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
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
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
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[SAT#1994 changes|post-1994 SAT]] The anchor (#1994 changes) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Add Epimetheus Society
Would it be possible for a skilled editor to add the Epimetheus Society to the list/table of societies? The Epimetheus Society was founded in 2006 by Dr. Robert Hoeflin, PhD, and has no dues.
Prove its notability by telling us how many members they have. From what I'm seeing on the website, it looks like 25. It probably needs 100 times that many to be notable.
DOSGuy (
talk)
03:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
That is an understandable position; however I will point out that both the Prometheus and Mega Society have membership numbers in the double digits and are featured on the page. By the standard that membership numbers need to be at least in the thousands they should be removed. The page would no longer list any +4SD societies but given the extreme exclusivity of Prometheus/Mega/Epimetheus they will always have very low membership.
2600:8804:6F0D:4A00:7D4E:6E30:6D6B:2424 (
talk)
16:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I can't imagine someone making the claim that ISPE is not a notable high IQ society, as it was the first 99.9th percentile high IQ society, and was in many ways the progenitor to TNS. However, due to previous discussion here, I thought I would preempt any efforts of removing ISPE from this list. ISPE is part of the history of the foundation of the High IQ community and simply because it does not publish membership information (an arbitrarily and inappropriately applied qualifier of notability) does not mean it should be excluded from this article. 45,000 people see ISPE every month in the US Mensa Bulletin, I think it's safe to say it's a fully operational and well known society.
PJimmy2000 (
talk)
04:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The consensus per previous discussion (see the talk archives, including
this discussion) is to include only those societies with existing Wikipedia articles. If the society is
notable per Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., based on
reliable sources that are independent of the subject), then feel free to create an article about it and then include it in the list. I've reverted the addition per
WP:BRD in the meantime. --Kinut/c04:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I read the archives, there was not consensus on this decision; it's simply the most recent in a long line of decisions. I am challenging this decision now, as many did before. I have provided an argument for why ISPE should be considered a notable high IQ society, as it is by any account of someone familiar with the subject. For it not to be included in this list of notable high IQ societies, one would think that the person deleting it would have to provide evidence for why it is not notable.
PJimmy2000 (
talk)
04:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply
In addition to the
notability issue, there are also
verifiability issues. Limiting this article to societies that actually have wikipedia articles still strikes me as a reasonable way to address those concerns. I think Kinu is correct that there is long-standing consensus on this. As for the suggestion that "the person deleting it would have to provide evidence for why it is not notable", this is backwards - the burden is on those who want to add to the list to prove notability. Proving non-notability is an absurd proposition.
CAVincent (
talk)
09:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)reply