Talk:Mega Society

message: If a person is asked to leave a room or is forcibly removed does that mean they will cease to exist? If a word is removed from a dictionary does the word lose its's meaning or rather does the dictionary become incomplete? If Wikipedia had a limited amount of empty space I could understand that a hierarchy of ideas, principles, persons, places and things would merit consideration; but since that is not the case and Wikipedia's universe can expand with no penalty or Super Crunch then exorcising any Society regardless of it's size is pointless unless we want to begin a witch hunt that will grow exponentially until Wikipedia is sucked into the very black hole it is attempting to create. Nothing has energy.
Fred  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.34.27 (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mega Society Deletion 

message: Wikipedia started in 2001 and has grown with contributions from people who peer review others work. The truth of the truth comes out as the clash of differing opinions comes forth and is accepted by those that know. Those that do not know and visit observe and just nod their heads. But a percentage of the wikipedia community become self appointed deleters' of other people's work. This death of information is only superseded by the life of information generated by other persons who know and can defend the truth. The retention of this wikipedia page marks the maturation of wikipedia and crowns the medium and gives other hope and strength that the truth will prevail. RoddyYoung (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crowning Glory 

message: this article's delete debate was mentioned in the Noesis The Journal of the Mega Society, which I found on Google scholars travb (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, they are biased.  They don't understand common sense stuff, I doubt anyone who can pass the Titan test could pass an RFA.  They live in their own world, its a shame they don't get more active and coordinate more events and such as. 198.70.210.143 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Here is a reference that was pwned from the final version of this article. ~Ex ante member--go gators! 66.231.146.7 (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: article's delete debate mentioned in Noesis

message: 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 those 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. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: I removed a paragraph that seems identical to the material here including the references. Robsavoie (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a copyright sign on the website.  Anyway, limited quotation is permitted. --Michael C. Price talk 00:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about this, but I think no explicit copyright notice is required, see WP:COPYVIO. I interpret this to mean it's copyrighted unless it says it's NOT. Also, from WP:NFC, "Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. ". A quick search turned up this  which says "Developing text for a web page. The guidelines for text development are similar to those for obtaining images. Truly original text, developed by the creator of the web-site, may be used without copyright concerns. As with images, appropriating text from third-parties without permission is illegal, unless there is some substantial "fair use" justification for the taking. ".  The #1 myth discussed here is  "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted.". Perhaps a more knowledgeable editor will comment. Robsavoie (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've rephrased some of the material.  Can do more if required. --Michael C. Price talk 07:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the correct assumption under Wikipedia policies (and United States federal law) is that you should assume that material on other websites is copyrighted and may not be copied into Wikipedia articles. In any event, any source you use must be properly cited to the source you actually saw, without exception. In general, most Wikipedia articles need a lot more carefully checked, reliable sources than they now have, but their use must still be according to copyright law and principles against plagiarism. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright material? 

message: The picture of the questionable criteria is sounding a little critical but that is already euphemistic as I think there is no scientist in the fields of psychology or any other science concerned with human traits or behavior of good reputation who writes in favor of any testing past four sigma (and that is already questioned by most). The discussion in the references about the sample data from Mega Test in Omni magazine is obviously irrelevant as the data is already invalid as it was not taken under supervision. A valid reference would be a source providing a reliable test for the range of IQ values in question. I am not aware of any such source and the article certainly does not provide any. As I see no valid reference I think the whole article is not any more relevant than one about some society I might invent right now. And Grady Towers himself can hardly be taken as a valid reference. 178.201.84.210 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that the extraordinary claims in the article about any IQ test reliably distinguishing a category of one-in-a-million test-takes requires extraordinary evidence, and such evidence should consist of something much more than the self-promotion claims of a membership organization. See  Wikipedia's guide to identifying sources that are usually not reliable for more on what kind of sources are needed here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for acceptance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mega Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922122700/http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html to http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: It is unclear to me why this section proclaims the absence of standardized tests discriminating at the one-in-a-million level, or the futility of such an endeavor.  There exist numerous intelligence tests issuing scores above 160, and a few issuing scores above 171.
In the former category but not the latter: the pre-1994 SAT, the GRE of the same period, and the DAS-II.
In the latter category: SB5 EXIQ, WISC-IV Extended, CFIT, the Miller Analogies Test, and Terman's Concept Mastery Test Form A.
Additionally, the Mega and Titan tests were recently reanalyzed by Redvaldsen and found to discriminate at the appropriate level, albeit with some possible inflation.  Redvaldsen's analysis was largely based on score pairs with an old edition of the Stanford-Binet, which is known to be a poor measure of intelligence, whereas the original norms of these tests were based upon more robust data from the pre-1994 SAT (with which they better correlate).
This presents several factual errors in the article as written, which I am unsure of precisely how to appropriately address.  The current language of this article seems biased, as the scores issued by Hoeflin's tests are limited by nonrandom sample selection rather than any deliberate distortion or self-promotion. 67.168.135.149 (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of Criticism Section