A few assorted thoughts:
The SB5 is able to generate IQ scores up to 225, using extended norms, just as the WISC-IV was able to extend up to IQs of 210. (Some of this information may not have been available to Hoagies at the time the cited article was written.) SBLM scores also extend well into the 200s, but are on a completely different scaling. I believe some of the sources cited above may be confounding SBLM-style ratio IQs with more contemporary deviation IQs, which is not contributing to clarity.
IQ test-documented giftedness is a particular kind of academic-focused giftedness, with its own value. This does not preclude the existence, or deny the value of, other kinds of giftedness--including other types of intellectual giftedness--perhaps not so readily measurable on a standardized instrument.
All terms are short-hands for much more complex and nuanced constructs, and tend to accumulate social-emotional accretions over time, often resulting in their eventual abandonment, under the weight of these overgrowths. (E.g., at the other end of the cognitive spectrum, such previously neutral terms as idiot or mentally retarded.) We use these terms only for convenience in communication. As soon as they become obstacles to effective communication, they lose their purpose.
Perhaps we would all benefit from occasional reminders that human beings are much more than labels or scores, neither is our value ever defined by them.
