Talk:Mensa International/Archive 4

Layered cakes and tortolagies?

I just removed the following comment from the page. Can anyone translate it into anything vaguely encyclopedic? Does anyone have a source? samwaltz 11:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately mensa has received criticism after offering to send its members a 'free gift' a blatant use of tortolagy that has shamed the name of Mensa

Is that meant to say "tautology?" I doubt that Mensa would be too concerned about it anyhow: it is not exactly a sign of stupidity. Misodoctakleidist 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pop culture

I deleted the pop culture references section, as per Wikipedia guideline to avoid trivia sections; I don't think these things belong in an encyclopedia article. If another editor feels this was really essential material then you may of course revert it. Or could add a sentence to the article along the lines of Mensa having occasionally been the subject of references in film and television. Wichienmaat 12:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Call ... that section was nothing but a frequently reverted cruft-magnet, anyway ...

"In the 2000 comedy Me, Myself and Irene, the character Charlie Baileygates (played by Jim Carrey) is abandoned by his Mensan wife after she has three children with a man who happens to be president of the Boston Chapter of Mensa."

... yeah, that's real encyclopedic. --68.239.79.97 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Densa merge

I propose Densa be merged into this page, as the organization existed solely for the reason to be a spoof of Mensa. --CA387 21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great idea, but unfortunately it is likely to be scuppered by the recent request for deletion. If we merge it, those who voted "keep" will claim that this is deletion by the back door. (Believe me, I have ample experience of the dirty politics of Wikipedia.) Therefore, we should probably wait a few weeks before touching Densa. — Chameleon 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE- I don't see enough notability to keep DENSA at all and certainly not merge it with MENSA expect to mark it is a spoof.Macrhino 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- A "See also" would be about the most mention Densa should get on the Mensa page. --Micah Hainline 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- rather silly. SunSw0rd 20:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, agree with above. Cgmusselman 00:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Densa has already survived an AfD, so as it's a parody organization existing solely as a reaction to Mensa, it seems more at place as a part of this article. I agree it's a rather silly thing to merit an article, but per the discussion it meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. Maybe if it was integrated into a "criticisms of Mensa" section? --CA387 04:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it simply be left alone. Let anyone who searches for Densa find it. But don't merge it with Mensa. SunSw0rd 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge. We wouldn't need to toss it into the section "crit"; we could give it its own section. I would argue that Densa, as a parody organisation, would be notable on its own if there were anything current - there are no active websites, no lists of current meetings. All we have is old mirrors. In response to the argument that anyone who searches for "densa" should be able to find it, that is an argument for the redirect #REDIRECT[[Mensa#Densa]]. Cheers samwaltz 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- This article describes a "group" that is not notable and the people who belong to it are not notable (by their own admission). It should be deleted and I'm proposing it on AFD. The Parsnip! 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Densa has been nominated for deletion once again by The Parsnip!. --CA387 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the article being kept once again, perhaps we should reconsider the merge? --CA387 04:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed since it was kept; antipodalical parody (neologism alert) is not a sufficient merge reason, in my opinion. -- Avi 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've changed my stance to merge. Since this parody "association" can't be deleted, it should be merged and included with the only thing that makes it vaguely notable: Mensa. The article is pointless on its own. The Parsnip! 15:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: You have to be kidding, their website is a comcast page.

I just removed the merge notice. It looks like there's a fair consensus against, and it's been up since April. samwaltz 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Densa article now notes that it was a 1974 creation by someone publishing puzzles in the Boston Mensa publication. These humorous works were reprinted by other Mensa chapters, and then the meme spread around colleges in the late 1970's. It has survived to the present, with many people writing their own "qualification tests," or creating spurious webpages for the "organization." It is funny to disparage "their organization" because "their website" is only someone's personal webpage or because the reference to it in an article about a Mensa test administration is a joke. Did anyone ever seriously think that low IQ people actually got together in chapter meetings, paid dues and elected officers? The meme may have started as a non-PC way for intellectually elite people to poke fun at their inferiors (such as jokes about a Densa member winning a letter in college, and asking someone to read it to him), but the meme has survived as a humorous rejection of the notion of exclusive organizations for high IQ people, or a form of self deprecation by people who do not claim to be intellectually gifted. The meme of Densa does seem to be a notable offshoot of and alter-ego of Mensa, and a merge to put a paragraph or so about it in the Mensa article would not be unreasonable. A great many references, over the past several decades, of varying depth from reliable publications were added back to the Densa article. (As I said in the latest AFD, Densa is an organization for people who think Mensa is a four letter word). Edison 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article is incorrect

The title Mensa International is inappropriate for this article. The title should be simply "Mensa (society)" or — if that is for any reason thought unsatisfactory — "Mensa (high IQ society)". Mensa as a society is the oldest, but now exists formally as a cluster of separate but co-operating entities. Mensa International is one of those entities, but is not itself the oldest; the original society developed into what is now British Mensa. Therefore although Mensa International is a part of that phenomenon, it is not of itself important enough (outside Mensa as a society) to warrant its own article, and its name is certainly not synonymous with the Mensa society as a worldwide phenomenon. Iph 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)iph[reply]

Mensa is surely both notable and benign

As for whether Mensa is notable enough to have a concise, factual article, surely it is. After all, many notable people are or have been Mensa members. It has around 100,000 members in a hundred countries round the world and active organizations in 40 countries. For some reason, it unfortunately attracts hostilty from certain people but of itself its aims are wholly benign and in a small way it does quite a lot of good. This is not the place to expand at length on that but I do not understand why this article should be a candidate for deletion. I note that there is a heading above on here about Userboxes for Mensa members but if Template Mensa existed it doesn't seem to now. Why? Iph 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)iph[reply]

Sorry, but where do you see it to be a candidate for deletion? By the way, there is a Mensa member's userbox, you can see it on my user page. --Saluk 08:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Densa article fails WP:N and WP:V

I bought and printed out the full Sarah Boxer article, which is apparently the only article in existence that seems to mention this "organization", Densa. The article is entirely about Mensa. "Densa" is only given a trivial mention as a joke in the first paragraph. This article is not a legitimate source to establish WP:N and WP:V and I have deleted it. The Parsnip! 15:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little balance maybe...?

Does anyone else think a small section that questions the purpose of such societies is warranted? This article sings Mensa's praises, however I am quite sure many among us are like me and have either heard others, or have ourselves, question why such a thing exists, whether it really has any positive impact on anything; whether it's just a collective of indivdiuals stuck on themselves (for lack of a better term). John 07:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does your personal opinions and soapboxing on the topic have any relationship to what should be in an aencyclopedia article? I personally think, say, baseball is stupid, question why such a thing even exists, whether it has any positive impact, or whether it's a bunch of clueless fans stuck on their local teams for no logical reason. I can certainly believe all that, but that shouldn't go into the baseball article. It sounds like you are just offended by the concept of people smarter than you and want to attack it, why not go be offended at people who can hit a baseball than you? I mean, seriously, what's up with that? DreamGuy 20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and of course your uninformed opinion and your suppositions on other people's motives are warranted and not at all soapbox material. Utter rubbish. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people question what the purpose is for people measuring their IQ and then congregating based on these measurements. The baseball analogy btw is completely moronic, it fails at all the elements an analogy should have. Sports are an established part of global culture from time immemorial, measuring your iq and forming societies about it isn't, just to begin with what is wrong with your analogy. As if analogies where proof of anything by the way. Since you hypothesized on other people let me hypothesize too that you are cretin. 79.130.120.155 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics again

Well, nice to see that changing the header to "Mensa Demographics" seems to have worked. I don't think the recent addition about the youngest current member is notable, as she was not the youngest ever upon joining, but am not too horribly concerned. In any case, as long as this new article is circulating, could every please keep their eyes on the section. Cheers, samwaltz 14:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for reference, a few news sites were reporting her to be the youngest ever member; quite a few have since reworded their headers as it became clear that she was the second-youngest. [1] is currently cached in Google as "Two-year-old 'Matilda' becomes youngest ever Mensa member", but the page header is now "Two-year-old 'Matilda' becomes youngest ever girl in Mensa". samwaltz 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

There appears to be a dispute between User:DreamGuy and User:The Parsnip! over whether this article should have an infobox or not.

DreamGuy is against the inclusion of an infobox:

Because to be an infobox it has to be informative, and this one does nothing but add a huge ugly frame around it and a piece of text already in lead. Infoboxes just for the sake of infoboxes are awful, and the guy putting it back was blind reverting to an old version of the page and wiping out any changes made in the meantime. Until there's actual reason to have an infobox or there's a consensus of people who want it, there's no justification for it whatsoever.

Parsnip! is for the inclusion of an infobox:

I've added the infobox to conform to the style of similar articles. Consistency is a good thing. MANY people may find it informative and helpful. Discuss at talk if you disagree, form consensus.

Reinserted infobox. "I don't like it" is not an adequate reason to delete informational templates that can be expanded on later as more information is found.

I got involved in this dispute by restoring the infobox, thinking at first glance that its removal was vandalism, then re-removing it once I realized that this is an editing dispute. Should this article have an infobox or not? Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - It should contain the infobox for several reasons. 1) The other high-IQ society articles contain an infobox, and although these don't contain a great deal of information YET, they can easily be improved over time as any article would, simply by people coming along and adding information. That's the essence of what Wikipedia is. 2) We should strive to make our articles of similar topics consistent with each other on a stylistic basis, or else one will look quite out of place with the others. 3) The infobox serves to give a basic rundown of info on the subject of the article, easing the perusal of the article for those who may not be familiar with Wikipedia yet. It also helps specify the basics, allowing someone who is looking for one or two quick facts to get that information without having to read through an entire article (which they may not currently have the time to do). Based on initial log comments from the first and second to last deletion, the person who deleted the infobox seems to have a bone to pick with the concept of infoboxes in general. We should do what is best for Wikipedia and Wikipedia's readers rather than allowing one person to force their own sense of aesthetics on everyone, negating to inclusion of perfectly useful information in the process. Once again, statements like "Infoboxes just for the sake of infoboxes are awful" is one person's opinion, not to mention implying inaccurate information about why the infobox was placed. Furthermore, I was not "blind reverting" any more than DreamGuy was. The Parsnip! 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with an infobox, it makes navigation easier. From Help:Infobox: "An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject." International_Society_for_Philosophical_Enquiry, Prometheus_Society etc are all High IQ Societies and thus by definition are "closely related articles". I see no reason not to have infoboxes linking these articles with a "common subject". Tstrobaugh 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer infoboxes myself, for consistency; I'm responsible for putting them in the articles on top level domains, for instance, and also went through the popes putting infoboxes there (even though I'm not Catholic!). *Dan T.* 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of keeping/restoring the infobox. It provides a snapshot of the information, in the same way that Company Infoboxes and Music Infoboxes work. Often the data is duplicated from the main article - this should be no reason to avoid one, in my opinion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mensa active in hispanophone countries?

Is Mensa active in Spanish-speaking nations? It would be interesting to know because the femenine adjective "mensa" translates to "stupid" or "foolish"[2]. I wonder how they get past the name without snickering.--Section8pidgeon 10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parsnip, I guess I must have touched a raw nerve, but I wasn't trying to be a troll. My apologies. Let me rephrase the question. Is Mensa active in hispanophone countries and are there any hangups due to the name of the organisation.--Section8pidgeon 10:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Parsnip, the article edit by 75.54.82.202 wasn't me, if that' what you were thinking.--Section8pidgeon 10:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were a troll after looking at your talk page, you have some warnings there. Sorry if I was mistaken! Mensa does have a branch in Spain, as it does in many countries. [3] - The Parsnip! 15:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]