Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald K. Hoeflin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator, conditional on cleanup. After looking at the debate at Mega, and the deletion review, I am conditionally withdrawing this nomination, with the idea that in the very near future it is both expanded and more properly sourced. As the article stands now, it should fail; however, in my opinion, for whatever that is worth, there seems to be enough behind this person that would allow someone with a better knowledge of his history and what he means to the High-IQ world to put together an article worthy of Wikipedia. If that is not done, then this article should end up here again. – Avi 06:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald K. Hoeflin

Seems to fail notability. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society -- Avi 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: please note presence of following single-purpose accounts here: May-Tzu, SOUTH, Sol.delune, TKRIB, Aye-Aye. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd that you didn't mention the other new users Byrgenwulf, DaturaS, Massmato; Could there be a deletionist agenda here? --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete probable vanity, definitely not very notable as it stands. Byrgenwulf 11:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Byrgenwulf as nn vanity. Bucketsofg✐ 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Brian64.12.116.65 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dr Hoeflin is indeed notable. He has been written up in various books, mainstream magazines, and has also been the subject of television interviews. He is one of the pioneers of high-end psychometrics. He was the first -- or perhaps second -- person to create an IQ test that would reliably measure IQ above 3 standard deviations above the norm. These tests were carefully and extensively normed and received widespread media attention. This is especially important because in the area of very high-range psychometrics -- which can perhaps shed much insight into the nature of minds and IQ in general -- there is virtually no-one at work.

  For the past ten years, he has been at work writing a book which selectively filters and organizes philosophical concepts. The first two volumes of this book, "Encyclopedia of Categories", have been published. They are almost 700 pages each, and contain much original and noteworthy thought.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 15:30:48 (UTC)I have just created a user account. BrianPromking 15:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • If that is true, then you should be able to provide us with source citations for those books and magazine articles. As things stand, you have cited no sources and the article cites no sources. Uncle G 18:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a long account of an interview with Dr Hoeflin in "The Know-it-all", a book published by Simon & Schuster in 2004, which was widely reviewed, as I recall. A one-page excerpt is here: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0743250605&id=lveguMcFrokC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=%22prometheus+society%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=IhkW8XKtUsVh5K-bxdcpWCykR2s Promking 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Dr. Hoeflin has been a biographee in Marquis *Who's Who In the World* and Marquis *Who's Who In America* for many years. May-Tzu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by May-Tzu (talk • contribs).
• Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn self-published DaturaS 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What's the point of an open-source encyclopaedia (so to speak), if it's also open-source-delete? You can extend and delete everything there is, as I'm sure you'd find suitable objectors to almost everything there is. Beyond deleting obscenities, what's the use of deletion? Saving something? What exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.116.181.101 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-21 13:21 (UTC)

• Keep But DELETION will doubtless be done, and by some hip-hop high school student who has been a sysop for a few months. Here is the State of Wiki re deletions: "Despite excellent efforts put forth by many of you (and I thank you for the help), the Mega Society article has been deleted. I see that the Hoeflin article has also now been nominated for deletion, and I suspect that this is suggestive of a trend. Coincidentally I was talking with Stephen Wolfram a month or two ago and he commented that he had noted that Wikipedia articles were actually growing shorter on average. When one reads "deletionist" credo on Wikipedia, the main reason given for deleting articles is that too many articles tend to junk up lists. In other words, the world is too complex to fit into a neat categorization, so let's just prune the world to fit. This is reminiscent of attempts to "reform" language. In the end the reason given for deleting the Mega Society entry was that people had never heard of it. So slowly Wikipedia is regressing to the mean, which is something like an eighth grade reading level." Perhaps everything be deleted except of course any hip hop articles. And this must be done ASAP obviously, to protect the Wiki notability. SOUTH 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Excessive new lines removed. Kimchi.sg 19:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration, your blanket charecterizations of all sysops as teenage hip-hop aficianados is insulting, immature, and patently false. I also note from my associations with various High-IQ societies that there is often a correlation between their members and an inflated sense of self. Not all of us whom G-d has blessed with IQ's significantly above 150 need to broadcast it to the world and preen. Anyway, innate intelligence is more often a gift (although honed and sharpened by use) and not something we should use to foster a sense of superiority. Au contraire, it should engender humility. That being said, we have standards. For better or for worse, and in this I mourn our society's fall with you, hoi polloi have ascribed a noteriety and notability to people with the ability to run together monosyllabic, mispronounced, bastardized words to some rhythmic structure, and shower them with money and fame. Is it something we should be proud of? No. At this point in history, does that phenomenon exist? Yes. I daresay that the author in question here would be recognized less, be it his work, his appearance, or any other element, than the #500 rapper on some chart. He fails notability in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. Is this “fair”? Doubtful, but it is the case. Also, my personal opinion is that Mensa is notable for its size and its scope, regardless of the immaturity of many of its individual members. Mega, Giga, Promethues, and the like have nowhere near the membership, name recognition, world-wide dispersion, or influence of Mensa, and all of them, as they stand now, likely fail our standards. -- Avi 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Avi. I couldn't have put it better myself, and what you said echoes my sentiments exactly. I would just like to add that I would love to know where that bit that SOUTH quoted came from, since it seems like a message sent out to solicity "meatpuppetry". Byrgenwulf 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The mere existence of a single-member IQ society where the member has an IQ of, say, 250 (even as measured as a child) would be highly notable. And how else would such a society gain recognition (as if it needs it to be worthy of note) if encyclopedias summarily dismiss it? (BTW, I was not calling all admins "hip hop kids.") SOUTH 19:31, 21 July 2006

• Perhaps looking up the meaning of the word society could clear some things up here. There is no such thing as a "one member society". A person with the highest ever recorded IQ might warrant inclusion (I don't see anyone wanting to get rid of vos Savant, for example) but that example is ridiculous. Byrgenwulf 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If it were notable, let someone else write about the organisation first. We are not, and cannot, be the first to report the existance of any organisation or notable person; that is the job of the newspaper or magazine, not the encyclopedia. Kimchi.sg 19:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people have written about the organisation first. I'd show Kimchi.sg the refs but some teenage hip-hop sysop has deleted them!! --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You've helped author articles about a fishing area in Singapore, and various roads there, and another contributor wrote articles about various small state roads in Washington State. I'm sure that there are far better fishing areas to be found elsewhere in South Asia, and here in the US as well. So why is yours notable? Asked not out of disrespect but to learn. Brian64.12.116.65 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, but this article seems to disscuss an subject of importance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep

1) The issue of "junking up lists" seems of little relevance on the internet, where one doesn't have to worry about huge printing costs, huge volumes of paper, etc. One could look at the internet as an electronic junkpile or treasure trove (dependig on one's perspective) of lists - i.e. "links" allowing readers to follow webs of association as far as they want.

2) Proponents of "delete" cite issues of "notability", a term which has also been acknowledged to be ill-defined, its interpretations subject to the biases/whims of the writer or judge.

2a) Often, the ostensible (surface) motivation behind a decision is merely a mask, hiding deeper, truer motivations. This leads to isues of "political Correctness". Our society has indoctrinated us to believe in PCness as a virtue and means towards ultimately greater tolerance and humanity; doubters have been coerced into publically pretending belief in the creed. The underlying dogma - that we really are *fundamentally* equal (vs. "equal in legal rights") assuages many people's fears. We all know that some people currently seem smarter and/or more talented than us; at the same time, a part of us fights against acknowledging that levels of ability in some areas may be largely innate. We can save face when looking in the miror by saying "He and I are innately equal; he merely benefited by more opportunities, lucked out in the crap shoot of life."

Persons and groups whose existence and/or work threatens the ego-massaging opiate of PCness are due for deletion. Obviously, giants such as Jenson (with lists of respected books and articles in major professional journals) can't be deleted - at least not yet.....but one can start with lesser-known workers of a similarly threatening mindset (ie. those who would haul all the Procrustean beds to the l of invalid ideas).Sol.delune 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune

Comment: This user tried to remove prior comments from this AfD. This is his 8th edit; the account was registered 4 days ago and has only edited in this AfD and the Mega Society AfD. Kimchi.sg 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment 2: Excessive line breaks and spacing removed for clarity. Kimchi.sg 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - many claims but all unsourced, fails our key test of verifiability. Kimchi.sg 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, unless properly sourced. Dpv 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: How is Hoeflin less "notable" than the Miami Beach Senior High School - just one of many urban high schools with the list of celebrity grads (scattered over decades) that one would expect from many large, urban schools? Is Wikipedia "cluttered" with info on the thousands of urban high schools in this country - most of which are of interest only to their students, staff and alumni? Does such information possess the potential scientific or cultural importance that would render it valid as "encyclopedia material"? Hoeflin's work, although perhaps known by few, at least has import to scholars investigating high-end psychometrics (whether or not they agree with his findings, the findings themselves may have seminal value.) Sol.delune 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)sol.delune

Comment: Excessive newlines removed, again. Please don't hit Enter at the end of every line; the words will wrap automatically at the end of a line, unlike typewriter style; also, do start your comments the same way as everyone else. Not starting your comments following convention is flaunting your newbie status. Kimchi.sg 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers" --= Jimbo Wales. Brian70.234.150.40 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Newcomers need to learn the conventions here as well. Teaching others is not equivalent to bullying. Kimchi.sg 04:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per eagle and this [1] article. Themindset 21:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I would say more if I thought the decision would be based the merits of the discussion rather than just a headcount, but since it seems such judgements are just votes it seems pointless to debate more. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I see that the "notable" initiator of recent IQ related deletes Byrgenwulf is himself a member of the Brights with an elaborated entry in Wiki, as well as one for almost each "notable" member of the Brights, among whome even a certain Teller the Magician. Now, how would it be to cut the crap, and move on to deleting his beloved articles straight away. I mean, I can do it on my own, just substitute the content with whatever. Perhaps people like Byrgenwulf can realize their own actions only when being subject to an equal themselves. Stevan Damjanovic

Stevan, anything you say as an anon will be ignored if the closing admin follows the Mega Society's deletion process of just counting the non-anon votes. Of course head counting itself at the end of an AfD is a clear violation of Wiki policy -- but it seems an established illegal practice. I am going to take things to a higher level, but in the meantime I strongly urge you to create a user account and talk page. Byrgenwulf is a menance to Wikipedia and needs banning before he does any further damage as the self-styled leader of the anti-IQ Jihad -- you can be most effective in restoring sanity by completing the login and registration process yourself. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Self-styled leader of the anti-IQ Jihad?!? Mr Price, please substantiate that accusation. I think the user you are addressing in the message above is a far greater menace than I, looking at the vandalism/"experimenting" he has just performed on an article (see below). I'm not an anti-IQ Jihad -indeed, the more I think about it, the more I would like to see an article on high IQ subculture; I merely do not wish to see Wikipedia abused as a repository for arbitrary information. And I certainly don't think I need to be banned. I have done nothing wrong! This article was not nominated by me, nor even a "collaborator", but instead by Avi, who judging from his talk page seems to be a respected member of the Wikipedia community. Indeed, there have been 5 "IQ-related" nominations of late, of which two came from me, two from Avi, and one (the Mega Society) from Jefffire. All I have done is vote delete in all of them, which has obviously earnt the wrath of many people. Byrgenwulf 15:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, I have cretaed an account. With regard to Byrgenwulf's suggestions, he'd do well to keep them up himself. If there is arbitrary information, let him point it out. As it is, he just blindly goes for deletions. StevanMD 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Replace "as the self-styled leader" with in "in the vanguard" as you wish. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Furthermore, even the very name of the organization to which Byrgenwulf belongs, the Brights, is seriously misleading, as it indicates a group of bright people, yet based on what their own site says: "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview". Stevan Damjanovic

Note: this user has just vandalised the brights article here, replacing vast tracts of with what I think are extracts from St Augustine. Obviously proving a point. Mr Damjanovic, my organisational affiliations have nothing to do with the merits of this debate whatsoever. The Brights Movement has nothing to do with IQ. What you think of its name is irrelevant here. That is not a "beloved" article of mine: I've never edited it, and barely read it until earlier when I was looking at the vandalism. If you don't like it, fix it; if you think it merits deletion, try. Attempting to "discredit" me, as this seems to be an attempt to do, is irrelevant here, and I didn't even put this article up for deletion anyway. Byrgenwulf 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note:In order to accuse me of vandalising an entry, that entry would need to be vandalised. As it happens, your society's entry is up and running without any damage to it. On the other hand, I have initiated the deletion procedure for it. StevanMD 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you have. Nonetheless anyone following the link above can see the St Augustine (I have to admire the irony, by the way; it is St Augustine, isn't it?) which was inserted and subsequently reverted. I do not regard it as "my" society, and I am deliberately staying away from that deletion debate, as I have the utmost confidence that that article will stand on its own merits. Nonetheless, I do not think that an article in Wikipedia has much to do with organisation's actual merit, so I'm not particularly concerned. Byrgenwulf 17:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I was just demonstrating the principle that guides Wiki. Anyone can get anything deleted without real ground or qualifications to decide. Had I vandalised it, I wouldn't bother to restore it a minute later.StevanMD 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and while I don't think it is appropriate to use the system for "experiments" like this, I shall be watching with interest to see the outcome of that discussion. I don't think the Brights will be deleted, but let's see if you're right. As I say, I'm not getting involved, as I don't think I am neutral enough to participate. Byrgenwulf 18:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is Not appropriate. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. -Quiddity 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not disrupt it. The point is that it's already disrupted.StevanMD 22:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:V Massmato 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kimchi.sg; quite a walled garden we have here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• merge, or weak keep. He is listed at those sites/groups as a founder. [2] [3] [4], and I've heard of these groups years ago whilst investigating Mensa, so the groups themselves are sufficiently notable. --Quiddity 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the sites mentioned appear to fall far short of WP:BIO's "significant press coverage" criterion. "I've heard of X" is not a reason to keep X; I've heard of no end of unencyclopedic things and so has every other editor. Only a few editors think that's grounds for automatic inclusion, but policy does not agree. It's been said above that the subject appears in "Marquis's Who's Who". If that's true, and if the work is a reliable source, the article can readily be edited to meet WP:BIO. (Although I have to say that the "submit your own entry" option on the website does make me wonder ...) Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I meant "I've heard of" to imply that these arent just spam-lure creations, or similar. I've changed my "vote" to prefer a merge, though to where i don't know. High IQ society maybe? He has started a lot of them (which is indeed motivationally suspicious (pure financial greed?), but not a reason to exclude from wikipedia.) -Quiddity 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Angus McLellan -- walled garden filled with WP:VAIN. -- NORTH ^talk 22:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT for guidance for participants and admin. Please note that procedure states that notability is NOT an issue that deletion is concerned with. Also I don't know why everyone's voting since these are also NOT relevant.

Notability:

most of this discussion is concerned with Notability whereas the deletion guidelines clearly state the grounds for deletion are WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:COPY, none of which are in much doubt.

Voting:

Voting is not in accordance with the following guidelines:

deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing. - Wikipedia:Deletion policy

To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion

On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion

Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article. -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure

An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure

--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Michael, if the subject is not notable, it is grounds for a speedy deletion, which means once tagged with something like {{db-bio}}, any admin can make a decision about said article, and if they feel it isn't notable, delete it out of hand. So, running this through WP:AfD is actually giving the article some benefit of the doubt. -- Avi 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not what speedy deletion says: a case of divergence between procedure and practice. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy send you here: Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. Since I agree that an assertion of notability has been made, the article is following WP:AfD. -- Avi 06:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The claims of vanity are also false. The article was not created by the subject himself. Speedy deletion is only an option when it is absolutely clear that the AfD would succeed. It is clear that that is not the case (look at the keep votes), so speedy delete is not appropriate. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it is here. My point is simply that notability is ALSO subject to AfD, when there is doubt, but it is discussed more clearly discussed in CSD. -- Avi 06:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable "High IQ" guy. -- GWO

• Comment "GWO" self-contradicts; "high IO guy" is notable in itself, as I patiently pointed out above. SOUTH 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• SOUTH, I realise you're new here and still getting a "feel" for the etiquette, as it were. But please read WP:CIVILITY; in particular, using the edit summary to make comments about users isn't really being very civil. In particular, you said [5] that GWO's delete comment is "not notable". Whatever you think of his argument, it is nonetheless just as "notable" in this discussion as your own arguments, and the edit summary is not the place to express opinions on how you see it. Thank you. Byrgenwulf 13:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how describing someone's argument as "non-notable" is uncivil -- the description was applied to the assessment made, not to the user, and, furthermore, seemed IMO to be valid: it was contradictory. Although it does help show what a "load of old bollocks" the notion of notability is; it is now used a subjective, meaningless phrase that is bandied around when ever someone doesn't like something. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. After reading this lengthly debate and checking out the article it seems to me that this "high IQ guy" must warrent an article. Not because he is a high IQ guy but merely because this stub is quite good even though it is weak on the WP:VER side of things. Certianly this is not a vanity page but it is a weak article overall considering its lack of sources and is in dire need of them. Should this article not gather proper citations later i think it should be reconsidered.-(chubbstar)^{— talk | contrib | 14:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Keep. You have got to be kidding. GregorB 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Eagle and the 1999 Esquire magazine reference, this person is noteworthy. [6] RFerreira 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I find it amusing that you will delete entries based upon a supposed lack of "notability". How can you define such a nebulous thing? Psuedouridine is a rather small niche molecule that only biochemists interested in tRNA synthesis would have any knowledge of. My remark goes to your approach to a supposed "open" community forum, where anyone may post information for others to peruse. What I think you have by introducing "deletions" are a group of petty people that will, in effect, enact a New Speak effect upon your webpage--eventually obviating it, as a more useful and less restrictive online encyclopedia comes along. I will cite one example of this and you can mull this over amongst yourselves. There is a very notable person, Ronald K. Hoeflin, former contributor to OMNI magazine and inventor of intelligence testing at high levels of deviation from the norm. He is also affiliated with Marilyn vos Savant. She too is notable for her high IQ and parade magazine contributions. Soon you will be routing all those persons form your webpage, because some snippy high-school student or misanthrope is offended that they aren't a genius, or just for malice. Anyway, that aside, the point is Ronald has been designated as a possible entry for deletion. I don't intend to get into your system and attempt to play by "your" rules. I want you to know that they are flawed. There was no common consensus on the removal of the entry for "Mega Society" -- yet you allow ample space on your webpage for people to engage in family tree history and so forth. I suggest you review that recent case and tell me if it makes sense to you. And is it true that the final decision for the removal of the entry was placed into the hands of an 11th grader? No wisdom to age correlation I suppose? I would say all of wikipedia is under siege by modern day internet grafittists that will remove information for whim and add what they and their peer group find trendy---where is the factuality then? I for one can find other sources for information, however for your enterprise here at Wikipedia, I see it slipping. But as a professor, I feel inclined to point to this as an example to students and colleagues that your webpage is not as valuable or serious source of information as previously thought. If I cannot rely on you to report the whole truth, bad and good, then how can I count on you at all? It should be up to the readers and consensus editing to articles to enrich them.... but to remove them outright? Ronald K. Hoeflin does exist, and he is a philosopher too. Will you be removing Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, Socrates, and Plato? I just see no end in sight to your silly WebPages system...you eventually will self-reduce to a compendium of 8th grade trivial pop-culture and not a vast source of knowledge of the larger spectrum of humanity.TKRIB

• Keep Although Dr. Hoeflin had predecessors (Christopher Harding, Kevin Langdon), he more than any other living person has advanced the state of the art of high range intelligence testing. This makes him notable and easily qualifies him for an article in Wikipedia. Canon 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Admins - please take note of the fact that there is a lot of shilling going on in this AfD. Canon is one of the Mega Sciety's three officers and Michael C. Price is also a member. As involved parties, they should remove themselves from the discussion due to promotional interests. DaturaS 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if these gentlemen declare their interests, then they are not doing anything wrong. It is only misleading or shilling if one pretends to be a "concerned member of the public" or some other form of uninvolved third party. Many participants here are obviously members of various IQ societies, and have never attempted to obscure this. Byrgenwulf 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never attempted to hide my membership status (and Noesis is available on-line, so I couldn't anyway). As for whether I have to actively declare anything, well do I have to declare I have a Physics BSc/MSc before editing a physics article? I note that my user page and sig at least display my name, which is more than can be said of DaturaS's one-word user page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but fill out the stub with more facts. Aye-Aye 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no need to add anything - see above "keeps" Cadwgan Gedrych 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I started this page, and I can ensure you I'm not Ron Hoeflin, friends with Ron Hoeflin, or enemies with Ron Hoeflin. Has Wikipedia jumped the shark? Galizur 01:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.