Talk:Ronald K. Hoeflin

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ronald K. Hoeflin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 16 September 2024, see discussion.
Tentatively withdrawn conditional on cleanup, July 21 2006, see discussion.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

rant

Seems like a lot of the chatter on here is people that have an personal issue with intelligence tests. Their validity is your opinion and not a suitable reason to pull anything from this page. The US govn't uses a variety of intelligence tests for all of the various sectors of government, which is a matter of fact. Hoeflin is well regarded pioneer in this field and an rather well known philosopher within his sub-genre of categorization in epistemology. Taken as a whole, he is a notable person whom helped introduce many famous intellectuals to a broader audience, such as Marilyn vos Savant (among others).

This whole trend of berating a subject because of personal biases and then having the larger Wiki audience suffer for it is really unconscionable attempt at historical revisionism...

You cannot will the facts out of existing with petty tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:103:DA20:41A8:D3DB:4C49:EFFB (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early comments

What is Hoeflin's own IQ? I think we should add that to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 June 2006

This individual is self-published and not notable enough for a separate entry. Suggest merge to Mega Society. Comments? DaturaS 18:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His Mega Test appeared in Omni magazine, and it was a big deal at the time. The Prometheus Society's journal, Gift of Fire, is up to 162 issues. Care to elaborate on why this entry should be deleted? Galizur 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to me either. Make sure you register your views on the AfD raised against Ronald Hoeflin's article here. The Mega Society's deletion is being appealed here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have voted for keeping, maybe with cleanup and adding material. After all, much less significant material gets entries and many stubs get edited into something more substantial. (E.g. John de Courcy Ireland - I started the stub and others contributed.) Autarch 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

I have marked up statements in the article that needed citations. The rest of the article seems well-sourced. If sources can't be found, those statements should be deleted, as per WP:CITE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obonicus (talk • contribs) 20:54:55, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Legality

I think that it is relevant to note in this article (and articles related to him) that Hoeflin is not licensed to perform or design psychological assessments, his tests have not been peer-reviewed and, therefore, any intelligence testing he does (or is done with his tests) is illegal. Use [1] and [2] as starting points. BordenRhodes (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely a very important point to note that the tests developed by Hoeflin have not been developed according to relevant professional standards. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third-ing this and including a reference to the American Psychological Associations professional guidelines, as OP’s links don’t appear to work. 24.238.37.196 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about legality are poorly worded, and as a JD, I have to laugh at the whole poorly worded argument you are attempting to phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.205.113 (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually worded pretty well, and covers multiple points in the APA guidelines for testing and evaluation. Hoeflin’s test has no psychometric merit. 24.238.37.196 (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very important to check reliable sources while editing this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of bias and inclusion of POV endemic to Wikipedia due to zealots... read exchange for more information on persons with a "biasing axe" to grind

Yes, it is important to avoid personal bias and POV. Here's a rather interesting exchange regarding someone's problem with adhering to that principle: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Maunus/Talk:Archivepage7

CHK 09 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.205.113 (talk)

Pfff

I've seen one of his "test" when it was available online in the end of the 90s, I wasn't able to answer even one of the questions... JMB-HappyMonkey328 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are criteria for active high-IQ societies?

I see the article describes several societies founded by Hoeflin in the terms "all are active today," yet some of the wikilinks to those societies are redlinks, that is dead links, perhaps because the societies failed the criteria for Wikipedia articles about organizations. That suggests that those societies are not "active" in the usually understood meaning of that term. What is an appropriate criterion for activity to back up a statement that an organization is active? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ronald K. Hoeflin. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922122700/http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html to http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]