I have no problem with any of your arguments My feeling is there is no reason to go overboard questioning the basis of these claims since it is simply possible to write the entry making clear that they are claims It is not the place of this talk page to conduct some kind of forensic investigation into the validity or otherwise of Mr Langan s IQ I m not saying that is what you are doing just making a point I agree with you that at this high end of the scale the measurement of IQ probably becomes quite inexact but after all that is not Mr Langan s fault I note also that not only is there no evidence Mr Novelly is lying neither is there any evidence that Mr Langan has lied That doesn t make his claims true but the claims themselves are plausible as claims and as claims they are reported in legitimate secondary sources I think it is clear that Mr Langan is as you put it succinctly frickin smart That is the real point of the IQ claims and it is the basis of the interest in Mr Langan since people are interested in the limits of how frickin smart people can be I note for the record that this obviously does not mean Mr Langan s CTMU theory is correct but neither does questioning Mr Langan s IQ undermine his CTMU