. However, Chris has one of the highest IQ’s ever recorded and incredible discipline as he alternates farmwork in Wyoming with research. What was more important for us was to get a range of viewpoints on critical issues of life and mind that conventional academia is not addressing.<< ( https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/677/1149)
a) and b) are not primary sources, but secondary sources. They were written about the author of the CTMU by someone else (an academic who publishes, does research etc.) in a reliable source (Cosmos and History journal, more specifically in the proceedings of an academic group known as “Foundations of Mind”). The quotes come from Seán Ó Nualláin who’s mentioned, e.g., here: https://www.interaliamag.org/author/seanonuallain/. It is noteworthy for the CTMU theory because the FOM group contains notable academics. Cosmos and History is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal of natural and social philosophy and this is the editorial team: https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/about/editorialTeam
“In terms of downloads (150,000 per year), annual page views (27 million+) ,and peer-reviewed papers (more than 100 in its first 3 years, from March 2014 to March 2017), Foundations of Mind is now the world’s leading science of mind research group. While centered on cognitive science, it has featured many papers on the quantum mechanics view of mind, the foundations of physics and biology, and indeed ecology and health as manifestations of mind. Its most recent proceedings volume, published in March 2017, received a total of 4,333 downloads in its first month, with the top papers receiving 750+, about what ACM papers typically take 25 years to achieve.” (see: http://foundationsofmind.org/ and search for it, you find it where it reads "The New AI Scare") Notable members of FOM are, for example: Seán O Nualláin, Stuart Hammeroff ( http://foundationsofmind.org/ - third last entry), Henry Stapp ( https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-iv), Fred Alan Wolf ( https://www.bionoetics.org/product-page/premium-access-placeholder), Stuart Kauffman ( https://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/63219 & https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-i), Paul J Werbos ( https://www.bionoetics.org/product-page/premium-access-placeholder)
Further evidence for FOM membership of Chris and his CTMU theory:
“This Premium Membership includes not only all 16 full papers from Foundations of Mind 8. (...) 7. [PREMIUM ONLY] Christopher Langan,...” https://www.bionoetics.org/product-page/premium-access-placeholder
“Foundations of Mind V The New AI Scare (...) Metareligion as the Human Singularity Christopher Langan…” https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-v
“The "Foundations of Mind" series (O Nualláin 2014a, 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018) which began in 2014 is now the most downloaded series of conferences proceedings in the history of modern science of mind and possibly alt science in general. Perhaps not coincidentally, it is also the most various and here we review it. (...) The Metaformal System: Completing the Theory of Language Christopher Langan…” https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-vii
“Foundations of Mind IV Quantum Mechanics meets (...) An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics Christopher Langan…” https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-iv
“Our new proceedings volume featuring Chris Langan (whose interview with Spike Jonze can be seen here), Paul Werbos (who invented deep learning), and many others, is also included in the Premium package. These are peer-reviewed papers not available elsewhere.” https://www.bionoetics.org/
Furthermore:
There is this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jonathan_Mize2 “I am currently working in advancing the novel and currently neglected metaphysical framework of Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). More specifically, I am interested in advancing CTMU-informed methods of social and normative analysis.”
And this: https://medium.com/@variantofone/explaining-the-ctmu-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe-163a89fc5841-- Moripheles ( talk) 07:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)— Moripheles ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
... but what purpose would such a page even serve ...WP:PROMOTION, of course. — Paleo Neonate – 20:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Wikipedia maintains a lower notability requirement for new articles than the above opponents here seem to realize. So one shouldn't get too caught up in the fact that the CTMU "isn't as important as Langan claims", or "is just a bunch of nonsense", when all we need to know is that (a) the CTMU has been around for decades, with hundreds of thousands of words written about it (b) has received attention from academia and the press and (c) compares favorably in depth and notoriety to similar theories which already do have articles (e.g., William James Sidis' The Animate and the Inanimate).
The self-appointed gatekeepers of Wikipedia who insist on keeping it free of "crackpot theories" should stop allowing their personal issues with Langan and his theory to detract from Wikipedia's mission, which has always been far broader than that of any other website. Wikipedia hosts many utterly obscure articles on topics which very few are even aware, and thus an article covering one of the very few "theories of everything", authored by someone widely reported as having the world's highest IQ, clearly qualifies.
Siagos ( talk) 15:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Siagos ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
... allowing their personal issues with Langan ...I think none of us non-single-purpose-account editors know the man. You may also want to discuss content rather then editors (and read WP:PA). As for notability and fringe, they're Wikipedia policies, not the personal concepts of some editors. — Paleo Neonate – 20:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique bent on minimizing the reality of the situation by redirecting to a defamatory section of Langan's bio. Let's open this up to have a real discussion and wait for some less involved admins and editors to weigh in. TIA DrL ( talk) 18:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)— DrL ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe at the Reference desk. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
In 2006 two articles were written on the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). They didn't pass AfD at the time. One was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive_Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe (without the hypen) and the other was this one Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe (with the hypen). The result of the later discussion was a redirect of this page to Christopher Langan, the author of the CTMU. Since 2006 more as been written about the CTMU and there are now more several secondary sources discussing it. There was a "2020 version" of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe this article posted this week in place of this redirect but that has since been replaced with a redirect to Christopher Langan again. This RfC is to see if there if consensus can be generated on the notability of the CTMU with the WP:RS published since 2006, and if deemed notability should the redirect be replaced with a new version of the article along the lines of the one posted this week? - Scarpy ( talk) 05:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines.These guidelines require the topic to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since this is true of the CTMU (see above), it is notable. The new draft by Scarpy could serve as a starting point for further development. Tim Smith ( talk) 02:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. In this case, the journal is indeed independent of the CTMU. Thus, it is a reliable, independent source for the theory's notability.
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.Additionally, per WP:FRINGE,
Reliable sources on Wikipedia may include [...] magazines [...] published by respected publishing houses. Popular Science was published by Time Inc. and has won multiple awards, including the American Society of Magazine Editors award for General Excellence. Thus, it too is a reliable, independent source for the theory's notability. Tim Smith ( talk) 02:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
Yes. There's a lot of interest in the CTMU and people would like to understand it better. I’d like to give just one example, that of Quora, which surely is noticeable enough (with its active Wikipedia article) and can be used as a source of information. If I am right, in 2016 Mr. Langan set up an account on Quora in response to many questions appearing there about his work. During his two years there he answered approx. 250 questions, generated 1.2 milion content views and had 1,657 followers. I was one of them and found many of Mr. Langan's answers very interesting and original, for example this one:
What is logical theology? How does it relate to Chris Langan and the CTMU?
Since 2018, questions about the CTMU haven't stopped flowing in; the last question was asked on 13th June 2020. People want to know more about it and Mr. Langan himself; there IS popular demand. If I may present some interesting numbers to support this claim. Upon checking the following Topics on Quora and all questions asked in relation to them, the following results present themselves:
Please compare the above with the relatively low interest in the below related Quora Topics which are, nevertheless, present on Wikipedia.
The latter having even its own article Simulation hypothesis.
I haven't mentioned this topic accidentally. It's important to recognize that Mr. Langan is the originator of the term “self-simulation” in the reality-theoretic context, and has always followed this path by positing that the Universe is monic (dual-aspect monism) and exhausting logical consequences of this fact.
Interviews with Mr. Langan are also popular (from YouTube):
with Spike Jonze, 50,154 views;
with Steve Patterson, 15,878 views, or the same interview on
another channel, 29,468 views;
People Speak Radio, 48,546 views;
Coast to Coast AM, 80 949 views.
Mr. Langan has published various articles (including the ones in the peer-reviewed C&H with many noticeable scholars in its Editorial Team) and answered hundreds of questions about his theory on numerous websites. His position has been consistent over the years and the answers I have seen are very satisfying. He is a logician, metaphysician (in a precisely-defined sense), philosopher, and thinker whose contributions deserve to be recognized.
If there is an article on Wikipedia about Simulation Hypothesis (276) there definitely should be a separate article about the CTMU (905) on Wikipedia.
People want to know more about the CTMU and I believe Wikipedia should support this wish in order to be consistent with what it is presenting itself to be.
I'd like to vote in favour of the CTMU article publication. -- Mich.Szczesny ( talk) 22:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — Mich.Szczesny ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes. The CTMU has gained steady popularity including coverage on mainstream media and podcasts as stated above. A moderate number of works of Langan were also published on a peer-reviewed journal Cosmos and History, whose editorial board consists of notable academics including a Nobel Prize winner. The CTMU was also cited on Klee Irwin's Self-Simulation hypothesis, I think that's enough back-up for the notability of the CTMU and definitely qualifies a re-creation of the article on Wikipedia. -- Johnnyyiu ( talk) 04:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Johnnyyiu ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes. My argument is the following notable material into which the CTMU found its way. The quotation marks for the verb "publish" in the above comment are not justified at all if you don't mind me saying so:
a) Quote: >>There are many beautifully written papers in the series with both Fritjof Capra and Chris Langan achieving record numbers of downloads.<< ( https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/727/1191 )
b) Quote: >>I include three papers – one each by Leanne Whitney, Jack duVall and Chris Langan – from our “21st century sacred” session on Oct 5 2017 in honour of the Benedicitine monk Sean O Duinn, who passed away on Oct 9 2017 at 83, and we were grateful to have the privilege of honouring him."What have we found out in our 4 years and 150+ papers from over 100 authors? It is worth pointing out that some of our authors do not have Ph.D’s; in fact, Chris Langan, perhaps the most downloaded, does not have a degree. However, Chris has one of the highest IQ’s ever recorded and incredible discipline as he alternates farmwork in Wyoming with research. What was more important for us was to get a range of viewpoints on critical issues of life and mind that conventional academia is not addressing.<< ( https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/677/1149)
a) and b) are not primary sources, but secondary sources. They were written about the author of the CTMU by someone else (an academic who publishes, does research etc.) in a reliable source (Cosmos and History journal, more specifically in the proceedings of an academic group known as “Foundations of Mind”). The quotes come from Seán Ó Nualláin who’s mentioned, e.g., here: https://www.interaliamag.org/author/seanonuallain/. It is noteworthy for the CTMU theory because the FOM group contains notable academics. Cosmos and History is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal of natural and social philosophy and this is the editorial team: https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/about/editorialTeam
“In terms of downloads (150,000 per year), annual page views (27 million+) ,and peer-reviewed papers (more than 100 in its first 3 years, from March 2014 to March 2017), Foundations of Mind is now the world’s leading science of mind research group. While centered on cognitive science, it has featured many papers on the quantum mechanics view of mind, the foundations of physics and biology, and indeed ecology and health as manifestations of mind. Its most recent proceedings volume, published in March 2017, received a total of 4,333 downloads in its first month, with the top papers receiving 750+, about what ACM papers typically take 25 years to achieve.” (see: http://foundationsofmind.org/ and search for it, you find it where it reads "The New AI Scare") Notable members of FOM are, for example: Seán O Nualláin, Stuart Hammeroff ( http://foundationsofmind.org/ - third last entry), Henry Stapp ( https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-iv), Fred Alan Wolf ( https://www.bionoetics.org/product-page/premium-access-placeholder), Stuart Kauffman ( https://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/63219 & https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-i), Paul J Werbos ( https://www.bionoetics.org/product-page/premium-access-placeholder)
Further evidence for FOM membership of Chris and his CTMU theory:
“This Premium Membership includes not only all 16 full papers from Foundations of Mind 8. (...) 7. [PREMIUM ONLY] Christopher Langan,...” https://www.bionoetics.org/product-page/premium-access-placeholder
“Foundations of Mind V The New AI Scare (...) Metareligion as the Human Singularity Christopher Langan…” https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-v
“The "Foundations of Mind" series (O Nualláin 2014a, 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2017, 2018) which began in 2014 is now the most downloaded series of conferences proceedings in the history of modern science of mind and possibly alt science in general. Perhaps not coincidentally, it is also the most various and here we review it. (...) The Metaformal System: Completing the Theory of Language Christopher Langan…” https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-vii
“Foundations of Mind IV Quantum Mechanics meets (...) An Introduction to Mathematical Metaphysics Christopher Langan…” https://www.bionoetics.org/foundations-of-mind-iv
“Our new proceedings volume featuring Chris Langan (whose interview with Spike Jonze can be seen here), Paul Werbos (who invented deep learning), and many others, is also included in the Premium package. These are peer-reviewed papers not available elsewhere.” https://www.bionoetics.org/
Furthermore:
There is this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jonathan_Mize2 “I am currently working in advancing the novel and currently neglected metaphysical framework of Langan’s Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). More specifically, I am interested in advancing CTMU-informed methods of social and normative analysis.”
And this: https://medium.com/@variantofone/explaining-the-ctmu-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe-163a89fc5841-- Moripheles ( talk) 07:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)— Moripheles ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
... but what purpose would such a page even serve ...WP:PROMOTION, of course. — Paleo Neonate – 20:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Wikipedia maintains a lower notability requirement for new articles than the above opponents here seem to realize. So one shouldn't get too caught up in the fact that the CTMU "isn't as important as Langan claims", or "is just a bunch of nonsense", when all we need to know is that (a) the CTMU has been around for decades, with hundreds of thousands of words written about it (b) has received attention from academia and the press and (c) compares favorably in depth and notoriety to similar theories which already do have articles (e.g., William James Sidis' The Animate and the Inanimate).
The self-appointed gatekeepers of Wikipedia who insist on keeping it free of "crackpot theories" should stop allowing their personal issues with Langan and his theory to detract from Wikipedia's mission, which has always been far broader than that of any other website. Wikipedia hosts many utterly obscure articles on topics which very few are even aware, and thus an article covering one of the very few "theories of everything", authored by someone widely reported as having the world's highest IQ, clearly qualifies.
Siagos ( talk) 15:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Siagos ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
... allowing their personal issues with Langan ...I think none of us non-single-purpose-account editors know the man. You may also want to discuss content rather then editors (and read WP:PA). As for notability and fringe, they're Wikipedia policies, not the personal concepts of some editors. — Paleo Neonate – 20:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique bent on minimizing the reality of the situation by redirecting to a defamatory section of Langan's bio. Let's open this up to have a real discussion and wait for some less involved admins and editors to weigh in. TIA DrL ( talk) 18:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)— DrL ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.