Talk:List of US Presidents by estimated IQ/Delete

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pre-rewrite and renaming comments

[edit] Post rewrite comments

    • Keep in current form. Pcb21 has replaced the hoax with an article about the hoax. Rossami 14:50, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • In the unlikely event that we decide to include email hoaxes, the text of the e-mail should be included. Anjouli 17:40, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep now modified artcle about the hoax. Reproduce the original hoax in this article. 80.255 20:34, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, Rename so "Hoax" is in the title, Provide a link to page history for people than want to see the e-mail. mydogategodshat 21:09, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, title is POV and indicates it is about a real article not an article about an insignificant and rather nonconvincing hoax. (Democrat average IQ is apparently 156 and Republican average IQ is apparently 115, Republicans are 5 dumbest presidents and Democrats the smartest 3. I'm really impressed by the sophistication of this.) Daniel Quinlan 21:31, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • Not a very useful article by itself. Maybe it could be part of a List of e-mail hoaxes? Angela. 21:41, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep info on hoax, as own article or as part of another; I for one have heard this rumor several times. If own article, move to some other title; "List of..." is clearly not appropriate for the new version. -- VV 22:44, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Granted that hoaxes are a legitimate topic, I don't feel that this particular one is important enough to be on the 'pedia. Tualha 02:02, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Vote changed to keep. The article is now informative and well-named, and the fact that some major newspapers were taken in makes it worth debunking, to my mind - this should be a place where people come to find out the truth. Tualha 04:15, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep the info on the topic. There's no need to limit ourselves. The title ought to be a redirect. -- Cyan 02:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • If article is deleted, please preserve the info somewhere. Debunking of urban legends is good. Isomorphic 10:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree. I think Angela's idea would be a good solution. Tualha 12:58, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Comments after page move and further rewrite

    • I've moved the page to US Presidents IQ hoax whilst the debate continues, keeping redirect. Keeping the redirect and keeping the new page are both live issues to my mind. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:01, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • When I wrote the original stub my aim was to cover up the hoax information that we were currently purveying. Because I expected the article to be deleted, I didn't do much of a job. However because there was some support for keeping the article, even just that stub, I decided to add more to the article. I'm still not greatly pleased with it for two reasons - 1) is this forwarded email all that important? - 2) the only source around for this is the snopes article and it feels a bit like we are just hijacking their research. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:30, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I went to the article expecting another nutty conspiracy page but in its rewritten form it is NPOV and informative. This sort of hoax debunking deserves an article. (BTW I got an email at work yesterday showing GW Bush in two 'ain't he dumb' pictures that had everyone in stitches. One showed el presidente with the military looking through a binoculars. He didn't notice however (but the photographer did) that the lens caps on his set were still on! Another showed him with a kid in a nursery school. He was talking to her. But whereas she had her kiddie's book the right way up, he had his copy clearly upside down! And this man has his finger on the nuclear button. Jeez. FearÉIREANN 23:07, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • God knows I'm no fan of Emperor George, but there are plenty of serious reasons to dislike him without dragging in these. The "book upside down" photo is faked - see snopes 1. The binocular photo may be legitimate, but it's meaningless - see snopes 2. Tualha 04:15, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • That shows the need for a page like this, to debunk myths like this. But they do play on the popular image worldwide that George W. has the intellect of Mickey Mouse. A page exploring the phenomenon of such myths and urban legends is necessary. The IQ nonsense is an obvious example of what needs exposing. This article, now rewritten, does that which is why we need it. FearÉIREANN 05:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not snopes.com. --Jiang | Talk 04:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • True; we shouldn't cover most online hoaxes. However, see my comments above as to why we should keep this one. Tualha 05:50, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I think the essential point of the article is that so many were duped by the spoof/hoax, not that the hoax is a hoax. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:09, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, useless information. If kept, go with Angela's proposal. --Jiang | Talk 04:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Given the number of pages on the web that propogate this hoax, I rather think that it would be useFUL pages for those people, even if you personally find it useless. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:09, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, this is just a rehash of the snopes article with less information. But, if it's kept, I think Angela's solution provides a worthy compromise. —Minesweeper 11:10, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Not entirely true - for example some of the most pertinent facts are included here not on Snopes a) a list of newspapers that got duped b) the original source of the spoof. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:09, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • Yes, I agree with you now. The article is much better now, especially without the source text (and I don't think it should include a copy of the email--that's readily available as is). I guess this is just the nature of the wiki. —Minesweeper 04:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Listing the hoax on List of e-mail hoaxes would be a good idea (when that page exists), but it has nothing to do with the question we're discussing. It's like saying that Queen Elizabeth should be listed at List of British monarchs; that's true, but doesn't tell us anything about whether or not she should get her own page. The only relevant concern is whether or not there is enough verifiable information for a separate page to be worthwhile. In this case, there clearly is, as can been seen by looking at the page. -- Oliver P. 17:04, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think the article is definitely NPOV and if anything apologist towards Bush. Goodralph 17:10, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm removing this from VfD, as there is clearly no consensus for deletion (I oppose deletion, for the record).—Eloquence 04:17, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_US_Presidents_by_estimated_IQ_Delete_72ae.html"