Talk:High IQ society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)