Talk:Triple Nine Society/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV

I don't see POV content in the article – it looks like a recitation of facts to me. — Kbh3^rdtalk 01:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• It has a tone of a commerical group appealing to interested applicants (by highlighting selectivity, emphasizing virtues and ending with price of admission).

I don't sense a POV problem in this article either.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 09:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, on second glance, I see what (s)he means. I've cleaned up the article a bit. I have:

• removed the joining info; the organizations website has that for anyone who's interested.
• removed the numbers comparing potential size of the membership pools; given the percentiles, I'm sure they can do the math.  ;->
• removed irrelevant "informal" political leanings
• tightened the prose a bit to be more to the point and read less like a brochure.
• removed the link to the admissions sub-page of the society's website; interested parties are presumed intelligent enough to follow the links from the main page.

— Kbh3^rdtalk 10:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Mensa

Quickie note: Radomir, Mensa's threshold is around 130. The Mensa page lists a kids who got in with an IQ of 137. IQ requirements do not change based on age. You can find entrance requirements at Polymath [1] samwaltz 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete threat

Can this entire section be moved to the extant Mega_Society Talk page, or else removed from here? It's not about the Triple Nine Society. -- Anon TNS member, 18 February 2024

There is an anti-Hi-IQ/Gifted Jihad in process at the moment. Already the Mega Society has been deleted and Ronald K. Hoeflin and The Ultranet are up for deletion. Who will be next? Marilyn vos Savant, Mensa? Don't take this lying down: the Mega Society deletion has been appealed, please go here and support its reinstatement with an overturn vote.

Possible articles under threat are:

Marilyn vos Savant, International High IQ Society, Mensa International, Intertel, Colloquy, CIVIQ Society, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, Triple Nine Society, Prometheus Society, HELLIQ Society, The Ultranet, OLYMPIQ Society, Giga Society

--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as one with an interest in these articles, from the inside and out, I believe that Marilyn vos Savant, Intertel, and Mensa International are safe by my standards, at least, and I would vote to keep those. Although, I find your use of the word “jihad” unsettling. I am certain you are intelligent enough to have considered the ramifications of the connotations before you chose to use it. -- Avi 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:

• Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles! There are plenty of articles that need attention.
• It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
• When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.

The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:

Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.

The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

.... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding something to your user page to remove the red-link and editing a few articles to "establish" yourself will do very little to improve your credibility during an AfD discussion. Any user's entire edit history is available within two mouse clicks of the AfD page. Instead, I suggest concerned editors become very familiar with Wikipedia's notability, neutrality, and reliable sources policies as well as Wikipedia's Manual of Style and use this information to improve the article under consideration to the point where editors originally opposed to the article's existence literally change their votes. I've seen it done. It works. Everyone wins. Rklawton (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Userboxes for TNS members

Editors who want to advertise their membership may use the {{User:UBX/TNS}} template to create a userbox on their page and add it to Category:Wikipedians in the Triple Nine Society ... then add {{User:Blast san/userboxes/User IQ}} if you really want to show off. —141.156.240.102 06:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for notability and documentation of members

This article has a section on Notable Members. Two questions always arise: is this person really "notable", and is this person really a member of TNS? I suggest that we restrict ourselves to notability in the sense defined by Wikipedia (see WP:Notability); thus a member of TNS is "notable" if he or she is already the subject of a Wikipedia article that has survived scrutiny by Wikipedia editors. For the second question — actual membership — I suggest a simple reference to the TNS page that lists all current members. Any reader who is a registered current member can then easily check the bonafides of a person listed as a "notable member". I have inserted these references, so that we can try this for a while. — Aetheling (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled across this when I was back-tacking links for Kirk Kirkpatrick, whose claim to membership in both Mensa International and this society was a link to his personal website (by definition, a WP:SPS is not a WP:RS), which evaporated a few months ago ... while following "What links here" I came across this article, and then hit the Registration wall ... my first reaction was WP:ELREG, but then I read your post, and while I still have my doubts, I would feel better if there were a "public" list of members, because no member has yet "verified" the names in the list. Happy Editing! — 71.166.140.70 (talk · contribs) _{22:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)}

• Actually, I did verify all four names on the list when I wrote the above note (and yes, I am a member). Kirk Kirkpatrick's real first name is Harold, and he is a bona fide dues-paying member of TNS (though whether or not he is notable is a question I leave to other editors). Jack Schaeffer is a member. Mike Keefe (Denver's favorite political cartoonist), is a member. Ron Hoeflin is the founder of the Prometheus Society, and also a member of TNS. Quite a few TNS members are Wikipedians, but very few of us are notable — and I suspect that most of us prefer it that way. I will continue to police this page, and to remove the names of non-notable self-promoters and wannabes. I doubt there will ever be a public list of TNS members, for obvious reasons, and I agree that this does create a bit of a problem for the criterion of verifiability. —Aetheling (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The article had listed David Garrett the violinist with a link to an article done in the Denver Post. This is not the same David Garrett. I am the David Garrett mentioned in the Denver Post article about the Triple Nine Society. As far as I know, David Garrett the violinist is not a TNS member.--David M. Garrett (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

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) 17:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Readers of this page are welcome to suggest new sources on the subject of IQ testing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The TNS clock

Just in passing, it could conceivably illustrate the article nicely. Anybody familiar with WikiMedia Commons uploading?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lwr/1378672867/ K2709 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The image is released under a non-commercial license, so it is inappropriate for the Commons; sorry. -- Avi (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources?

Where are there reliable sources about Triple Nine Society? (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. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin Manley (rip)

As a member of good standing both here in wikiland, or as i like to call it, wikiville (kidding) and TNS (no joke!) Martin personally emailed me waaaay before you dudes knew about this. But Now I Wanna Be A Good Boy [ramones ref.] so I dont touch the actual page I put it here. MARTIN MANLEY WAS INDEED A TNS'er and probably didn't care to obscure the fact and particularly now it does seem he would wanted to be noted, but alas fascist attacks I have seen here against not just me but any way am I a whistelblower? No. An editor before that and I am telling you guys, within the rules, bend the rules (or BOLD or whatever) put Martin on this wiki TNS page.. sincerely, PHAEDRX Phaedrx (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:Memorial Rklawton (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

He is mentioned on the Suicide Note page. --Chartrek (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Society Member / Wiki Editor

I'm a member of TNS and not an officer. I used to be active in making changes to this page, but have not made any substantial ones in quite some time. I have, however, translated this page into a few other languages recently. I'm hoping this does not constitute a conflict of interest, but I'll ask on the CoI Noticeboard. samwaltz (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)