Talk:Prometheus Society

message: Not sure if the Mandarinate is really a "High IQ Society", weren't they (effectively) the ruling class in Imperial China?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.8.143.116 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably they don't go round testing people themselves, they just require evidence of certain scores in certain standard tests that people are likely to have taken before. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, one has a certain confidence of one's intelligence before testing into an organization like this.  So, while I can't say what their acceptance rate is, it's definitely better than "general population."  I do not know what tests the organization accepts (if any) but it is known that the test must be supervised according to their standards, and not all high IQ societies accept "standardized" IQ tests.  Surely one of their two members can come update this?  ;)  Rainman420 04:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Good start, thank you. -- Avi 16:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The society's above that have lost their page are noted by the change in color from blue to red. These are legitimate entries but have not stood the test of the wikipedia meritocracy. It seems these communities have left wikipedia and the skills they possess. It is time to return some nurture to this discussion page. Last post was 26 July 2006 over 15 months ago. Interesting subjects with good links can be developed for the widest readership. RoddyYoung 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia can be hostile 

message: These "high IQ" societies are noted by me (OR) to mostly be badly written and content-free.  Just saying.  Now shut yourselves up, you people who make tests for each other.  What has any of you ever contributed to society or science besides your mental masturbation? Huw Powell (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware that your chat qualifies as dribbling nonsense and can be removed from this talk page because it isn't written with the intent to improve article quality? Just saying. And you're certainly no authority on the subject... —αrgumziωϝ 05:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  You impress me with your understanding of the topic. Huw Powell (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute. A smarmy attempt at sarcasm, hm? Your fits and spasms do well for idle amusement but not much else. You should be happy I didn't proceed to remove your "commentary" on the spot, but you see, I didn't do that because I don't want to tuck away this display of yours from eyes which would hardly go through the trouble of looking for it anyway. Cheers.—αrgumziωϝ 06:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, Argumzio. With all his soapboxing and incivility, Huw Powell's failed attempt to wax poetic as he pours scorn upon our intelligent neighbours reveals more about himself than it does about the topic at hand. So I ask, what is Huw Powell trying to say? Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 10:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, they tend to be poorly written and lack useful content.  The topic in general - "high IQ societies" - tends toward what I said.  People who congratulate themselves on their ability to pass tests that they create for themselves, and little else. Huw Powell (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary 

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 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) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: Just how many  reliable sources are available to cite about this organization? (I don't mean links to the society website, nor do I mean general books about topics related to the organization, but independent sources about the society itself). See  Wikipedia guidelines on notability of organizations and the  Wikipedia FAQ on organizations for what the concern is here. Is there really sufficient sourcing here for a stand-alone Wikipedia article on Prometheus Society? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put footnotes 13 through 15 in to show notability. These are instances of Prometheus being used in passing by popular authors to symbolize high intelligence. The authors tacitly assume their readers know of Prometheus, the same way someone might use "Rolls-Royce" in passing to indicate a high-quality car. Promking (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really stretching the concept of RS a bit further than it can go. Huw Powell (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for both comments. I'm still mulling over what I see cited in the article and how that relates to relevant Wikipedia policies. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've put eight reliable sources in the footnotes, the same number as the article about Mensa, and my guess is that no one is questioning Mensa's notability.Promking (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the last three, I don't think they really meet WP:RS - especially the website that was down within hours of your adding it. Huw Powell (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An article from Esquire magazine, an article from Wall Street Journal, a book published by a mid-size but established publisher -- how can they NOT meet WP:RS? I put the dead link because other links to the article are pay-per-view.Promking (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In relation to this article, do those sources include "significant" (Wikipedia policy language) discussion of Prometheus Society, or are they references in passing? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that any big national magazine or newspaper has its own standards of notability which can make what appears to be a passing reference significant. Let's say the New York Times has an article about how to find orchids which can be grown in the continental U.S., and in that article it says, "There are many societies devoted to orchid species that can be grown in non-tropical climates, including the Cymbidium Society of America." This usually means that to the best of the reporter's knowledge, the Cymbidium Society of America is a fairly well-established group that is known to orchid people. The reporter would get in trouble if he listed a fly-by-night society that no orchid fancier had ever heard of.Promking (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  I don't suppose anyone questions Mensa's notability. It may be that both articles have sourcing problems (many Wikipedia articles do), but I am asking about this article here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the current sources here? 

message: Hello, I'm new here, so I hope I'm posting this correctly. While reading this article, I noticed the Mike Sager quote at the end of the "Membership" section appears to have a typo in the sentence that begins thusly: "More exclusive that Mensa — which accepts..."
I imagine the word "that" should be replaced with "than", but I wasn't certain if the source material bore the error, as well. Dr. Nemesis (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in quotation? 

message: Under "Beyond the 98th percentile", it states:
:Starting in the early 1960s, when the now-defunct MM was started, there were attempts to form societies accepting people at a level approaching this.
What is "the now-defunct MM"? MM isn't linked to anything, nor can I see a reference to it previous to it being abbreviated in this paragraph. Any ideas? Kailey elise (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably something like "Mensa squared" : 2% of 2% 212.198.141.88 (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing reference - MM? 

message: It would be interesting to know :-) 212.198.141.88 (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Women don't care about childish things such as "High IQ" societies. 1croonjosie (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proportion of women in that society ? 

message: I see the link in the article text discussing membership criteria for the society has gone dead. For an encyclopedic, neutral point of view treatment of the society and its activities, it would be good to find some current, reliable sources on the notion of four-sigma selection by IQ and whether or not there is a reliable procedure for that. The  best sources on that issue suggest that such a level of selection by IQ is dubious. What sources are available on validation of the Prometheus Society selection procedures? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is validation for membership criteria? 

message: An article was made for the Epimetheus society, which was founded by the the founder of Prometheus, and got deleted for not being "notable." As an extension of this deletion, it was removed from the list on the high-Iq societies page, and the blurb on the IQ page that mentioned some societies, effectively relegating its wiki-presence to the pages for the tests that can be used for admittance, though that may change soon as well. What makes one high-Iq society more notable than another? One would think that the expulsed founder's new society would be notable if by no other means than through its connection to this one, and yet? Gone. Why the bias against fledgling or smaller societies? If Wikipedia is to climb in reputability there has got to be more consistent administration and more inclusive article standards. Should we not strive to cover "everything you want to know and more?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodnarbivel (talk • contribs) 09:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the independently verifiable, reliable sources on the topic? By Wikipedia's own rules, which you are encouraged to look up, Wikipedia content is to be verifiable. See  the Wikipedia guideline on notability of organizations for more details. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 12:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the justification for keeping this page up but not other societies?