![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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)
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)
Oh, how I wish I could change "a partisan attack" to "an admittedly plausible partisan attack" :) Tualha 01:56, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
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)
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).
"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)
Shouldn't this be U.S. Presidents' IQ hoax? --justme 00:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
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.
I read a few articles about this "hoax". I am not sure if this page wasn't manipulated by the government. It is not good ifsomeone reads about a stupid president. I also do not think that this thing is worth an article in Wikipedia especially as it is not proven that this is really a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwitti ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
The "Real Studies" entry in this article does not give a NPOV as it cites three sources but mentions only one newspaper article about a psychologist at the University of California and gives almost no information about the study he conducted beyond the fact that Bush's score suffered due to his unwilliness to try new things. Either the section must give more sources on real studies or it needs to bow out all together; but a "Real Studies" section can't discuss only one study. Mrathel ( talk) 18:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed section title to reflect the singular known study: "Legitimate Presidential IQ study". Added a link to the real study's abstract in Historical Psychology journal under External Links. The journal's abstract page offers a PDF format copy of the Simonton's paper; I did not add this link separately. The Legit Study section reads much more NPOV than its original version, but still emphasizes the extent to which this study supports the hoax conclusion; I added the clause noting its estimate of Bush IQ is somewhat higher than the hoax. Bookerj ( talk) 18:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I move to delete some of the entry relating to the re-estimation of George W. Bush's I.Q. The references cited for this entry do not make any difference since the authors of the said references were not privy to any actual information about his I.Q. I move to delete the statement a cognitive proclivity that encompasses unusual receptiveness to fantasy... Is that a reference to his religious background? As stated in the article Religiosity and intelligence, a low I.Q. is not a given when it comes to strong religious leanings. 3 references do not change the fact that it is a highly biased statement. As mentioned by me and the article above there is no strong correlation. I personally know. How? My I.Q. is 162, and I identify as highly religious. Strong delete of above stated entry. If no one opposes in approx. one week, I will delete it and replace it with 3 full stop (or period) marks. Lighthead þ 20:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Just for future reference; the reason I tagged the section is because anybody conscious knows that the only way to verify someone's IQ is if the person actually, physically, took the test. Any other way is completely biased and subjective as the section actually points out. We can say that Kennedy's IQ is here and Clinton and Bush's IQ is over there; but ultimately the physical data speaks for itself. No matter what scientist came up with the data! That's actually pseudoscience if you really want to define it. So, that's that. Lighthead þ 21:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
→ Lighthead: Yep, any "estimate" of IQ is by definition subjective, regardless whose estimate it is. But not necessarily biased - that would depend on the subjective NPOV of the estimator's judgment. In fact, while actual IQ test scores may be less subjective, they remain just a uni-dimensional estimate of a very complex network of human genetic (and possibly environmental) characteristics. "Subjective": That's exactly how UC scientist Simonton's study identifies itself.
I'm not familiar with the historiometric techniques Simonton used. The WP entry on that topic identifies historiometry as the psychological study of genius. It asserts that "Historiometry was the first field studying genius by using scientific methods" (though it cites a later 2008 paper by Simonton for that definition). And keep in mind, this article is not trying to report on GW Bush's intelligence (nor that of all the presidents, for that matter); rather it is reporting on the 2001 internet hoax targeting GW with an unfair and fictional comparison. In that context, Dean Simonton's actual 2006 study and its admittedly subjective findings are a valid topic for this article to report, as they provide a new and somewhat improved context for the intelligence comparison that was the hoax's raison-d'etre. This article would be the poorer (less neutral, as well as less informative) for the lack of this counter context. I vote for removing the POV tag. Bookerj ( talk) 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the POV tag after inserting a critical article. -- GirasoleDE ( talk) 16:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Following from the discussion at AfD for a related article, I propose to delete the table of estimated IQs for a number of reasons. Mostly, it is based purely on a primary source; this source is cited and the material is already adequately summarized in the text above the table. Quoting the results in full give undue weight to a single point of view which is somewhat speculative: for example, Simonton did not validate his methodology by using it to estimate IQs of people for whom test results are known. Indeed, even in his own article [1] (p. 518), Simonton describes the estimated IQ scores as "tentative and approximate". Comments? Dricherby ( talk) 17:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Reads more like a Snopes article than an encyclopedia entry. In fact, it's sourced to Snopes, where I rather think it belongs. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on U.S. Presidential IQ hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
And quickly. There is one single extremely obvious reason why. It is written as if there is only one hoax out there, and that simply is NOT TRUE AT ALL. There are MANY hoaxes in this vein. Either this article needs to address the entire subject and stop presenting this hoax as the only one in existence, or it should be deleted PERIOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.188.9 ( talk) 04:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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)
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)
Oh, how I wish I could change "a partisan attack" to "an admittedly plausible partisan attack" :) Tualha 01:56, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
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)
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).
"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)
Shouldn't this be U.S. Presidents' IQ hoax? --justme 00:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
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.
I read a few articles about this "hoax". I am not sure if this page wasn't manipulated by the government. It is not good ifsomeone reads about a stupid president. I also do not think that this thing is worth an article in Wikipedia especially as it is not proven that this is really a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwitti ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
The "Real Studies" entry in this article does not give a NPOV as it cites three sources but mentions only one newspaper article about a psychologist at the University of California and gives almost no information about the study he conducted beyond the fact that Bush's score suffered due to his unwilliness to try new things. Either the section must give more sources on real studies or it needs to bow out all together; but a "Real Studies" section can't discuss only one study. Mrathel ( talk) 18:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed section title to reflect the singular known study: "Legitimate Presidential IQ study". Added a link to the real study's abstract in Historical Psychology journal under External Links. The journal's abstract page offers a PDF format copy of the Simonton's paper; I did not add this link separately. The Legit Study section reads much more NPOV than its original version, but still emphasizes the extent to which this study supports the hoax conclusion; I added the clause noting its estimate of Bush IQ is somewhat higher than the hoax. Bookerj ( talk) 18:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I move to delete some of the entry relating to the re-estimation of George W. Bush's I.Q. The references cited for this entry do not make any difference since the authors of the said references were not privy to any actual information about his I.Q. I move to delete the statement a cognitive proclivity that encompasses unusual receptiveness to fantasy... Is that a reference to his religious background? As stated in the article Religiosity and intelligence, a low I.Q. is not a given when it comes to strong religious leanings. 3 references do not change the fact that it is a highly biased statement. As mentioned by me and the article above there is no strong correlation. I personally know. How? My I.Q. is 162, and I identify as highly religious. Strong delete of above stated entry. If no one opposes in approx. one week, I will delete it and replace it with 3 full stop (or period) marks. Lighthead þ 20:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Just for future reference; the reason I tagged the section is because anybody conscious knows that the only way to verify someone's IQ is if the person actually, physically, took the test. Any other way is completely biased and subjective as the section actually points out. We can say that Kennedy's IQ is here and Clinton and Bush's IQ is over there; but ultimately the physical data speaks for itself. No matter what scientist came up with the data! That's actually pseudoscience if you really want to define it. So, that's that. Lighthead þ 21:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
→ Lighthead: Yep, any "estimate" of IQ is by definition subjective, regardless whose estimate it is. But not necessarily biased - that would depend on the subjective NPOV of the estimator's judgment. In fact, while actual IQ test scores may be less subjective, they remain just a uni-dimensional estimate of a very complex network of human genetic (and possibly environmental) characteristics. "Subjective": That's exactly how UC scientist Simonton's study identifies itself.
I'm not familiar with the historiometric techniques Simonton used. The WP entry on that topic identifies historiometry as the psychological study of genius. It asserts that "Historiometry was the first field studying genius by using scientific methods" (though it cites a later 2008 paper by Simonton for that definition). And keep in mind, this article is not trying to report on GW Bush's intelligence (nor that of all the presidents, for that matter); rather it is reporting on the 2001 internet hoax targeting GW with an unfair and fictional comparison. In that context, Dean Simonton's actual 2006 study and its admittedly subjective findings are a valid topic for this article to report, as they provide a new and somewhat improved context for the intelligence comparison that was the hoax's raison-d'etre. This article would be the poorer (less neutral, as well as less informative) for the lack of this counter context. I vote for removing the POV tag. Bookerj ( talk) 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the POV tag after inserting a critical article. -- GirasoleDE ( talk) 16:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Following from the discussion at AfD for a related article, I propose to delete the table of estimated IQs for a number of reasons. Mostly, it is based purely on a primary source; this source is cited and the material is already adequately summarized in the text above the table. Quoting the results in full give undue weight to a single point of view which is somewhat speculative: for example, Simonton did not validate his methodology by using it to estimate IQs of people for whom test results are known. Indeed, even in his own article [1] (p. 518), Simonton describes the estimated IQ scores as "tentative and approximate". Comments? Dricherby ( talk) 17:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Reads more like a Snopes article than an encyclopedia entry. In fact, it's sourced to Snopes, where I rather think it belongs. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on U.S. Presidential IQ hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
And quickly. There is one single extremely obvious reason why. It is written as if there is only one hoax out there, and that simply is NOT TRUE AT ALL. There are MANY hoaxes in this vein. Either this article needs to address the entire subject and stop presenting this hoax as the only one in existence, or it should be deleted PERIOD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.188.9 ( talk) 04:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |