Talk:Mega Society

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mega Society article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, : 2008 January 26, see discussion.
Inconlusive, 2008 January 21, see discussion.
Delete, 2006 November 21, see discussion.
Delete, 2006 July 27, see discussion.
Delete, 2006 July 15, see discussion.

Mega Society Deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Crowning Glory[edit]

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)[reply]

article's delete debate mentioned in Noesis[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing[edit]

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)[reply]

Copyright material?[edit]

I removed a paragraph that seems identical to the material here including the references. Robsavoie (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, I've rephrased some of the material. Can do more if required. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Criteria for acceptance[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Criticism Section[edit]

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)[reply]