Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mega Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Refactored comment later removed from AfD discussion. -- NORTH ^talk 00:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

deleted libelluous statement as per Wiki talk page policy

I tried to remove the above libel, but it was reverted with the claim that it is sourced. It isn't, as an inspection of the "source" shows. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Libelous or not, we can't pretend it never happened. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with HowlinWolf's statement; I'm just maintaining the discussion. -- NORTH ^talk 01:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. I'm not sure wholesale deletion was necessary; I think a comment that in your view he was wrong would have sufficed. For those wondering, the removed content was a claim by a new user that "Langdon is a known fraud", with a link to this site: [1]. I agree that the claim isn't supported by the link, although it does appear that Langdon was in violation of the law. Why this would matter for deciding whether to keep the Mega Society article, I can't fathom. William Pietri 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines says libellous material must be struck out, even from the historical record. And the statement "Langdon was in violation of the law" looks factually dubious since it seems we are talking about whether a change in the law requred Langdon to be licenced or not in the future. All-in-all libellous and misleading. Better to delete the whole thing and pretend the mud-slinging never happened. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To add my opinion here, while I still think the article should be deleted, I don't think Langdon's alleged personal conduct really has anything to do with this discussion. There's no reason why it should be taken into account, when we are trying to decide whether the article about the Mega Society merits inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I don't think the article even mentions Langdon, anyway...and even if someone is a convicted career fraudster, an article about their operations might still be merited. Byrgenwulf 07:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The reason that this is relevant is because the type of activity that both Langdon (in CA) and Hoeflin (in NY) were sanctioned for (phony IQ testing) is directly related to this organization and its entrance criteria. The Wikipedia article is an ad for this dubious activity and seems to be a funnel in for "testing" fees. DaturaS 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, some "crime": charging a couple of bucks for high-end IQ scoring. Wow! --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The crime is practicing psychology without a license. It is against the law in most states. Both Langdon and Hoeflin have been sanctioned for it and ordered to desist in their respective states. Wikipedia should have no part of this. DaturaS 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a crime where I live and it only became one where they lived because the law changed. And Wikipedia doesn't have any part of this, any more than it has of in the NatWest Three by reporting on it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A little history: After being refused admission to the Mega and Prometheus societies on the basis of tests that the societies didn't accept for admission, Paul Maxim complained to the California Board of Psychology that my testing activity constituted "practicing psychology without a license"--and, unfortunately, the CB of P agreed with him and I was forced to suspend my testing activity. The Board was wrong about this; the super-high-IQ societies have a first amendment right to select their members as they choose and there's no other practicable way to do it, given the disinterest of the mainstream testing industry in the high end. Furthermore, at the time of enactment of the Bill of Rights, psychology was a part of religion. (Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.) But, whatever dispute there may be about the *legality* of my tests, they're normed according to accepted psychometric principles and those who paid $2.50 for test scoring got their money's worth. This is by no stretch of the imagination fraud, as DaturaS (Chris Langan) asserts. Kevin Langdon 09:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Libel It is libelous to state that someone has violated the law. Canon 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Except when they have. DaturaS 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So let's be clear here. Are you saying that Kevin Langdon and Ron Hoeflin have violated the law? Canon 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know it's only libel when you knowingly present a false statement as true with the intent to cause harm to someone's reputation. Given the tone, I took it as an opinion. I don't have any reason to believe that the HowlinWolf was intentionally lying; given the quality of his prose, confusion seems a more likely explanation. I'd be cautious here, Canon; libel is itself a crime. Best to assume good faith. William Pietri 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

One who asserts that another has committed a crime bears the burden of proof of his accusation. Kevin Langdon 09:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I read through the many (often interesting and/or revealing) comments pro and con re deletion of this entry. On balance, it strikes me that most of the pro-deletion comments (though not all) were personally based, either in the posters' being offended at something connected with Mega Society or with Kevin Langdon, the current editor of their journal. Most (but not all) of the anti-deletion comments pointed out the history of the organization, the quality of contributions to Noesis over that period of time, and concerns about the precedent associated with a deletion of this sort. Mega Society has clearly shown itself, over time, to be more than Kevin Langdon, and it exists and has generated interesting (and highly accessible, on-line for free) publications (imo), so it will be interesting to see how this is finally adjudicated. My suspicion is that the adjudication will say more about Wikipedia and also its future than it will say about Mega Society. That the issue of the deletion of this group ever came up and then that it actually transpired is itself, to use the dreaded term, notable, in my opinion. M Stewart. MstewarthmMstewarthm 17:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's up with all this bigotry?

Seeing that there are Wikis on Mensa, the Triple Nine Society and the Prometheus Society, I’m surprised that the ones for Mega society and foundations have been deleted. What's up with THAT? Boy, that looks like prejudice to me. I just ran across this article from looking at the Hillman debates, on which I sided with keeping the Hillman info. But prejudice is where you find it.

Time for disclosure. I actually took the Langdon Adult Intelligence Test (LAIT) when Omni ran it in 1979. I found it very interesting, as being the first IQ test I ever saw with genuinely difficult and fun questions. So I learned something: 1) such tests could be written, and 2) there were people who solved them better than I did, in the time allotted (no, I took it fairly and didn’t get them all correct). I had no idea how the things were scored, but I did get my score back, and from what I read here, probably poor Langdon did them all himself, to keep from getting sued by Omni. Okay, fair enough. I can vouch that MINE got done.

That was my first exposure to high IQ societies, and I had some interesting and warm correspondence with people in the Triple Nine Society as a result, in the early 80's. I heard of the Mega society at the time through the Vos Savant columns (and I missed the Monty Hall problem myself on first go, I don’t mind admitting).

About the only thing we can probably all agree on about IQ is that it’s the quantity which is measured by IQ tests. There are many different kinds of human intellectual abilities, most of which aren’t measured by such tests. But some of the qualities which are measured by IQ tests correlate with a certain (possibly narrow) subset of human abilities. In the same way, often math, music, and linguistic talents seem to correlate in individuals better than sheer chance would allow. Is all of this really all that controversial?

In any case, despite the fact that we know IQ tests don’t measure general “intelligence” very well (intelligence being defined as whatever it was that Ben Franklin had a lot of) some people seem to find IQ tests somehow very threatening, and their reaction to the idea of a very, VERY high IQ test score society, is really animalistic. I’m reminded of monkeys being shown a snake. There seems to be a battle of personalities which has gone far afield of whether or not the Mega people should have a Wiki. Who really cares if they do? People who spend their time giving and taking ever more difficult IQ tests are a special-interest group. But we have Wikis on lots of special interest groups, including other high IQ groups. What’s really the problem here?

Okay, they may have goals you don’t agree with. But there’s a Wiki for the Klu Klux Klan. Okay, you may find them elitist. But there’s a Wiki for the Daughters of the American Revolution an organization which isn’t open to everybody (you need the correct ancestor). Again, so what?

After taking IQ tests off and on for years, I don’t think I could get into the Mega society even if I studied for it <g>. But I couldn’t complete the Tour de France even if I trained very hard, either. So what? My ego isn’t threatened by either fact. I find people who are obsessed with their bicycles or their IQ scores a bit weird, but such interests are what make for a society. Are they not? SBHarris 23:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)