Jump to content

Talk:Philip Emeagwali/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Discussion about the sources stating his IQ is 190

Hello Wikipedians, I'd like to open a discussion about the reliability of the sources used to back up the claims that Mr. Emeagwali has the IQ of 190. Here's my breakdown of the individual sources. Feel free to comment my findings.

Trost, Kravetsky (2013). 100 People With the Highest IQ's History. CreateSpace Publishing. ISBN 9781494300333.

Even though I was accused of lying that I bought this book, I actually did that in order to see the contents of the book that are used to support the IQ number. As also stated in my individual edits, the book is not a serious book. The first part of the 30-page book just plainly states randomly chosen names of historical individuals who might have had a high IQ. The book offers no methodology of how it got the IQ of individuals that lived hundreds years before IQ tests were invented. Maybe an expert derived the number somehow with an educated guess. But such expert is not cited. What is more, the book has no sources at all. The second part of the book reveals that the book is not focused on providing serious information, but instead it is a puzzle game. It lists words with missing letters and the reader is supposed to use the names from the previous list to match the IQ number with the individual. Why is it not a reliable source? According to WP:RS, the book is a questionable source, because it's a source "that [is] promotional in nature, or that rel[ies] heavily on rumors and personal opinions". The book relies on rumors, its unsourced list of IQs circulates a lot in the blogosphere.

There is no proof that you've purchased this book. You're essentially saying that you're the only reliable source, and because you disagree, traditionally reliable sources are no longer reliable. 2601:200:C000:257B:ECB2:BAAC:CC0:AD44 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear user, you are focusing on the irrelevant broader context of my description. The relevant part is how I read the contents of the book. Simply put, do you agree or disagree that the book is a 30-page puzzle game without any sources. Therefore, it's a questionable source that cannot be used for a personal biography, according to WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah cz (talk • contribs) 11:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
You have not provided any evidence for what you're claiming. On the other hand since the authors have published other books before it would make sense that they know how to source information. 2601:200:C000:257B:ECB2:BAAC:CC0:AD44 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The evidence is the book itself. Because you have read the book, you can check the claim for yourself whether it's what I called "a puzzle game book", which cannot be taken seriously as a source for a personal biography. It's irrelevant now, as HaeB stated, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, the book will not be used as a source for a personal biography.
You have not provided any evidence that you've bought it, and that it doesn't include any sources. Can you share pictures? 2601:200:C000:257B:4C5D:B89C:9E20:1287 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Please, beware that a published book automatically doesn't count as a reliable source. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, there are many criteria we as wiki contributors have to evaluate, especially when we want to write a biographical account of a living person. To cite the policy, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". Moreover, "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel wordsand that attribute material to anonymous sources". Is a 30-page puzzle game book without sources a high-quality and reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah cz (talk • contribs) 12:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen a second set of citations being required to cite the citations on Wikipedia before. 2601:200:C000:257B:ECB2:BAAC:CC0:AD44 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Is a self-published 30-page puzzle game book without sources a high-quality and reliable source for writing a personal biography? According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, as HaeB agrees, it is not a suitable source.
It depends on the sources that the book uses. 2601:200:C000:257B:4C5D:B89C:9E20:1287 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
This is quite obviously a self-published book (CreateSpace is listed at Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business, and the foreword as readable on Google Books also makes this clear). There is nothing wrong with self-publishing a book per se. But per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources, this is not suitable as a reference for this article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Shall we resolve this particular thread as solved by stating that per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources the book is not suitable as a reference for this article?
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources just because it self-published does not mean that is not suitable. One would need to see the book before knowing. 2601:200:C000:257B:4C5D:B89C:9E20:1287 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

eoht.info

It's not an encyclopedia, but a personal website (i.e. blog) by the person named Libb Thims. He has been banned on wikipedia several times, because of his self-promotion. See for instance User:Libb Thims. Just because it looks scholarly, it doesn't mean it is a reliable source.

It is an encyclopedia. A blog is defined as a platform for the writer to air personal views and opinions. That website is a collection of cited factual information on science. 2601:200:C000:257B:ECB2:BAAC:CC0:AD44 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It is a personal website of Libb Thims. It uses wiki platform and calls it "encyclopedia" to propagate a fringe view that there is a science of "human thermodynamics". Do the research and you will see that most of the links about "human thermodynamics" go back to eoht.info or are created by Libb Thims himself. There is no mainstream science of "human thermodynamics", therefore according to WP:RS, if the source has no mainstream scientific or academic discourse, you cannot use it as a source for personal biography. Finally, if you did your research, you would find that the website itself uses blog posts, forums as source for the purported IQ number. Interestingly enough, eoht.info lists Emeagwali in the section of scams. But it is irrelevant. The most relevant argument against using eoht.info as a reliable source is that (currently) it is a personal pseudo encyclopedia of pseudo or fringe science.
By that logic Wikipedia is the personal website of Jimmy Whales. The fact of the matter is it is an encyclopedia. A blog is defined as a platform for the writer to air personal views and opinions. That website is a collection of cited factual information on science. 2601:200:C000:257B:ECB2:BAAC:CC0:AD44 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on citing sources, in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

https://sciencetrends.com/highest-possible-iq-people-hold-world-record/

It's a personal blog post that looks like it is back up by a reputable science website. The author Juan Ramos states in the blog post that "Opinions expressed are solely the authors and do not express the views or opinions of Science Trends nor the author's institution." Therefore, his article is a personal blog post, not related to the views of Science Trends. Moreover, his IQ numbers are unsourced, propagating widely circulated memes/internet myths. I've written to him whether he can trace his claims to any reliable sources. Personal opinion of one blogger without any knowledge in the field and without sources is not a reliable source.

Perhaps he will provide his sources. Why are you assuming that this is his personal opinion and that he has no knowledge in the field (of I assume science)? On a pure common sense basis he writes for a science column so it is more likely than not that he does have knowledge in the field. At best you could conclude that he probably has knowledge, and at worst you could conclude that it is indeterminate. It seems to me that pre-emptively you've decided a conclusion in your head, and you're trying to shoehorn that conclusion in no matter what situation you encounter. 2601:200:C000:257B:ECB2:BAAC:CC0:AD44 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Pre-emptively, the current consensus in academic psychometrics is that you cannot reliably evaluate anyone with mainstream tests above the IQ 160. The null hypothesis position should be that IQ 190 is exceptional, a statistical outlier that needs a special IQ test to assess such cognitive abilities. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" as well as "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that [is] unsourced or poorly sourced". Moreover, I don't know if the column writer has any knowledge, his linkedin profile says he has a MA in English literature, but that's not important. We cannot interpret what is in his head, only what he writes. The most relevant part is that the author of the blog post doesn't cite, nor write in the text itself how he derives the number 190. Unless we have solid sources, according to Wikipedia policy, we should not publish contentious claims. One more time, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". One blog post is not an exceptional source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah cz (talk • contribs) 11:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
If exceptional claims require exceptional proof why are you trying interpret what's in this writer's head with your implication that he has no science background? Again, it seems to me that pre-emptively you've decided a conclusion in your head, and you're trying to shoehorn that conclusion in no matter what situation you encounter. Based on the fact that this has hit African media before, the most likely scenario is that Philip Emeagwali was tested (perhaps even decades ago), scored extraordinarily high, and people close to him witnessed this. But since none of the sources that cite this have a video of him taking the test while holding his driver's license between his teeth, someone would have to contact him directly. 2601:200:C000:257B:ECB2:BAAC:CC0:AD44 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Please, present to us those sources from the African media as you mention. They could be extremely helpful to our research. The most likely scenario is we don't know, therefore we have to rely on high quality sources when writing a personal biography. Your parsing of my sentences is odd. I explicitly stated that "that's not important" what his background is. Without contacting the author to clarify his text/expertise, we have to rely on what he writes. I am not "trying interpret" and I don't "imply". I stated factually that the author's linkedin profile, as you can see yourself, says he has a master's degree in the English literature. It itself cannot be a priori used as an expertise in psychometrics and psychology.
You were in fact trying to interpret what he knows and doesn't knows. My friend has a music degree and works in software engineering. Just because the writer has an English degree doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is talking about. 2601:200:C000:257B:4C5D:B89C:9E20:1287 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/top-20-smartest-people-who-ever-lived/

The article is a sponsored content, written as a personal opinion by the author. The same thing applies as in the previous case: His IQ numbers are unsourced, propagating widely circulated memes/internet myths. Personal opinion of one blogger without any knowledge in the field and without sources is not a reliable source.

Again, why are you assuming that this is the personal opinion of the author? Nothing implies that he made the numbers up. 2601:200:C000:257B:ECB2:BAAC:CC0:AD44 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not an official bigthink.com article, but a sponsored content (if it was an official bigthink article, it would be a view of the whole institution, not just one blogger, and it could be acceptable). But in this case, it is a personal opinion, beware that the author explicitely states that it is not his knowledge, but "reportedly" Emeagwali has this IQ. But the author doesn't cite any sources. An unsourced text is a personal opinion, unless the facts are public knowledge. That's a policy of any undergraduate university. An exceptionally high IQ of Emeagwali is not a public knowledge, therefore it must be sourced. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" as well as "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that [is] unsourced or poorly sourced". A blog post, personal opinion that reports that somethings is true without sources is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah cz (talk • contribs) 12:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Public knowledge is not a "personal opinion". A personal opinion is a conclusion you come to on your own, I would find it odd that he randomly happened to come up with the same number as everyone. I think it would be the best to get out of the habit of trying to label everything you disagree with as a personal opinion. It's quite clear that this is not a conclusion he came to on his own, but rather something he discovered online which is why he said reportedly. At best you could call it "the public opinion". 2601:200:C000:257B:ECB2:BAAC:CC0:AD44 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.howard.edu/library/reference/cybercamps/camp99/angel/defaultw3.htm/

Dear Wikipedians, the URL hasn't been working for me for some time. Can you access it? When I looked up an older, working version of the website through A wayback machine, it doesn't state explictly the IQ number "190".

Whoever used this website as a source for backing up the IQ 190, would he or she cited and provided a proof where on the (currently not working) website it is written that Emeagwali has specifically IQ of 190? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah cz (talk • contribs) 12:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Relevant Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid.

Enough is Enough

Merkel is right, period. Every one of you who is bashing him just needs to do a Google search for Emeagwali and look at his site. All that is there are self-aggrandizing articles that give zero information on his "record breaking calculation". Furthermore, Wikipedia's OWN SUPERCOMPUTING ARTICLE says that the fastest speed in 1989 was at FSU at 10.3 GFLOPS. That computer, the ETA10 used multiple processors that spoke to each other, the claimed "invention" of Emeagwali as professed by people on this talk page. I've watched this article for over a year and I can say that over that time, NOTHING has been provided that refutes Merkel's arguments. The only argument that the opposing side can come up with can easily be distilled into the following: You're white, you hate blacks, and thus you hate black achievements. That's total garbage and not the way it works here. If you can provide certifiable proof that Merkel is wrong, you have a case. But that proof can not be merely from Emeagwali's mouth. I could claim that I'm the rightful king of England. Those of you against Merkel would have to support my claim (even though it has no factual basis) because you're doing the exact same thing with Emeagwali. Supporting him based on his words alone. And, the award he was given...that's been dealt with too, it's not for the fastest speed. It was given to him bc the agency didn't want to give both awards to the same team, and Emeagwali's race probably also played into the decision as well. In conclusion, bring facts, not allegations of racism...those don't work on the internet where you have to bring evidence to the table instead of crying to Jessie Jackson. Chairman Meow 04:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we delete all of these unsupported claims? Unless these are backed up by Friday I'm deleting all of the ones without any support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.17.193 (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, which White Nationalist wrote this page?

This article seems to be mostly concerned with the bashing of Emeagwali. When I read it I hardly got any biographical information out of it and got most of the refutations. The feeling I had after I finished reading was that Emeagwali was some charlatan who actually had nothing to do with real science. That is simply untrue. The criticisms can be kept unless refuted ([1] states that brinkster33 is ran by Stormfront...) but the article needs to be rewritten because it's supposed to be about Emeagwali, not focused about his media controversy. He did accomplish things, and there's a lot of other positive information to write about him. User:LeeechKing

Like what? Just about every claim made by Emeagwali about himself is either wrong or grossly exaggerated. --Robert Merkel 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. When you make false claims, especially in the academic fields, expect them to be refuted. Koalorka (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An IQ of over 190 Slug like you (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Credibility

Don't waste your time talking with these racists, you should know by now its a waste of time. They can't help themselves its in their nature. Instead build a network of websites to counter act their lies, trust me the world is waking to their history of lies, (China, India, Africa, South America and even parts of Europe). Time is on our side. (2bb).

wait, so is he credible or not? I think I linked an article by him that purports the word "chemistry" is derived from the word "kemet" describing ancient black egypt. Blackpower 18:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Just about everything that has been said in the press about Emeagwali has contained gross misrepresentations greatly exaggerating his contributions to the discipline of computer science. The only conclusion I can draw is that Emeagwali has deliberately tried to perpetuate those misrepresentations. So, in general, I would regard any theory he has on *any* topic with a great deal of skepticism. Also, Emeagwali's academic qualifications are in engineering-related fields. As a historian and a linguist, he is strictly an amateur.
I would try to find out whether the claim is Emeagwali's own theory, and is not been adopted by anyone else, or whether he is writing about an idea that has been discussed by other people. One single person writing about a theory (even if they were an academic in the field) does not make it notable. --Robert Merkel 01:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Donita Brown is NOT Emeagwali's wife as stated by you. Emeagwali's wife is Dr. Dale Emeagwali. She is a very accomplished scientist in her own right.[2] And as another poster i.e. Jim Apple said, you have not shown any proof that high node count supercomputers were already in use before Emeagwali used them. Emeagwali does not say that he invented supercomputing but he does say that he did RE-INVENT the way supercomputers were designed and programmed.[3]. Richard
Refuting Richard's comment: there is evidence that Donita Browm is also Dr. Dale Emeagwali. See articles at [4] and [5]. Tom
Where is the evidence showing that Donita Brown is Emeagwalis wife? All you have done is linked to 2 articles whose authors CLAIM, without any proof, that Donita Brown is Emeagwali's wife.
Furthermore, the other team that won the Gordon Bell prize that year was also using a CM-2 for a different type of oilfield simulation. I think that fairly directly refutes your claim that high node count supercomputers weren't being used before Emeagwali did so. --Robert Merkel 11:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken about the high node computing claim. Emeagwali did not use a PHYSICAl high node computer, but wrote a PROGRAM that created a VIRTUAL high node computer using the CM-2. That is what this is all about.Emeagwali wrote a program that utilized the CM-2's processors as though they were connected as a Hypercube network. We are not talking about a physical invention but a VIRTUAl/THEORETICAL one. Hence, Emeagwali's hypercube network can be implemented in ANY supercomputer and not only the CM-2. Emeagwali's ingenuity is in the Hypercube and Hyperball networks i.e. how to arrange a supercomputers processors for maximum efficiency[6], that he created to solve problems in weather forecasting and Oil simulation.
According to the Wikipedia article, the Connection Machine are physically interconnected as a hypercube, so I don't see how writing a program to use them as one as any work of genius. And Emeagwali specifically claims that before he came along people were unable to use supercomputers efficiently. That is clearly incorrect, as shown by the fact that other people were indepenently using the CM-2 for other purposes. Nor does the Gordon Bell Prize article (the only time Emeagwali's work actually appears in a scientific journal) mention anything about the supposed "Hyperball" network.
In any case, I repeat what I've said many times on this article in response to various objectors: unless you can find some evidence that anybody other than Emeagwali takes Emeagwali's work seriously (and, as a purported computer scientist, such evidence would primarily be his work being cited by other computer scientists in articles or books) the article should be changed to reflect that. Otherwise, the article as it stands is an accurate summary of Emeagwali's scientific standing. --Robert Merkel 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur. --Coolcaesar 01:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
So the fact that the Gordon Bell prize committee actually gave Emeagwali the Gordon bell prize means that they did not take his work seriously? LOL. As I stated before, Alan H. Karp checked in with real reservoir engineers who believed that Emeagwali made great significant contributions to the Oil industry with his mathematical formulas. But ofcourse, in your delusional world, that does not count. LOL.
In the bimonthly news journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, mathematician Alan Karp wrote: "I have checked with several reservoir engineers who feel that his calculation is of real importance and very fast. His explicit method not only generates lots of megaflops, but solves problems faster than implicit methods. Emeagwali is the first to have applied a pseudo-time approach in reservoir modeling.” (SIAM News, May 1990)[7]
Again, why would Emeagwalis work be verified by a Computer Scientist. Do you even know what Emeagwali really is? Let me tell you. He is a computational scientist. His area of expertise is scientific computing. Since you cannot tell the difference, let mne explain it to you. A computational scientist is a MATHEMATICIAN who uses Computers to solve mathematical problems. This is what all this is about. Emeagwali came up with a set of MATHEMATICAL formulas that modeled an Oil reservoir in a way that enabled Oil to be recovered more accurately. You can read more about his formulas here and if you scroll down, you will see them displayed.[8]
These formulas were then converted to a computer program that was programmed using the Connection machine. It was the way that the Connection machine was programmed that was part of the novelty of his accomplishment. We all know that the Connection Machine has 65,536 processors which are mapped as a 3-dimensional Hypercube. What Emeagwali did was to map his mathematical formulas onto a virtual 12-dimensional hypercube which he then programmed onto the 3-dimensional Connection Machine hypercube.
As he expalins below,
In 1988, I announced that I had successfully divided a petroleum reservoir into 65,536 smaller problems and then mapped, communicated and distributed them to 65,536 processors of the Connection Machine, all networked together as a 12-dimensional hypercube with 16 processors at each of its 4,096 nodes.
The hypercube was a cube in 12-dimensions with 4,096 (two to power 12) vertices. I used 4,096 nodes (i.e. two raised to power 12) because it enabled me to map my problem onto a 12-dimensional mathematical hyperspace. I projected a three-dimensional problem onto a 12-dimensional hypercube space, and projected it back into three-dimensional space. You can read his whole explanation here.[9]
Hence, Emeagwalis work is WAY out of scope of the work done by Computer Scientists. A computational scientist like Emeagwali is infact a mathematician while a Computer Scientist deals only with Computers and their applications. Now, the question is, is it possible to patent formulas/equations? Can one patent maxwells electromagnetic equations? The answer is no. You may not have heard of Emeagwalis famous equations for Oil reservoir modelling, that does not mean they do not exist. They are being used at the moment in the Oil industry. My quote by Alan h. Karp above shows this. And if you scroll down to the bottom of this article [10], you will see all the praise showered on Emeagwali by members of the petroleum industry. So again, I do not understand what Computer Scientists have to do with this. LOL.
...Can one patent Maxwell's electromagnetic equations? Phillip Emeagwali has done this in Nigeria this but thus far has not received any recognition or renumeration for this. Anyway shouldn't they be called the Emeagwali equations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.72.254 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
And as I stated before, his ability to map his mathematical formulas onto a 12-dimensional space and then map them onto the 3-dimensional connection machine hypercube was part of the novelty of his discovery.
These equations developed by Emeagwali are not only able to model an oil reservoir, but can also model the weather, how sperm swim and other natural phenomena. Do also remember that the problem solved by Emeagwali i.e. the oil Reservoir problem was considered by the US government among one of the 20 national grand challenges in science and engineering. As for Emeagwalis Hyperball network, the following book i.e. "History of the Internet" states that his hyperball network was influential in the creation of the internet. And again, just like one cannot patent the hypercube network, one cannot also patent the hyperball network.--[[User:130.243.165.168 12:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)]]
Um, no. Parallel computation is squarely within the work done by a branch of computer science, as is numerical simulation of the type Emeagwali did. I could point you to the people in my faculty who do this kind of thing, if you'd like...
As for the claim that Emeagwali's invention isn't patentable, that's also bunk. A novel network interconnection strategy, or way to connect multiprocessor designs, is an invention and is very patentable. Do a search on network topology at the USPTO website and you'll turn up thousands of patents.
Finally, if Emeagwali's work was so significant for the oil industry, why is it so bloody hard to find references to it in the peer-reviewed literature?
These points have all been raised repeatedly in the discussion section before; there's nothing new here. Anybody looking for more detailed discussion should read the archive. --Robert Merkel 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You are still in denial. Emeagwali is a MATHEMATICIAN FIRST and a Computer Scientist SECOND. He solves mathematical equations using computers and not in the old fashioned manner. He does not involve himself in Computer Science Research but in Mathematics Research. Emeagwalis most important contributions have been his Mathematical equations that enabled him to model an Oil Reservoir. This equations have also been used to predict other phenomena like weather patterns, how sperm swim etc. Remember, Emeagwali does NOT have a degree in Computer Science. His Phd work was in the Civil Engineering department of the University of Michigan where he specialized in Scientific Computing. Scientific Computing DOES NOT fall under the category of Computer Science but under Applied Mathematics. Infact traditionally, Scientific Computing has always been called Numerical Analysis, a field that falls under the Mathematics category. See here [11] and here [12]. As for his work not being significant, why don't you write to Alan H. Karp, a MATHEMATICIAN, and ask him what he meant when he said that he had spoken to engineers who told him that Emeagwalis work was really helpful. Apart from Alan H. Karps quote above, here is another quote by a Researcher in the Oil industry.
"He has made a significant accomplishments in a computer science sense," says Alvis E. McDonald,[13] a research scientist who simulates oil fields at Mobil Research and Development Corp., in Dallas.[14]
As for Emeagwalis work not being patentable. His solution to the Gordon bell prize was not patentable because he basically used a topology i,.e. hypercube that was known at that time. The only difference was that his typology was 12-dimensional. As for his hyperball network,he states that it has been out in the public for so long and that it inspired the creation of the internet. The only argument you have against Emeagwali is that he has submitted 41 patents to the US patent office. That cannot be proven or shown to be false. You are however using the patent claim to try and show that all his other work is hogwash. Yeah, the Gordon bell commitee is in the business of giving prizes to black scientists that spew drivel.LOL--[User:130.243.165.168 16:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)]
For something to be patentable, it has to be an advance in the state of the art that was non-obvious to an expert in the field at the time. If Emeagwali's use of a 12-dimensional hyperball network was that, it would have been patentable. I've noted that he's never published anything, hasn't got any patents (despite claims in the media to the contrary) doesn't have anything to do with the internet as far as I can tell, and got knocked back for his PhD. In other words, he hasn't done the basics that any research scientist has done, let alone one of note. --Robert Merkel 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for such vicious attack by 'Robert Merkel' and 'Coolcaeser'. As far as is obvious neither of you has invented, discovered or even added to anything. Another classic example of jealousy and the deep sated delusion of white supremacy among caucasoids. Find something better to do with your time than trying to bring someone else down, especially one who is African. He has won a prize for his hard work but the fact that he is African means you belittle it as much as possible. Stop being sour grapes and get lives (happy ones at that)!

Did I ever say I was Causasoid? Now I'm just laughing and laughing at our anonymous visitor (who is clearly an imbecile, since he or she can't even spell or write a coherent sentence). --Coolcaesar 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I developed an interest in this article is that, a couple of years ago, somebody accused the (presumably mostly white) contributors of ignoring broadly black researchers' achievements on, IIRC, the computer science talk page. When somebody replied that they weren't aware of any eminent black computer scientists, Emeagwali was raised as an example. I did some research, and discovered that while he was publicised as some kind of genius, the evidence for such was non-existent. I take no particular pleasure in the fact that the extravagant claims surrounding Emeagwali don't match up to his modest achievements, but they simply don't do so. If you want this article changed, find some evidence that it is wrong, rather than wasting your time throwing highly insulting and largely irrelevant accusations at its contributors.--Robert Merkel 01:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Professor coolcaeser (and I'm being sarcastic!), the spelling is CAUCASOID (not causasoid), SO CORRECT YOURSELF! You have helped Mr. Merkel to prove my point! As for Mr. Merkel, I wonder at your concept of time wasting when you can afford to paste a message at 1.20 in the morning! Do you monitor this site every hour? Or let me guess, you have developed a supercomputer to do so for you and also alert you to any new messages posted! More power to the elbow of Emeagwali!!

Let me add that Prof. coolcaesar, you are right! I do not know your lineage/racial background. Please be so good as to enlighten me as well as everyone else who visits this site! You see, I dare to entertain the idea of conducting a study that could trace a common ancestry between you and the 'laughing Jackals and howling hyenas.' You seem to have certain traits in common. To quote you, laughing and laughing, appears to be one of these at present. However, I suspect that tact and wit may also be included. Pray tell exactly where it is you got your law degree, shall I dare to hope here also, that it isn't from the Institute of Laughing Jackals and Howling Hyenas, as this would probably line you up for malpractice if you indeed have any prospects of practicing law in the future.

I remain yours faithully Prof.cool caesar and rest my case!

Okay, I concede the spelling error, but when it comes to understanding time, you're not too bright. To be politically correct, Wikipedia generates timestamps based on current time in UTC (which is very close to but not quite equal to the GMT zone). Of course, the Wikimedia Foundation is actually headquartered in Florida and therefore it would make more sense to generate timestamps based on Eastern Standard Time, but apparently Wikipedia prefers to do things this way because it claims to be a global project. At the time he posted, it was 1:20 in the morning in England, but Merkel could have been anywhere in the world. Most Americans are taught the basics of time zones by the time they enter high school (or even earlier).
Also, looking at my user page, it should be quite obvious to any educated person which law school I graduated from (it's the one which I contributed new photographs for the relevant article very recently). --Coolcaesar 00:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you O wise one! Is there a chant/mantra you will be needing with that? America, educated, bright???!!!!! You must be a real joker. You are certainly very amusing. Still, do try to come across as being less pathetic (look at your user page indeed! You may survey it if you wish, just to make sure!).

While reading this document, I couldn't help but notice that it had more to do with bashing Dr. Emeagwali than providing a biography of the man himself. I won't dare to argue with your research, which may have proven his "works" to be overstated. I haven't done any reasearch on this matter. However, I would suggest that you break it into two different sections. One about this man, his life and his claims. And then you can go on to prove that he is indeed just a common scientist if you wish. But with the way the article currently is, he would be better off not even being recognized by wikipedia. Just my suggestion. I'm not Lawyer, writer, or computer scientist -- 2:51AM 11 April 2006 (Central Time).

What proof do you have that he is a "Dr." at all? BulldogPete 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I would agree with you, except that Emeagwali is sufficiently famous to appear regularly in the news media; he's even appeared on a Nigerian postage stamp, apparently. Sadly, his fame seems to be based on things that are either unverifiable or downright false. What else are we to do? That said, the article should probably mention a little bit more about exactly what he claims to have achieved ([here it is, but it's remarkably vaguely described and that page is *very* difficult to find). --Robert Merkel 09:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I do find it EVER so amusing that the only people spouting off unsupported information (by definition--not facts) are also the ones who are anon. I also find it amusing that these Anons are debating computer science with a computer science post-doc. Now, granted, Robert could be BSing about his creds...but, being a hard science man myself and fairly verse in higher education, his rabid desire for peer reviewed journal work as a sign of a person's cred simply smacks of higher learning and their obsession of getting things reviewed. If this is a valid judgement of the worth of one's contributions to a certian field....this remains to be seen (I'll simply state that the journals are very loath to go against the grain if you will). But what they ARE a good indicator of is the quality of the work. Now, this Emagwali comp sci guy or whatever he claims to be self-promotes himself...if he is so great, why then must he self promote himself (here is where you can interject "bc the establishment discriminates"). I'll simply point out that A) Emagwali lies, or at the least grossly exhagerates his accomplishments..example...his website constantly refers to "HIS 65,000 processors"... if the machine costs 400 mil dollars...how can it be his? He's not that wealthy. Contrived point, I'll grant that...but the point is that he makes NO mention WHATSOEVER that there were other people involved (the computer was Mobil's). This smacks of dishonesty and lack of character. The "connection machine" was built by Dennis Hillis, the USPTO has a MASSIVE ZERO patents registered to him..and I'll simply refer to the IEEE issue 1990 for his claim of having made the fastest computation:

In the performance category, we awarded the prize to a team from Mobil Research and Development and Thinking Machines Corp. [...] Their solution of a seismic data-processing problem ran at almost 6 Gflops on a CM-2 Connection Machine. 

   "Special Report: 1989 Gordon Bell Prize," IEEE Software, May 1990, p. 101

That's almost two times as fast as his 3.1 Gflops. In conclusion....Anon, your ignorant hold upon your ideology has blinded you to the facts. Get a name if you wish to be taken seriously....get an education if you wish to understand seriously.Chairman Meow 09:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I (apparently) got the Emeagwali article lifted from MIT

I simply wrote a calm, point-by-point explication of Emeagwali's various lies, exagerrations etc. I received a courteous letter back from MIT. THE NEXT DAY, the article praising him as a "Father of the Internet" and "inventor of the Thinking Machine" was gone.

I urge all lovers of the truth to write to the respected outlets which have been taken in by his prevarications simply to write to them. Perhaps this outrageous clown can be taken down a notch.

As for the egregious Mary Bellis of about.com, I think a campaign of writing to the editors of that website is in order. Her notorious falsehoods are often cited as "fact."BulldogPete 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations dog! Now - and as 'a lover of the truth' - could you provide details/evidence of (or links to) your 'calm, point-by-point explication of Emeagwali's various lies...' letter, the MIT responce and copies of the article allegedly praising Emeagwali?

Otherwise - and very frankly - your little campaign and attitude stinks of characteristic rabid 'white' hate...y'know the same old bull, Bull :D Codelyric 22 January 2007

Paragraph 2 (1st sentence) of bulldog's post is incoherent. If bulldog is incapable of making coherent statements, withdraw from posting ludicrously vicious and vindictive statements.

Since you don't speak English, there may be a wiki in your native language where you understand what's written.BulldogPete 23:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

removed POV OR

A lot of this bullcrap like his websites Whois info is not at all relevant to the subject of him. It's trivial, and clearly meant to suggest a certain POV against the man. it's also foolish to assume that he writes his website, and therefore is being a pompous asshole talking about himself. Most famous people, like Emeagwali, have other people write sites that celebrate them to the world. Whoever wrote the original page was filling it with needless bullshit. I hope I've cut through a lot of that.--Urthogie 05:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What, that he's a fraud? Unfortunately, NPOV stopped me from putting it in so many words, but the man has a remarkable talent for having incorrect claims made about him by non-specialist media.
Anyway, But sticking to the factual issues, his website still features prominently the claim that he was a "father of the internet" or "unsung hero of the internet", which is complete and utter nonsense. That should be covered. --Robert Merkel 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They call Newton the Father of Physics, Euclid the Father of Geometry and Philip Emeagwali a Hoax. I think that justifies the accusations of racism, considering the fact that any serious practitioner working in the field of distributed computing and networks knows Philip as a key factor in its research. Probably THE key factor.

Could you point to a serious practitioner who says so? One? Anywhere? --Robert Merkel 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that my team, in the field of distributed computing, only knows Philip Emeagwali's name at all because of his patently ridiculous claim to be "Father of the Internet."
But then maybe we're all blinded by our racism. After all, half of us are American, and all Americans are racist, including those of Indian, Japanese, Hawaiian, and Afro-Carribean heritage (such as our six most senior team members--although we do have a couple of WASPs, and even a Jew, so maybe they've polluted our minds?). It must be racism--it couldn't be the complete lack of publications or patents, or the fact that nobody outside of the oil industry has ever referred to his work, could it?
They call Newton the Father of Physics because he published the Principia. They call Euclid the Father of Geometry because he published the Elements. They call Emeangwali a fraud because he published nothing. It has nothing to do with racism; al-Khwarizmi is the Father of Alegbra even though he's Persian, and the history of everything from medicine to infantry tactics is full of Moorish (both Black and Berber) visionaries. Few people nowadays get to be Father of anything quite so grand, but there are more than enough legitimate inventors of every race that there's no need to defend a fraud just because of his color. --76.200.103.178 07:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

inventions

I see a long list of inventions on Emeagwali's web site [15]. Many of them sound very interesting, and I would like to learn more technical information about them. I hope that by listing a few of them in the article, a few months from now I will find them linked to more information about those inventions. I hope then I will learn something useful to me, some ideas that are useful no matter who first wrote them down. And isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia?

Not signing in because I want to stay out of the controversy. --75.19.73.101 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. I expect that virtually none of the claims (especially from the second half of the list) can be backed up with references to actual scientific publications or patents by Emeagwali, but let's leave the list up as an experiment for a while, to see if anything sticks. Hqb (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This guy is hilarious: http://emeagwali.com/media/worlds-most-famous-scientists.html ! Seriously, though—there are plenty enough genuine African and African-American scientists out there, whose articles are much more worthy of attention than this guy's (Monty Jones, Arthur Lewis, Mark Dean, Percy Lavon Julian, David Blackwell, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc, etc). Udzu (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I see someone deleted the whole list.
I'm restoring the list.
What are "chirality in parallel programming" and "enantiomeric networks"? And "the counter-intuitive speedup paradox"?
I don't really care who invented them, I want to know what they are.
My understanding is that the WP:SELFPUB policy allows us to mention what a person says about himself on his own website, if "it is not contentious".
I think there is a big difference between a wikipedia article that says "he discovered X" and a wikipedia article that says "he says he discovered X".
See the difference?
While we may disagree on whether or not he actually did these things, I hope we can all agree (and therefore "it is not contentious") that Emeagwali actually does claim that he did all these things.
  • If you think he actually did do these things: Please help us find third-party references to verify these claims, and add those reference to the article.
  • If you think he didn't actually do these things: You still agree with me that he actually did claim he did these things, right? Please help clarify the article, so it is obvious which claims are actually supported, and which things are merely claimed without any evidence. Oh, and if you can find some third-party reference that shows someone else actually discovered these things before Emeagwali, or that Emeagwali didn't actually do one of these things, please add it to the article.
Thank you. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I moved the single reliably sourced claim (about Emeagwali's simulation being the first to use a pseudo-time method for oil reservoir modeling) to the main text, and removed the rest. They've been up there with "[citation needed]" for four months, and there's absolutely no reason to expect that such citations are forthcoming in the foreseeable future. WP:SELFPUB also clearly says that self-published material may only be included as long as (3) it is not unduly self-serving, which the majority of these claims clearly are. As for what "chirality in parallel programming" and "enantiomeric networks" are, who knows? Most likely they are Emeagwali's own terms for concepts that are already known under another name, or weren't interesting enough for anyone else to care about.
I think it's evident that none of the remaining claims are supported with any reliable evidence. And they are not even "disputed": it's pretty clear that nobody actually working in the field is taking them seriously in the first place. Hqb (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You may be surprised at what other people find "interesting enough ... to care about".
Let me re-iterate my goal here: I am curious about these terms "chirality in parallel programming" and "enantiomeric networks" and "the counter-intuitive speedup paradox". What are they?
I don't really care who invented them, I want to know what they are.
If hypothetically they turn out to be "Emeagwali's own terms for concepts that are already known under another name", then this article should link to those other names, letting me know what they are.
If such links hurt Emeagwali's reputation by pointing out that other people had already invented those things, well, that's not my problem.
If hypothetically it turns out that Emeagwali did invent these things, then this article should briefly describe what they are. Let our readers be the judge of whether or not they are "interesting enough to care about" -- let the facts speak for themselves.
Let me also re-iterate that Wikipedia policy does allow an article about a person to mention the claims that person makes, whether or not those claims are "true". For an extreme example, the Emperor Norton article points out that Emperor Norton claimed to be "Emperor of these United States" and "Protector of Mexico".
Since I suspect restoring that list is more likely to serve my goals than letting that list be deleted, and since I see no Wikipedia policy or guideline requiring that list to be deleted, I am restoring that list.
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Charlatan

I think it is obvious for anyone who examines Emeagwali that he is a charlatan trying to portay himself as some sort of genius. I do not think he is notable as a computer scientist or mathmatician, but he might be notable as a charlatan. If this article should be kept I think it has to mention all of his controversal statements about being a doctor/professor, having invented the Internet, Gordon Bell Prize being the Nobel Prize of computing and so on. Combatman (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


i am preparing to switch the gears of the article towards his notability as a charlatan once i give people the chance to find sources of his "achievements" that dont come from his own website. i have found several reliable sources examining him and exposing his charlatanry. however i must give the other side a week to find some good, direct sources. maybe theyll come through, but the writing on the wall is that this guy is a great example of a successful charlatan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcowboys3109 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bogus information from aaregistry.org

Some incorrect information has recently been added to the article, sourced to the website of the African American Registry ("aaregistry.org"). That article, with a clear promotional agenda, is not up to the Wikipedia standards of reliable sources, and in fact cites no references of its own, other than Emeagwali's self-serving website.

In particular, the sentence "He later earned his doctorate from the University of Michigan in civil engineering (scientific computing)." is patently wrong; in fact, it is contradicted later in the AARegistry article itself, where it says that Emeagwali was not awarded the degree. That paragraph, incidentally, is evidently plagiarized from the Wikipedia article, only stripped of its supporting citations. The court case cited in WP makes it very clear that the degree that Emeagwali failed to obtain was his doctorate in scientific computing, not a second PhD in Mathematics.

The AARegistry's article is full of other dubious and unreferenced factoids, such as the preposterous claim that Apple used Emeagwali's multiprocessing technology for its dual-processor Power Mac G4 – even though Emeagawli's work was actually on a very specific computational fluid dynamics program for the 65k-processor Connection Machine, which he had absolutely no hand in developing. It is very clear that the AARegistry article has been cobbled together from bits of text from across the Web, by a person with no real understanding of the subject matter. I have reverted the additions sourced to aaregistry.org, until such time (if ever) as they can be properly verified. Hqb (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


Question to the editors

Can someone explain why this article has no mention of time magazine's article on him as an " unsung hero " and it clearly states some of his contributions to the field. [1] Nor the BBC interview with him that calls him a " digital giant " [2] This wiki article only mentions the fact that President Clinton commended him. While the above articles from reputed sources are exempt from this wiki page the editors have chosen to use a polarized negative article on him by an unknown publication called " sahara reporters ", in relation to time or the BBC they are nowhere near the same credibility level. I would like to know why the editors have unintentionally or purposely used POV when selecting citations since this sort of cognitive information bias is an infringement of Wiki's policies on not doing original research. The traditional view of Philip Emeagwali is covered by the Time and BBC articles I cited above. The other views of Philip as a fraud could be written about in a separate criticism section, but to let an unknown publications citation permeate into most the article is unwarranted and actually tarnishes the good that the editors have done in relation to cleaning up the article in it's previous state which looked like Philip's own marketing page. 77.100.152.52 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1963424_1963480_1963457,00.html
  2. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/digital_giants/8561413.stm

Stupild claims in the introduction

In my opinion most introduction were written by some kind of fanboy. (I hope Emeagwali is not so nacistic to write that about himself). However, I am not directly a expert on supercomputing hence I might be wrong. Still nobody with half a brain can seriously claim that Emeagwali is more often searched at the interent than people like for example Einstein, Newton Darwin.. Hence I deleted the stupild claim that he would be the most search scientist on the internet.2001:4C50:14D:7C00:B09A:BD85:2B58:8561 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Philip Emeagwali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philip Emeagwali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philip Emeagwali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philip Emeagwali. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philip Emeagwali. 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:

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) 16:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_Emeagwali/Archive_2&oldid=974700897"