Talk:High-IQ society

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 (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)

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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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)

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)

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 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)

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 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)