From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Education (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please vote here if you knew there'd be a picture of Einstein[edit]

Yea: 15,253,101
Nay: 0

Two convenient sources for this article[edit]

There are two inexpensive, popular but thoroughly referenced books about genius that would be very good reliable sources for improvements to this article. You should be able to find them at a library near you. They are


Both books are readable and interesting, and cite their sources so that you can check details. The authors of both books are authors of previous, thicker and more scholarly books on genius that have received many favorable reviews. I'll add the Robinson Very Short Introduction book to the Further reading section of this article first, and then move both books into the bibliography of the article as they used to reference article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:42, 15 July 2013 (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) 16:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Scope of article?[edit]

Let's discuss here the scope of this article, Genius, and what articles elsewhere on Wikipedia appropriately link here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Scope of See also section[edit]

Well, I've been editing the See also section. I'm very interested in why you removed links that I added there. I was following WP:ALSO, which states: "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I respectfully request that you restore them. The Transhumanist 22:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding the links to child prodigy lists back in, this time indented under the topic "child prodigy", making the context and criteria for inclusion more obvious. The Transhumanist 23:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Transhumanist, would you mind also examining his removal of see also links and the human intelligence template on these articles? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] He said in his user talk that he had to remove the template from all these articles because he doesn't know what they will look like after he finishes editing them. I don't know if that reason for removing is supported by policy. I thought the template was useful and I would like there to be some discussion about whether it should be removed. --Prmct (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree discussion is needed. With the concerns raised by Prmct and the revert already done by The Transhumanist, there's certainly a lack of consensus for removal of the template. BlackHades (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I've copied the above 2 comments to Template talk:Human intelligence, to transfer this discussion thread to where it is on topic. Please continue the discussion about that template's removal over there. Thank you. (See ya there). The Transhumanist 08:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaps in this article's coverage[edit]

The article animal mentions many animals, and links directly or indirectly to all animal species and breeds, and even provides pathways (in the encyclopedia proper) to almost all notable individual animals. In other words, almost all articles about animals on Wikipedia can be reached via links starting at the animal page.

Ironically, the article genius, which one would expect to be perhaps the most intelligently thought out and designed article on Wikipedia, doesn't identify the many types of genius that exist, nor does it provide linked pathways to the many geniuses who have articles about them on Wikipedia. Who are the geniuses of the world?

The article provides very little assistance to the reader who wants to study geniuses. For that they are forced to resort back to Google, and its haphazard search results. The Transhumanist 00:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you recommend on the topic of this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest looking over Wikipedia to find articles about geniuses, see if they have reliable sources included verifying the genius of the bio, and then adding a link and the reference as an example of a genius to this article. Searching out the most well-known geniuses of each era or century would probably be the best approach. Once they are identified, a search for additional reliable sources can be started at that time.
Some geniuses conspicuously missing from this article or a supplemental list include:
Just to name a few. The Transhumanist 11:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Um, the question I asked was related to reliable sources guidelines here on Wikipedia, and I was wondering what sources external to Wikipedia you would recommend on the broad topic of genius. (You can see examples of recommendations in earlier sections of this talk page.) In other words, what can someone read other than Wikipedia to improve content quality among as many of the 4,677,218 articles on Wikipedia as we can? What sources do you suggest? What sources does anyone else following this discussion suggest? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Transhumanist, would you like to collaborate in an article expansion of this article? Checking earlier discussion on this talk page, I see there are two sources that are inexpensive (and readily available in libraries) and comprehensive in their coverage of this article's topic that would be useful for identifying facts and subtopics to include in an article expansion here. I have both sources at hand? How would you like to collaborate in expanding this article, with a goal of bringing the article up to good article status and then featured article status? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


Why is there a redirect from "Genious?" This has the unfortunate effect of Google providing the information on this page as a "web definition" of "genious." Suggest the "genious" page be removed. (Google "define:genious") Danchall (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)