Talk:Triple Nine Society

"Notable Members" list
Recently some "notable members" have been added with *no* reliable documentation that they are members of the Triple Nine Society; this is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:Verifiability; Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference based encyclopedia, not a random set of unconfirmed statements). This approach also leads to a slippery slope where anyone could start adding anyone, regardless of whether they're actually a member. Please add "notable members" only with publicly available documentation about their membership. Any names in the "Notable Members" list should also meet Wikpedia's guidelines for WP:Notability (e.g., do they already have their own Wikipedia article?).

Please see Wikipedia documentation about handling disputes, verifiable references, and notability, and please discuss the matter here before attempted to add further putative "members" *without references*.Finney1234 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the lack of reply. Does the Triple Nine Society not have some kind of member directory published somewhere?--Prisencolin (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Prisencolin There is no publically published member directory, and I don't know what information registered TNS members can access (and private, insider information does not, I believe, classify as verifiable info by Wikipedia standards). I appreciate your efforts, but it will be a very bad idea to allow people to randomly add claimed members to the article without documentation. But I appreciate the way you re-added the information in comments; from my first glance, I thought you had just added it back in. (I actually had removed Robert Forster as well, but re-added him after finding a TNS reference in an obituary from an online but apparently fairly reliable site). Finney1234 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Prisencolin FWIW, I am a member of TNS, but have no administrator involvement; as an established Wikipedia editor I do not consider there to be any significant WP:Conflict of Interest but I'm declaring it here anyway. I actually brought up the verification issue on the (private) TNS Facebook page, and there were a few random thoughts but no conclusion on any way to publicly verify TNS membership. There was also a concern about whether TNS membership should be publicized without the member's explicit permission. But I'm fairly sure that a TNS member claiming that "X is a member" based on internal, member-only information would not meet Wikipedia WP:Verifiability standards. Finney1234 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As of now, members have access to a member list, but non-members do not, so I would not consider that to pass WP:V. -- Avi (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance tag - September 2022
, I updated sources and simplified some of the text. I'd like to remove the maintenance tags. Any continued concerns? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I (personally) think the current layout is good and succinct for an encyclopedia. My one concern is that I do think some comparison with Mensa is appropriate, that is, the 98% vs the 99.9%. This was removed in User:DGG's cleanup. Finney1234 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * To further clarify why I think a Mensa comparison is useful: Mensa is the largest and most-well known High IQ Society; many people have heard of it, but have not heard of TNS. So having a mention of what makes Mensa different (98% vs 99.9%) from TNS seems like a useful piece of information to have in the article Finney1234 (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * While I do not disagree, the comparison is clear when following the link to High-IQ society, so I don't think it's fatal for it **not** to be in the article. -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As there has been no objection to my removing the tags, I will do so. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)