Talk:High-IQ society/Archive 1

Archive 1

Links

Regarding a few of the newly added external links / redlinks to the article; I believe that they need trimming, as several of the societies have no reliable sources (per WP:V and WP:RS) and are therefore inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm happy for the article to have them provided that such sources can be provided. Ziggurat 22:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed also from my side. However, Vinci, TOPS and OATH have existing websites and activities, to I thought it's worth to mention them, with the aim to have a complete overview. I fully agree to have deleted the IQcuties as they don't exist as per my knowledge (also they have no website or activity). --Mike2000 22:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually simply existing, performing activities, or having a website isn't enough; for any article to be included in Wikipedia it requires multiple third-party reliable sources, and quite a few of these organisations don't meet those criteria. Many of the organisations here have a hundred or fewer members: they're simply not large enough and well-known enough, and none of the sources about them are fact-checked (essential for reliability purposes). If there were mentions in books, newspapers, or journals they should definitely be included, but a lot of these don't meet these criteria. I'm planning to co-ordinate a cleanup of the IQ society pages in the next few days, so I'd like to see some solid referencing to ensure they're not just irrelevant microsocieties. Ziggurat 22:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many of these societies are "vanity" clubs, and in fact with respect to the Mega Society there has been litigation to protect the society's name (see http://www.megasociety.org/about.html). Canon 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, a top-quality and reliable Wikipedia is our all aim. Observing amendments in the subject IQ and related topics it seems that they are often discussed emotionally and "political" matters play a role, also to self-represent where Wikipedia is obviously not a platform for. I fully support a neutral point of view and will gladly participate in possible cleanup discussions. I believe that the actual version is not too bad as there is a good and also neutral overview, but I'm very open to improvement. --Mike2000 23:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

I removed the Criticisms section because it sounded too personal, like an individual was complaining. I haven't seen a Criticisms section in other articles. I think a Controversy section would be okay provided it contains legitimate public controversies. --Jagz 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Society Articles?

Colloquy is an online group that seems to have had intelligent discussions for the past five or six years. In the history of Intelligence groups this seems significant. I'm not a member but I wrote an article for Colloquy and kept an eye on it. It was a short, accurate article suitable for the subject. The article vanished. What happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.13.140 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 9 September 2006 UTC

Most likely it was considered non-notable. Jefffire 10:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can merge the Colloquy article (if you can find it) into this article. The smaller articles about individual high IQ groups can be merged into this article.--Jagz 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's aggravating and futile to contribute to Wikipedia on this matter. Wikipedia seems biased towards presenting very detailed articles and tiny stubs about tv shows and music (well over a hundred articles detail the buffyverse, see also the countless articles on inane musical bands, their songs, their albums, ad infinitum - Bowling for Soup (album), for example), but actively deletes articles about a compelling topic: the long, splintered history of IQ groups and their qualifications. I'm not a member of any IQ group but I find the facts about them fascinating. It's a shame that Wikipedia is discouraging input by deleting articles. Sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.13.140 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 September 2006 UTC

The question is always one of verifiability - we can only use facts and information that has been presented in reliable sources (reliable sources in this case usually constituting something peer-reviewed, independent, and as unopinionated as possible). It's unfortunate if the 'outside' world focuses on pop minutiae more than IQ groups, but, until someone is willing to add information that isn't just hearsay, unsourced articles like the one on Colloquy are effectively impossible to distinguish from advertising, promotion attempts, or self-aggrandizement. A good article written according to WP's policies won't get deleted. Ziggurat 00:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ziggurat, for your considerate reply. I guess I was responding to the above response that "most likely it [the article I wrote on Colloquy] was considered non-notable." And I still sense a Wikipedian culture bias against these groups. But if verifiability is the issue, then maybe I need to do homework on what this means - and your links will help me do that. When I wrote the article I included a link to the group itself and a link from another online source. The material I used paraphrased information there. Anyway, enough ranting from me. Thanks again, Ziggurat, for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.13.140 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 September 2006 UTC

No probs - essentially, the best link is the one to reliable sources, because that's the baseline standard for what can be used. If no-one has written about a subject in any book, newspaper or magazine article, or other relatively authentic source, then it's basically impossible to get to the objective standard essential for an encyclopedia article. Fortunately this means that sources are a very good defence against deletion - they do the talking, rather than debating whether an organisation has enough 'notability' (a nebulous comment that some of us Wikipedians don't particularly like). All the best in finding sources for some good articles! Ziggurat 08:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In what book, newspaper or magazine article will I find the information used for this article, High IQ society? None are cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.13.140 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 2 September 2006 UTC

That's true, and hopefully people will improve and build on this article by adding such sources. I don't think anyone is in doubt that sources do exist for this topic, however, and it's when there is such a doubt that articles are usually nominated for deletion - and then sources are either found and it's kept, or they're not, and it's deleted. Ziggurat 03:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy this discussion and you obviously are smart and good-humored so I say this in the spirit of happy debate (and because these double standards aggravate me). In your last reply you justify leaving content that isn't cited but three replies ago you said, "we can only use facts and information that has been presented in reliable sources." So, where are the reliable sources? You also said, "unsourced articles like the one on Colloquy are effectively impossible to distinguish from advertising, promotion attempts, or self-aggrandizement." So, where are the sources for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.13.140 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 25 September 2006 UTC

No probs, I'm always happy to try to explain the intricacies of Wikipedia's often-convoluted practices! Optimally, all articles require sources, but people often add improperly sourced information, or (as is the case here) syntheses of information presented in other Wikipedia articles. People tend to be quite forgiving of such articles, because the potential for sources is the key; it's a question of adding them, not whether they exist or not, and the overall philosophy is that sources will be added eventually. When an article comes up and it's apparent that there's little to no possibility of there being good sources, then the deletion brigade really jumps in. It's not a double standard so much as an eventualist one (that page on Eventualism, by the way, is a pretty good explanation of the distinction). Additionally, I've dropped in a source for at least one of the claims in the article (the founding date for Mensa); hopefully others will add more. Ziggurat 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy says this:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

On the other hand, eventualism is a "tendancy" among a faction of Wikipedians and the word "source" never appears in the description of its philosophy [1]. So your citing "eventualism" fails on at least two grounds: (1) eventualism does not immediately extend to sourcing and (2) even if it did extend to sourcing (as you have it) it's a "tendancy" that would clearly contradict "policy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.13.140 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 September 2006 UTC

The fact that it doesn't mention sourcing does not mean that it doesn't extend to sourcing (the reasoning is logically flawed), but in any case I'm attempting to describe the editing practices as they currently stand. Certainly sources are required according to policy, but opinions differ on how to approach this goal. Some people hold that articles should be deleted and rebuilt strictly according to the policy (and indeed that happens with controversial or contentious articles, usually as a result of the threat of a lawsuit); most often people are happy to have unsourced information remain on a page as long as it's fairly evident and not controversial, with the understanding that sources will be added eventually. The goal is to build a good encyclopedia, not policy wonking. Creating an article about an obscure organisation (often with the intent to advertise or promote that organisation) is controversial, which is why it draws deletion ire and the hard scrutiny of WP:V. In any case, I'm attempting to explain why there appears to be a 'double standard', as you describe it. If you feel that my explanation is insufficient the best place to ask is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) - this is, after all, supposed to be a talk page about this article rather than a broad critique of the application of policy! Ziggurat 04:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and good humor. And, thanks for keeping the discussion relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.13.140 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 September 2006 UTC

Removed references to Camp Archimedes, seemingly not a high IQ society but a reference to a science fiction novel (see http://www.amazon.com/Camp-Concentration-Thomas-M-Disch/dp/0375705457). Rublev 23:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

External link controversy

User:DreamGuy keeps removing this external link:Estimated IQ's of Geniuses even though I gave him the citation to the journal reference for it [2] It is from a study by Catharine Cox. Here are my comments to him on his talk page that he erased. In this edit:High IQ Society I give a reference for the material on the link you say is "nonencyclopedic estimates of IQs" and "put in a horribly unreliable one, period" and "not known to be notable". So it is encyclopedic by the reference I cited, but not only that nowhere in WP:EL does it say that external links must be notable or encyclopedic. In fact this is a red herring fallacy argument, the reasons he is saying he is removing the links for are not even part of the policy he is citing. WP:EL#What_to_link says almost the opposite:"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." This User makes repeated claims like " claim to be following WP:EL is nonsense" and "please go read WP:EL and stop reverting" and " remove links that are not encyclopedic. reliable, etc. see WP:EL" but apparently he himself has never read it. When I asked for clarification before here he erased all comments, so I think it is him who will not have a discussion.Tstrobaugh 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Estimated IQs" have no basis in fact. No test, not encyclopedic. It's just someone's wild ass guess. SeeWP:EL rules for the rest. And stop whining bout an old controversy about some articles of yours that was not good and got deleted so you got all upset and out for revenge, as it's not significant for this issue. You just want to complain, but you've got nothing to complain about. DreamGuy 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Please consider me to be dense. I have no idea what you mean when you say that an external link has to be encyclopedic in nature. You say see WP:EL, but could you please quote the exact rule that you are talking about so we can be clear on this? Thank you.Tstrobaugh 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking external links should be discussed on their merits rather than quoting an "exact rule" (we frown on Wikilawyering). That's why it's "links to be considered" rather than "links to include". If you want to be technical, you could go with "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." Or "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." (this article is about High IQ societies, not IQ itself). This is not a useful link. Ziggurat 03:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, as to the "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." did you see the link that referenced it in a published, peer-reviewed refereed journal? As to the ""Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" The people in the link (the 300 geniuses) are the people that would qualify to belong in the High IQ Society today. They are the "membership" if you will and so are directly related to the link. Here is a cogent example from American Mensa's (a High IQ Society) "Hall of Fame" [3].Tstrobaugh 14:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw a link to a journal from 1926; hopelessly out-of date and still not about high IQ societies. None of the historical subjects were ever members of a high IQ society, so no, this link is not about high IQ societies. Ziggurat 22:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1926 is when this important historical study was published, your argument that it is out of date is illogical. What about the timeliness of the study invalidates its conclusions? Should Galileo, Newton and Einstein (1905) also be invalidated? Secondly, you are absolutely wrong about any of these people being members of a High IQ Society, did you see the link I provided to MENSA? Some of them are current members, so yes the link is about High IQ Societies. Did you ever think that you are putting the horse before the cart in your arguments? That is you have already decided, for what reason I don't know (but have repeatedly asked), that you don't like this link. Now you are trying to invent arguments on the fly to fit a decision you have already made. It makes me wonder what the real reason is, is it so taboo you can't say it? Please help me understand. As you can see I've negated all your current arguments. So please tell me the real reason.Tstrobaugh 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of more research on Cox's famous study:

HISTORIOMETRIC INQUIRIES: COX’S 301 GENIUSES

Bowerman, W. G. (1947). Studies in genius. New York: Philosophical Library.

Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, H. J. (1970). Creativity and personality. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 312-326). Baltimore: Penguin. (Original work published 1968)

Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Cox, C. M. (1976). A dossier on Charlotte Brontë. In W. W. Dennis & M. Dennis (Eds.), The intellectually gifted (pp. 47-50). New York: Grune & Stratton. (Original work published 1926)

Cox, C. M. (1976). Excerpts from the early writings of geniuses selected and arranged by Lewis M. Terman. In W. W. Dennis & M. Dennis (Eds.), The intellectually gifted (pp. 25-45). New York: Grune & Stratton. (Original work published 1926)

Cox, C. M. (1976). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. In W. W. Dennis & M. Dennis (Eds.), The intellectually gifted (pp. 17-24). New York: Grune & Stratton. (Original work published 1926)

Cox, C. M. (1983). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence (pp. 46-51). Oxford: Pergamon. (Original work published 1926)

Ellis, H. (1926). A study of British genius (rev. ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Simonton, D. K. (1997). Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A multivariate approach to the Cox data. In D. K. Simonton, Genius and creativity: Selected papers (pp. 79-94).  Greenwich, CT: Ablex. (Original work published 1976)

Simonton, D. K. (1997). Historiometric studies of creative genius. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 3-28). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity from a historiometric perspective. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 116-136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Historiometry. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 815-822). San Diego: Academic Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4, 425-451.

Simonton, D. K. (2003). Qualitative and quantitative analyses of historical data. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 617-640.

Terman, L. M. (1917). The intelligence quotient of Francis Galton in childhood. American Journal of Psychology, 28, 209-215.

Thorndike, E. L. (1936). The relations between intellect and morality in rulers. American Journal of Sociology, 42, 321-334.

Walberg, H. S., Rasher, S. P., & Hase, K. (1983). IQ correlates with high eminence. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence (pp. 52-56). Oxford: Pergamon. (Original work published 1978)

Woods, F. A. (1906). Mental and moral heredity in royality. New York: Holt.

White, R. K. (1931). The versatility of genius. Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 460-489.

Tstrobaugh 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to the questionof having a link on this article. Multiple people now say the link in inappropriate to just you saying it belongs. We have clear consensus. DreamGuy 21:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not 'negated' any arguments, you have ignored them. I said historical subjects; obviously Vos Savant doesn't fit in that category. I fail to see the logic in your argument: "Some of the people on this page are in a high IQ society, therefore this page is about high IQ societies." I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this: This webpage is not about the subject of the article. In fact, the only mention of the subject of the article is in the links at the bottom of the webpage. If you want to include any of the scholarly articles you mention above, it is much more academically appropriate to cite the sources themselves rather than an un-peer-reviewed 'summary' of them. And it would still not belong on this page unless they're specifically about high IQ societies. Ziggurat 00:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Link pruning, controversy resolving

There are far too many links here, so many that it seems silly to argue over individual items. Wikipedia is not a web directory. I propose deleting all external links to high iq societies, and instead only wikilinking to those that have their own Wikipedia article. This will make the article look more like an encyclopedia article and less like a telephone book, and ensure that all the societies it links to are worth mentioning. Also, since each society can have a link to its website in the article, we won't need to have those links duplicated here. Does this sound reasonable? Why or why not? Foobaz·o< 02:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. Since there is a category to which all these societies belong, i just linked to the category instead. Foobaz·o< 06:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of the ultra long list of societies

I'm comparing websites to Cerebrals society. It is selective at 99.7%, or 3 permille, and has 256 members. I deleted high potentials society since it only has less than 90 more members, but is selective at 98%, or 20 permille. Its not about popularity, its about following WP:NOTABILITY WP:CITATIONS, and if your society gets press coverage and is mentioned in the news (such as mega society mentioned in the Guiness book of world records, or Cerebrals mentioned in the beautiful mind) then please add it back to the article, and use <ref> and </ref> to surround your reference, so that it can be verified.

I apologize if I made any errors about taking out a society, please if you spent more than 5 minutes assessing a society, and feel I have erred, then accept my apology and put it back in. I am volunteering to do this, so that a zealous "deletionist" doesn't come in delete every society without a source, which is not against the rules.

I'm only deleting societies, to make the article seem clearer. If I made a mistake, just read WP:NOTABILITY WP:CITATIONS and reinsert it. Sentriclecub (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a start...

Its a start but this article still needs citations, and I am going to rethink that paragraph about advising foreign governments. Sentriclecub (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability applies to individual articles, not lists of things within an article. It means societies you deleted do not at present merit articles of their own, not that they should be deleted from a list of societies, as they indeed do exist. Now, you have done such a mess with those deletions, that it would be only fait if you undid it yourself. StevanMD (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I took notice of your talk page, and I have respect for Michael Price, and I will extend that same respect to you. The history log shows line by line of societies I removed. Tell me which ones to put back, and I'll do it right away. Even if you say all of them. Just know that I'm doing us a favor. The way the article stood prior to my cleanup, was begging for someone to come in and delete every unsourced society indiscriminately. I personally know that iquadrivium is no longer active. Do you at least agree with that? Sentriclecub (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the list really is too long. I would say anything not cited to verify its existence should be removed. CAVincent (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you mean for the list to be informative of the societies that do exist, than you can not complain if it is too long (all those societies and people in them do exist). If you just mean to make it short, then any excuse can do. StevanMD (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is necessary to be comprehensive of all IQ societies, but reading this talk history is doesn't seem like there is consensus on what the list should be. I take it from your comments above that you don't favor enforcing WP level of notability as a criterion for inclusion. I'm going to do a little pruning, definitely keeping anything that merits a WP article, and trying to use http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/hiqsocs/hiqsocs1.html as a further guide for notability. I plan to remove link's to society pages if we do have an article in line with WP:EL as really the link's belong in the groups' specific articles, and this article has way too many external links (which admittedly can't entirely be helped if we want verification of the various groups). CAVincent (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. How does it look now? Everthing has at least some evidence it exists, and I think it's a little better. That said there are still problemswith real reliable source issues both with the references I just added and also with using a group's own website. On balance, I think the two articles I used for referencing are better than just site the group's site itself as it is at least a third-party verification. I just checked each and every one of the links to these sites to verify their existence (or at least the site's existence) and membership requirement. A lot of them look like they were created by the same person(s) and seem pretty doubtful and I would not be at all surprised if their owner(s) added themselves to WP. The state I just left the article in is I think a fair compromise but I could understand someone insisting on even further trimming. CAVincent (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC) p.s. Given the improvement, I'm going to remove the reference tag. If anyone disagrees, please be specific about what you think needs referencing. CAVincent (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How does it look now?

It looks very clean and you did a good job. I also agree on this edit because although it sounds helpful to readers, its not notable on this article. They can find it on the talk page.

About the comment on creating an informative list, we're lucky to have this article survive without being given a merge tag. If we created a List of High IQ Societies it would get slapped with a merge tag into this article, and the discussion and consensus would be reached by editors who outnumber us by a million to one, and if a disproportionate share of us vote on the matter, then new problems arise. Compare the red-linked High IQ society list, with List of South Park episodes I guess its too bad that every south park article is notable and only 12 out of 20 out of hundreds of high IQ societies are notable. (in contrast to all 223 south park episodes having their own article)

But I like it this way, this article has been on my watchlist for about a year, and the notability guidelines are an effective way to assess the major High IQ societies at each cutoff. I'll likely never join one, but I'm glad that wikipedia has a very condensed coverage of the total set of high IQ societies. It makes for a more efficient disseminating of information, and people who read the article aren't lied to about the existence of some of the absurd and/or fake high IQ societies out there.

I also verified every website and deleted those which I thought were fake. I was a little bit more deletionist, I think I cut three more than the current list displays, especially the one hosted by http://www.synthasite.com/

As far as balance goes, there can't be one. I'm very happy with the article, but as I told Stevan, it doesn't upset me at all if the list is longer. I just worry about it sticking out like a tree in a lightning storm, better to lay low and satisfy WP:PG rather than make other editors and admins believe we're incapable of regulating this article's adherence to the rules as they perceive them.

Even rich people have overcame a lot of their stigmas and a plethora of lists and articles have been written about subjects whose wealth is itself notable.

Compare List of 100 American geniuses vs List of the 100 wealthiest people plus there are even lists of other billionaire lists. You can't compare the geniuses list because the AfD debate got 17 unanimous votes. But what's disturbing is some of the reasoning like "how do you define genius" the article would be too subject. (which I mainly agree, as I'd want nobody to have to accept the duty to be in charge of that article)

The List of child prodigies is flawed because most people do not understand the meaning of genius. Intelligence isn't a quantifiable, measurable thing, so the list of child prodigies article tries to seperate and distinguish between a child genius and a child prodigy so that its easier to understand and edit.

Paradoxically, I have a question for any other self proclaimed geniuses out there--can you define it? I can't but I could point to 5+ s.d. test scores and give examples of musical prodigiousness and give examples of distinguishment between myself and others which suggest evidence for genius (especially creativity) but I'm only able to define genius as those people, who if everybody were like them, that everybody would be a genius and this infers that to be genius is to be not normal, and this is not true. However, my version of the genius article wasn't terribly bad, but it is now.

[4] I decided to take a look at the current article on genius the definition has already eroded since my last attempt to look over the article and make some minor edits here and there.

A genius is a person who successfully applies a previously unknown technique in the production of a work of art, science or calculation, or who masters and personalizes a known technique.

Genius is already being distinguished again from intelligence & creativity and this first sentence implies that a genius is a person who successfully applies a previously unknown technique in the production of a work of art, science or calculation, or who masters and personalizes a known technique. What a desperate attempt for a person to define genius and weave their opinion that genius is defined that way. They are trying to make genius more like prodigy. Leaving the article in such a way that doesn't clearly state what a genius is or isn't, is unsettling to them. But there's nothing wrong per se with using references and sources of what others believe genius to be, and writing the article that way.

Sorry for the lengthy post, I came to check back in on this article, and thought I would have a lot of work to do. I just removed the chorium society, since I think its fake. I only got reminded to followup because I discovered a new tool and it says that my highest edited page was this one, with 32 edits, and my 4th is the genius article with 7 edits. I thought I was more active, but apparently I have only edited two dozen articles more than just once. Also, I favor adding more book/magazine references if anyone has them. There is a citation template I believe for including them, and ideally I'd like every society listed to meet the strictest interpretation of notability as a protection measure against their individual deletion from this list. Sentriclecub (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Schopenhauer said, "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." I donno if he ever was considered a genius though. I think the article is notable enough to live on on its own, but some of those societies listed should just be removed. One of them, the Sigma I think, leads to a page asking for €500. A couple of others have very few members and hardly qualifies as societies.

It's been quite a while since there was any activity here but I hope someone is around. As it is now, a more accurate name for the article would be something like "Online groups for clever guys" and that definitely isn't notable. I'll remove the society asking for money for now, but many more should follow.--Nakerlund (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Top 0.00000000015% (99.99999998th percentile; IQ 194 sd15, IQ 200 sd16): Universal Genius Guild

This is a joke and you guys are getting trolled. Don't you realize? See the site for this group.

I am removing this entry. If anyone sees any other joke group listed maybe they shoud go to0 Amists (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm no wikipedia editor

I'm no wikipedia editor, so forgive me for forgoing format and for not editing this little problem myself, but I checked into the so-called IQ Society IQcuties only to find that it is no society at all. The site purports to be a dating/matchmaking site, but even this hasn't gotten off of the ground yet. Upon completion of the worst so-called IQ test I have ever seen, the site rewards you with a note saying that they don't exist yet, but they'll e-mail you when they do.

In any case, whether a matchmaking site qualifies for IQ society status or not, I would imagine that a nonfunctional site with no members is most decidedly NOT an IQ society. I move to have IQcuties stricken from the article.

Again . . . apologies for a lack of expertise here. I use wikipedia often, but have never ventured behind the scenes before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.91.212 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 June 2006 UTC

I agree! I've removed it from the article and I'm also planning to propose that the article on it (IQcuties) is deleted. The great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it; if you are interested in how to do so, see Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. Regards, Ziggurat 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just now registered as a new editor on Wiki, and I'm more than happy to try to help answer questions pertaining to IQ Societies. I'm a member of IHIQS, IIS, ePiQ, ISI-S, sPiqr and I'm currently serving as moderator for the new World Intelligence Network forum {http://board.iqsociety.org/index.php}. I look forward to getting my feet wet with Wiki. Regards in advance to any editors present who are also society members. --Darb ibdof (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am ...

... a wikipedia editor. Made some clean up edits, moved spammy list of links to proper §, highlighted the RL thing it's about, condensed matter noted by Xophist as tendentious to a statement based on the one of which I have been a member. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Also added § with link to a learned presentation of the thesis that g does not exist, cannot be measured, etc., for balance/NPOV. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Original text I placed which ATM has a redacted (by someone else) version:

Measurements above 99.9999th percentile are dubious as there are insufficient normative cases upon which to base a statistically justified correlation. For example, in the 2010 United States population the normal curve expectation for the number of persons with IQ over 175 is about 80 and the expectation for the actually observed χ² distribution is about 300, disregarding age.

72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why list any societies if there is an {{High IQ}} template at the bottom of the page? Food for thought.—αrgumziω^ϝ 23:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the way they are presented as a tiered series of entrance requirements is "unique" enough to belong on the page. I suspect other uses of the template serve as a shortcut "see also" function. And of course this page should display the template, redundancy be damned. Huw Powell (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I guess they can stay as is after all.—αrgumziω^ϝ 01:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Joke Societies

Um, the top two societies currently listed - Giga Society and Grail Society - appear to be elaborate jokes (or maybe have some point I'm too dumb to understand) by the same individual, based on a quick Google search. Qualification is one-in-a-billion and one-in-a-hundred-billion, respectively. There do not appear to be many active members of these societies. I imagine the article could do without these societies listed. I have my doubts about the validity of some of the other more exclusive ones, as well. CAVincent (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing about the Giga society - anyone see any reason not to take it off? A quick look at its website - and ongoing projects like time-travelling email - suggests it's a satire. 77.103.194.74 (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If it were a satire, then it would not have accepted tests that give six-sigma scores listed therein.—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? I could create a joke society and give a list of accepted tests. It doesn't seem like that logical relationship holds between being a joke society and giving a list of accepted tests. It is obviously a joke. If it were possible to get messages from the future then this would be huge news and would have been reported everywhere and become common knowledge. This hasn't happened. Giga is a joke. I'm deleting since others seem to be too squeamish. Trekdude31415 (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

By your specious logic all societies are "joke/fake societies". If it were a joke, then it wouldn't have 1) a list of accepted tests at the designated cutoff and 2) would not have members who have qualified at the designated cutoff. Furthermore, arguing that the society is a joke simply because of a page in which it is claimed that messages are received from the future is clearly ill-motivated at worst and a sign of a lack of a sense of humor at best. Get a grip.—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 18:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Listing of less well-known societies

There is no WP policy that forbids the listing of societies without WP articles. Nor do we require such societies to be WP:NOTABLE before they can be listed.

WP has a notability policy that applies to the subject of articles. It has policies (WP:V & WP:RS) for verifiability through reliable sources for statements of fact within articles. This is a lesser hurdle than WP:N.

If a society has a WP article in good standing, then we may assume that it's notable and that it's suitable for inclusion in the list. Not having an article (also see WP:REDLINK) does not imply non-notability. Not having an article, and indeed not being notable according to WP:N, isn't a barrier to mention within an existing article.

To be mentionable in the list, a society must meet the inclusion criteria (and we may need to clarify that in turn) and must meet WP policy for facts in articles, i.e. WP:V by WP:RS. If the society has reasonable mention outside WP, we can (and I would suggest for reasons of encyclopedic inclusion, should) list it here. Note that mention of a society by a society itself wouldn't be enough, again according to our usual policies on self-published sources. Even then, there's no reason why those sources can't be listed with a list entry, provided that there's some independent source to justify it in the first place. The bar is against relying on self published sources, not on mentioning those sources when we've already accepted the listing of the item. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything you say is true! Pristine! One only has to wonder why people would come around and remove the links to those societies on the grounds that they don't have "good grammar" or are "illiterate" or don't post content on their websites; notability was the only (shaky) basis upon which they could have been removed, so I took that line. I have done what I have done to this article on the grounds that these people would quietly murmur away so that those who care to have high IQ societies properly represented in the article would eventually come around. Part of this is demonstrated in my listing a couple of ELs which list societies, extensively.—αrgumziω^ϝ 21:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that there is no reason not to redlink to societies that can be shown to exist even if they aren't notable enough for their own article (yet?). The ELs Argumzio added are indeed a good way to handle "off wiki" navigation in my opinion. My main issue with the way the list was presented is that each non-article society was instead linked to their website, which seemed rather odd to me. Better to redlink, and perhaps footnote those to at least one RS mentioning their activities to justify inclusion (and also as a potential springboard for writing articles on them someday). Huw Powell (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As a totally separate point, external URLs in body text are generally discouraged in favour of lists of references.

As to the redlinks, then why link them at all? If they're valid redlinks, then add redlinks. Even if they're not (and many of these here won't be), they're still valid as unlinked text entries in a list with their membership criteria.

I've also seen very little removal of links alone in recent edits, and a lot of bulk purging of the entire entries. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added those societies which are active but don't have WP articles with the necessary ref to their websites. Hopefully this is an agreeable change.—αrgumziω^ϝ 18:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Very nice work indeed. I approve, at least. Huw Powell (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm .. now all those sites have a 'reference' to their own website. Thóse are not references, those are links to their websites. A declaration on the website itself that they fall under this list is not a reference, references need to be to reliable sources, preferably independent of the 'source'. This list, in this way, is nothing more than a WP:SPAMHOLE, and there may be items in the list which are not actually suitable for inclusion. I would suggest to either move the list to a List of whatever subject page, and format it as a list there (making a column for the webpage, e.g.), and link here, or to replace all references with better references, and where that is not possible, consider cleaning the list removing those which are not proven to be a proper one. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Terminology perhaps, but we can still use the minor group's WP:SPS sites as references (and format them as such, if we wish), it's just that we need WP:RS to support their existence (i.e. SPS can be a reference, but it can't be the only reference). I'd agree with Dirk Beetstra here in that a long list of SPS-only groups isn't adequately WP:V.

As a separate formatting issue, would it be useful to shift the layout to a table? Should single links to the group's own sites be inlined, or extracted to an endnote list? We can make this a separate list from the references if that's useful (that's closest to general policy), but readability for users is probably better if they're inline and we have enough precedent from doing this in infoboxes etc. for one-offs that I think this is supportable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Going for broke: the idea that a list of the groups' websites "isn't adequately WP:V" is wrong. Let's consult the relevant segment of said policy: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable." However, these groups are not claiming to be "experts" of any kind, and their websites were not created with such intent to make claims which require "expertise". These and other societies establish themselves online (WWW), and in so doing some indication of their existence is necessary in order for others to seek membership. (I also invite others to read the following section of the page—it is clear that this requirement has been met.) Therefore, I disagree that this page amounts to a spamhole, because the societies exist, and their websites constitute suitable verification of their existence (not necessarily that they are still active). (NB: I contacted Artifex Mens Congregatio's M.O., and received no reply about it being active, so I think it is inactive, or at most unwilling to accept qualified applicants, which amounts to stagnation... death... inactivity. In all other instances, I'm not uncertain regarding their activity.) I am not closed to moving the list of societies to a list-of page, but at this stage in the game, I think a move of that sort is unjustifiable on the grounds that the present article is very weak in content and probably will remain such till the big crunch (simply because there is little non-public, high-brow, academic information out there on the topic... and that certainly won't change any time soon). Why cook the goose that lays the golden egg? I think the page, besides the usual tweaks here and there, is moving in the right direction.—αrgumziω^ϝ 19:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Before playing devil's avocado to give the automatic antithesis (can we do Hegel here?) would the deletionists care to stand up and explain just why it's so important to purge these terrible links to organisations that depend on the lifeblood of wikipedia to sustain their existence? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I take it that none are capable of stepping up to the plate, but they could at least let us know that.—αrgumziω^ϝ 16:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That "SETI" society looks like parody. It's funny but not in the smart way "Giga" is. Huw Powell (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks... aren't everything. It is real and legitimate.—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There has actually been an ongoing problem for years in this category of societies using Wikipedia to gain inbound links they cannot gain any other way. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, and the content of Wikipedia articles still has to be an encyclopedic treatment of each subject that makes up the topic for a Wikipedia article. The various articles about high-IQ societies, including this one, have been spam magnets for external links, and one of those articles about a specific non-notable organization was recently deleted by the AfD process. What properly belongs in this article is information from reliable sources that describes high-IQ societies as a phenomenon and comments on their place among one another and among other organizations in current society. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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) 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The source list cited above is still being actively updated, and you are invited to suggest new sources and to comment on the sources already listed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously POV changes

The prejudicial key-puncher for the nonce, who couldn't possibly qualify at the level he derides (5 sigma), shows us the extent of his good faith edits to the article. We'll see how Wikipedia does in upholding the just actions of its assistor, properly called. To my knowledge, OPLYMPIQ has received press in the past, and Huw's standards of "grammar", or his claims of what "genius" is (as if IQ had anything to do with that), certainly aren't the bar for (not) listing these here. (And, Huw, you're going to have to do a better job than claiming this is just OR.) I'll let my comments—written for the sake of article quality—remain here for others to see.—αrgumziω^ϝ 05:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're so smart. Huw Powell (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Classic behavior on your part. Keep it up. I'm just getting started.—αrgumziω^ϝ 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit comment "NPA & POV (truly asinine and brazen)" includes an insult, does your first post in this section, hence my initial sarcastic response. Please refrain from such personal attacks. I believe the wikipedia version of "brazen" is "be bold". Indeed, if OLYMPIQ has received press, let's quote the press and footnote it. Far better than just linking to their website. Note when I last reinstated my deletions of links/mentions of very small groups I left out the OR comments I had earlier added. Huw Powell (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately for you I take purile attempts at wikilawyering very lightly. Remarks regarding content, which my edit summary understatedly emphasized, are not classifiable as personal attacks; had I referred to you, Huw, as an asinine and brazen (?) individual, there may be a case for your claim. Be that as it may, your brazen (whoops, NPA violation???) contempt for OLYMPIQ and PARS goes beyond mere notability. Frankly, I could care less if any are listed, because I've added a link that can do a better job than WP anyway, but your reasoning for their removal has been and always will be invalid and ill-motivated (but extremely entertaining). Let me sum it up: if you remove either of them, then you're going to have to make a case for removing all links to HIQ societies. Naturally, your gesture could be countermanded by linking the ones that have WP articles, and sadly for your case, a 5 sigma society has one already. No 6 of clubs; go fish.—αrgumziω^ϝ 02:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this high IQ, or big EGO? Rolo Tamasi (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this the Idiots of the Round Table or do we care to "improve" the article? I.e., keep the meaningless chit-chat out of here. Thanks.—αrgumziω^ϝ 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote for the second. That Argumzio person seems to have some issues that transcend my attempts to improve the article, that include an attitude of condescending rudeness and insulting - and threatening - language. I am at a loss as to why this person is so pugnacious, and has been to me ever since I first edited this article. And why their behavior is tolerated on wikipedia. Huw Powell (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good gravy. Your vacuous victimhood finds its way on this page too!? It is a fact that you're the one who's attacked me, one instance of which is visible right here (just above, y'know, where you say I'm not "smart"); however, I have done no such thing. And your attempt to hide behind my being "rude" is also specious—I'm just being direct and forthright with someone who, while knowing better, apparently needs to be taught how things work on WP again.—αrgumziω^ϝ 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what above is about and don't want to get involved, but as far as the list of links is concerned it's the most dubious thing relative to current wiki standards which is I why I took the action noted in the prior thread. A set of advert links like that in the body of an article really sticks out and a lot of them are quite questionable. My POV on the subject matter. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubeity or no dubeity, the links are legit; the societies exist and operate. If notability is such a concern, then I would like to see unilateral action involving the removal of links to societies without WP articles and the addition of those which haven't been listed that also have WP articles. Simple, straightforward, and there's no spilt blood. Oh, and I've already mentioned this. And no whining ("it's not fair, they must have 'big egos'") from those whose IQs clearly can't reach 3 sigma, let alone 5.—αrgumziω^ϝ 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel a little funny advising someone not to make ad-hominem attacks, but I hold that mine are based on matters of higher principle (such as attempts to suppress worthwhile content or game the wiki standards for petty personal reasons). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And in the united states, I believe, based on personal experience, that the situation is more complicated than that. Less than 15% of the population has complete functional literacy but the wiki editor class is doubtless overwhelmingly drawn from that upper 15-20%, >= 3 σ is like the top 2 percent and there's little value I can see in trying to restrict editing to that group. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Argumzio's suggestion just above re:notability might be a good idea. Huw Powell (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we can agree on something, Huw. That's what I've been aiming for. Any changes along those lines have my full support.—αrgumziω^ϝ 16:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be some weird conflict going on which I've decided isn't worth my time to try to figure out. As someone who has been watching this page and periodically trying to keep it in line, I will say I'm about 75% supportive of reducing the list of societies to those with Wikipedia articles. Partly I'm inclined to include semi-notable societies that can be verified to exist, even if they don't meet WP standards of notability. But the list is obviously prone to attracting too many of these semi-notable societies, and I don't know that any editor feels like verifying that every one with a webpage is really a functioning society. Once this conflict dies down, I expect to watch the list grow and trim it on a roughly annual basis. --CAVincent (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am looking forward to your next annual trimming, since the list has once again become a bloated mess. Huw Powell (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone took it upon themselves to revert our changes. I wash my hands of this doomed article. I wonder if it even has significant notability as an article on the general topic of HIQ societies, whereas individually notable societies seem to suffice as articles themselves.—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 01:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What are the best available reliable sources on the various organizations mentioned here?

Where are there reliable sources about the general phenomenon of high-IQ societies, and about the various organizations listed here? (I don't mean solely links to the society website, nor do I mean general books about topics related to high-IQ individuals or the process of IQ testing, but rather independent sources about the societies themselves). See Wikipedia guidelines on notability of organizations and the Wikipedia FAQ on organizations, as well as What Wikipedia is not for what the concern is here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How is it going in finding more sources for this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone found reliable secondary sources about the topic of this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm dismayed to note how thinly sourced this article is. If no reliable source (I mean a source other than a self-published website) is writing about high IQ societies as a general phenomenon, maybe some content here should be merged into one or more existing articles, and the rest deleted. I will open deletion discussion to hear from other editors what they think, noting the lack of response here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Listen dude, I think you should delete it. Honestly. You rock and no high iq related topic should exist on wikipedia, because you know best. And no, none of it is notable, why bother keeping it. Happy now? StevanMD (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it you are saying that for rhetorical effect, ironically. Meanwhile, I'm wondering if you or anyone else can suggest some sources that could help make an encyclopedia article on this topic more informative. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A brief note about original research

Please do not include links to "yahoo questions" and the like to support an opinion. Stick with articles by reliable sources - if an idea has merit, there's likely a number of useful articles about it. Discussion forums and user generated content are absolutely unacceptable as sources. Rklawton (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

High IQ scores are meaningless

Scores above (or below) 3 or 4 standard deviations (IQ scores of 145 or 160) are meaningless. There aren't enough testees to rank on a curve, and even if there were there aren't enough questions to distinguish one high scorer from the other in a statistically significant manner. This all high IQ society is nonsense and pseudo-scientific. Now, I'm not saying there's no place in Wikipedia for reporting such phenomenon. I'm just saying put it in the right perspective or delete it. 93.173.2.230 (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

correct. Everything past four sigma should certainly go - those societies are in no way based on science and you won't find a scientific reference to justify their claims about the criteria of their membership. Past three sigma the air already gets so thin that it might already be hard to come up with good references for Prometheus. Mega is definately nonsense. I think it should tell you about the validity that the one reference right now is a newspaper and the other (quotation relevant one) argues against the validity of such high values 178.201.84.210 (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Infinity International Society

Is this group worth inclusion in the article? Eyeze (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What reliable sources are there about this group? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There website is www.iisiq.org, and they publish a periodical called IQ Nexus Magazine. Eyeze (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If their hit-counter is to be trusted, it's not much of a website. The fact that they have a periodical isn't notable, but if, perhaps the periodical has won some industry awards - that would help. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How do we verify the individual listed societies?

As Andy Dingle thoughtfully noted during the AfD discussion on this article, "Vast numbers of societies and their largely self-published sources have come and gone, in an attempt to add particular societies to what is effectively a list article." I think that situation has been dismaying to several editors who are members of various high-IQ societies that can be better sourced. Following up on my reply to him, Andy wrote, "Prune the article down to only what's absolutely referenceable if we must," while definitely supporting keeping this article, which has been the result of the AfD discussion. Here's a set of questions for everyone: what is absolutely referenceable here? What sources can we rely on to make sure that the previously encountered situations (noted in the article edit history and this talk page both, I think) of spurious organizations being mentioned in the article are avoided in the future? And how inclusive is "high IQ"? (I think the question was raised earlier by other editors whether top 10 percent of the population is too broad a level or not. I have no opinion on the issue, but I would like to hear what everyone else has to say.) What do we do about sources when they include factual statements that are readily shown to be false by reliable sources (such as that this or that IQ test has a top score range above the range actually in the test's scoring manual)? How do we verify statements about living persons that the persons are members of this or that society, if the only source for such a statement is a self-edited website by the society? I have a lot of editorial questions here, and I invite comments from all the editors watching this page, because if any Wikipedia article ought to able to reach the featured article level of careful editing, it ought to be the article High IQ society. Thank you for your kind suggestions. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the reliable source for the statement that any society can select at the Top 0.000005% (99.999995th percentile; 1/20,000,000) level or higher? (Note that there is a reliable published source, already cited in the article, that such a level of selection cannot be obtained by any properly validated test.) What is the evidence that any such society exists in any form other than one person's personal self-published website? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See the comment posted on this article talk page in September 2006 by Ziggurat, who (as I recall) was the article creator: "The question is always one of verifiability - we can only use facts and information that has been presented in reliable sources (reliable sources in this case usually constituting something peer-reviewed, independent, and as unopinionated as possible)." Where can we find sources like that to verify websites that make claims about society selectivity that are plainly contrary to reliable sources by professional psychologists, including psychologists who specialize in the study of high-IQ individuals? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for latest I.P. additions of organizations? What sources support inclusion of the various societies listed in this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Simple standard

As with many list articles, it would be best to list here only organizations that have articles in Wikipedia. No article - no mention here. In that way, we can manage verifiability, notability, etc on a case by case basis within each article rather than try to sort out details for a dozen organizations all on this page. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The suggested standard is reasonable and would improve the article. I'll be updating the article in light of current sources in a while. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How do we verify the individual listed societies?

As Andy Dingle thoughtfully noted during the AfD discussion on this article, "Vast numbers of societies and their largely self-published sources have come and gone, in an attempt to add particular societies to what is effectively a list article." I think that situation has been dismaying to several editors who are members of various high-IQ societies that can be better sourced. Following up on my reply to him, Andy wrote, "Prune the article down to only what's absolutely referenceable if we must," while definitely supporting keeping this article, which has been the result of the AfD discussion. Here's a set of questions for everyone: what is absolutely referenceable here? What sources can we rely on to make sure that the previously encountered situations (noted in the article edit history and this talk page both, I think) of spurious organizations being mentioned in the article are avoided in the future? And how inclusive is "high IQ"? (I think the question was raised earlier by other editors whether top 10 percent of the population is too broad a level or not. I have no opinion on the issue, but I would like to hear what everyone else has to say.) What do we do about sources when they include factual statements that are readily shown to be false by reliable sources (such as that this or that IQ test has a top score range above the range actually in the test's scoring manual)? How do we verify statements about living persons that the persons are members of this or that society, if the only source for such a statement is a self-edited website by the society? I have a lot of editorial questions here, and I invite comments from all the editors watching this page, because if any Wikipedia article ought to able to reach the featured article level of careful editing, it ought to be the article High IQ society. Thank you for your kind suggestions. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the reliable source for the statement that any society can select at the Top 0.000005% (99.999995th percentile; 1/20,000,000) level or higher? (Note that there is a reliable published source, already cited in the article, that such a level of selection cannot be obtained by any properly validated test.) What is the evidence that any such society exists in any form other than one person's personal self-published website? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See the comment posted on this article talk page in September 2006 by Ziggurat, who (as I recall) was the article creator: "The question is always one of verifiability - we can only use facts and information that has been presented in reliable sources (reliable sources in this case usually constituting something peer-reviewed, independent, and as unopinionated as possible)." Where can we find sources like that to verify websites that make claims about society selectivity that are plainly contrary to reliable sources by professional psychologists, including psychologists who specialize in the study of high-IQ individuals? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for latest I.P. additions of organizations? What sources support inclusion of the various societies listed in this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Simple standard

As with many list articles, it would be best to list here only organizations that have articles in Wikipedia. No article - no mention here. In that way, we can manage verifiability, notability, etc on a case by case basis within each article rather than try to sort out details for a dozen organizations all on this page. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The suggested standard is reasonable and would improve the article. I'll be updating the article in light of current sources in a while. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Article clean-up.

I have begun updates to this article, based on reliable sources on human intelligence and IQ testing I have been collecting in a source list since 2010, and will keep looking for new sources as I research updates for other Wikipedia articles. Feel free to jump in here with more suggestions of sources and other comments on further possible improvements to this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I invite editors new to this article to take a look at the many sources for the article IQ classification to see some of the problems with some of the overly specific statements about society membership qualifications that have been made in this article (without reliable sources) over the years. Any currently normed IQ test has standard scoring with a median standard score of 100 and a difference in standard score of 15 for each standard deviation up or down, even if the standard score is not called an "IQ" score. There is very strong evidence, reported in several distinct reliable sources, that there is no such thing as a reliable IQ score above 160. Let's discuss what the sources say here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that there has been time for editors to check the sources and read through those that are readily available, this will be a productive time of year for updating the article from top to bottom for coherency, due weight on various subtopics, and referencing according to Wikipedia content policy. I look forward to seeing the next edits to article text along those lines and expect to edit some article sections from my own keyboard in the next few months. Let's all discuss here how to make the article better. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

High IQ Forum

Why is this site blacklisted? Because it doesn't have it's own page here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Propianotuner (talk • contribs) 11:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits

I've ("Callitwhatyoulike...) amended (on 11/13/17) the "entry requirements" section to include entry requirements. (Previously, the section debated the validity of IQ testing, especially at levels far beyond those required for admission to most IQ societies [irrelevant; removed].) If you believe that you have just cause to remove cited "test scores" pages of the biggest three societies (Mensa, Intertel, Triple Nine), or what I wrote regarding each, advise me before doing so as I do not agree that you have just cause to do so. The page is *not* to be used for the purpose of debating the validity of IQ testing, so linking to "multiple intelligences," e.g., is unacceptable in this context and will be removed. The purpose of the page is to explain what high IQ societies are and how one joins them. Period. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Callitwhatyoulike... (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't understand the entry requirements section

(Insert obvious joke about my IQ)

The Entry requirements section says:

As IQ significantly above 146 SD15 (approximately three-sigma) cannot be reliably measured with accuracy due to sub-test limitations and insufficient norming, IQ societies with cutoffs significantly higher than four-sigma should be considered dubious.

Can someone write an explanation that doesn't require knowlege of standard deviations and three-sigma? Great floors (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's tricky to fix this, because we don't seem to have an easily accessible equivalent to the cumulative distribution function article.

I think we're better for expanding and explaining more readily in those articles (or some new stats article), rather than trying to do it here. In this article, we should be able to get away with a very simple "measurements in the more extreme limits of the range are imprecise and extrapolations can be unreliable." Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Once upon a time there was much more extrapolation and information given on all these topics (in reply to Andy Dingley) -- but WeijiBaikeBianji took it upon himself to dismantle everything to suit his pathological quest to remove information therein. Wiki has its flaws in this way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.171.143.220 (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)