Talk:U.S. Presidential IQ hoax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] I mean, seriously.

1206 is not a real SAT score. I believe the scores are all multiples of ten. Also, you cannot predict IQ based on a scholastic, acquired knowledge-centric test. This is absurd.

Agreed. This portion of the article has been removed. atakdoug (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


http://www.therationalradical.com/morons/george-bush.htm

http://axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=153&num=24155 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.87.50 (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

See talk:List of US Presidents by estimated IQ/Delete to discuss deletion of this article

snopes says it's a hoax Quincy 07:54, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

and it seem awfully POV. All democrats beat all republicans except Richard Nixon? Gentgeen 08:09, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Went to the "non partizan" think tank's website, and found this report, that starts as follows,
"Bush rests comfortably after surgery to implant pacemaker in brain
"Thanks to a device similar to the one in Vice President Dick Cheney's heart, the nation has healthy, clear-thinking, plain-speaking leaders again.


"WASHINGTON -- In the second White House health scare in little more than a month, doctors Wednesday night implanted a sophisticated pacemaker in President Bush's brain."
I'm now going to list this on VfD

Oh, how I wish I could change "a partisan attack" to "an admittedly plausible partisan attack" :) Tualha 01:56, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Off topic

I see that some cleanup has been done on the article after I added a short note about the non-hoax 2006 study. But I feel that the amount of detail and "see also" links to nucular and stateregy are not really appropriate for an article about this topic. The non-hoax is already discussed in Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush. Han-Kwang 15:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there real or at least estimated IQ for Clinton?

This wiki article starts out as a hoax on U.S. Presidents but from then on talks only about George W. Bush. What about Bill Clinton’s 182 IQ was this also faked or where is a legitimate source for it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.48.218 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

That was also fake. The IQ of Clinton according to the real study was (on average) 149. I added the info to the article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed misleading line/notes

"Still, the author concluded that Bush “is definitely intelligent … certainly smart enough to be president of the United States”."

Given context, this line implied something that neither the report, not the article said. This line is quoting an article (that's the reference used here) that's quoting the actual report, but both the article and the report and very harsh in terms of Bush's intelligence, and the way we're quoting this implies that the article and/or the study is much kinder to Bush than it actually is.

"Bush’s score, he says, is comparable to “extremist Islamic fundamentalists in the Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership — with the notable exception of Osama Bin Laden, who is lower still”."

The article is good though, especially for people who can't access the report online. So I'm changing the bottom to Notes and References--most of what's there are footnotes, and I'll leave this article as an additional reference. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] '

Shouldn't this be U.S. Presidents' IQ hoax? --justme 00:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. It is the possessive form of a plural noun. I'll perform a move by 12. Nov, unless I see a rebuttal. samwaltz 03:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hrmm... Well, no comment. I'm bumping it to U.S. Presidential IQ hoax, so we can avoid the whole apostrophe issue. samwaltz 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased?

Bill Clinton probably has an IQ of 149 or more. He graduated from Georgetown University, got a Rhodes Scholar fellowship to go to Oxford and a legal degree from Georgetown. He is known to be incredibly intelligent.

This entire entry is biased. It is written defensively in order to protect G.W. Bush. We know that the man is not smart and that everything that he has has been a result of it being handed to him. He was kicked off of a job his dad gave him. Carlton Group, (Dad's cronies who are gobbling up worldwide territory and creating an enormous military for-profit business,) put him on the board of one of their subsidiaries. It was an airline catering business. He was asked to leave because he was adding nothing to the board. This business that Dad is involved in includes many conservative people, such as John Majors P.M., of England.

There is nothing to indicate that G.W. took school seriously. He was more prone to drinking and spent his time on social things, such as his cheerleading.

When he was in college, he quite resented the protestors of Viet Nam. He was conservative and supported the war.

Until he was president, he had not visited any other countries, though he had the money to travel the world. He did not have the curiosity He lost a few businesses. Outside of supporting his father in his political endeavors, no business or job success is known. He became governor of Texas. What was behind his governorship, I don't know. Karl Rove met him as a big kid in trouble and decided to turn him into a politician. So, he became a governor. Around 1998 he stated that he had no interest in politics and would never think of presidency.

G.W.'s IQ? Listening to him, hearing his understanding of his position of leader of the most powerful country in the world, it is impossible for this reader to believe that he has an IQ as high as 125. My guess is that it is somewhere around 100....just a guess. I have wondered seriously, if he could pass the constitution test.

The entry on this issue is a defensive, false statement. Mine is biased, too, but I am not an entry in Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.224.204.61 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 June 2007.

[edit] Should not be on Wikipedia

This article should not bo on wikipedia. It is a biased and non educational article. Please remove this article. I an very new here so I do not know how to remove this article. Please give ypur thoughts and opinions on my talkpage. User:70.238.241.249 (User talk:70.238.241.249) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:33, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

This article is very old, and well referenced, although there are a lot of articles thaqt should not be on Wikipedia, I do not feel that this is one of them. aliasd·U·T 06:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 I am not a fan of george bush, but his SAT was 1206, to score that it would be almost impossible to have an IQ lower then say 120 by most estimates.  He may well be stupid intellically for a president, doesnt mean he has the IQ of someone working at McDonalds, and i feel most of the people who say this shouldnt be on Wikipedia are just upset that it doesnt say that george bush is mentally retarded  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.7.143 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I placed a notablity template. I agree. 71.161.84.26 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:Notability: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Such sources, including the various international newspapers and about.com, are cited in the article. Was the coverage significant? We could argue, but given the number of times this came up and the number of sources, I think most Wikipedians would say yes. The presumption isn't absolute, but I don't think anyone has made a case for a non-notability argument here. I am removing the tag; please don't restore it without citing a specific problem with the notability.
The original claim, that the article is biased and uneducational, has nothing to do with notability, so, having dealt with the spurious issue, let's get to the real one. The article, as it was written a while ago, was not good. It was, among other things, pretty badly slanted in Bush's direction. I and others have removed some of the POV; if you can improve the article further, please feel free to do so.
To sum up: the article is pretty clearly notable; it ain't going anywhere on that ground unless you can show a consensus to delete it. It certainly could be improved; as always, everyone is welcome to help with that. atakdoug (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability should'nt be an issue

Notability is no more than a false issue when it comes to virtual encyclopedia with virtually endless capacity to hold informations . I believe notability is unwikipedia-like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist. —Robert Bringhurst,

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

--Z E U S (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)