Psychology Template‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
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) 03:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I see there is this brand-new template Human intelligence, still being actively edited. I note that it links to and is being added to articles that are the subject of active Arbitration Committee remedies and I wonder if there has been any discussion of the content of this template before it was added (to the top, I might note) of several high-visibility articles here. I think there is sufficient instability in the article structure being linked to and sufficient continuing undue weight problems in several of the linked (or templated) articles that editor discussion of both the design and the use of this template is warranted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 13:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious about what this template is supposed to do for readers of Wikipedia that wasn't already being done by hypertext in each article or in the several templates that were already put on articles to which this template has been added. What is the editorial purpose here? Which goal of the Wikipedia project is being upheld by further use of this template? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
" How many roads must a template walk down, before you can call him a man...?"
The template is for human intelligence articles. It contains intelligence articles. Thanks WBB for adding an article to it, I hope others add stuff too. Woodsrock ( talk) 12:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Insofar as the race IQ controversy is a topic that relates to human intelligence (and that is debatable by comparison with some of the other topics now linked on the template), it is my editorial judgment that the best available article now on Wikipedia about that topic is History of the race and intelligence controversy rather than any of several other articles in the same category. (The articles in that category are subject to active arbitration sanctions following findings of edit-warring and POV-pushing by single-purpose accounts, with the most recent enforcement action in the case (7 October 2010) [1] coming just before the creation of this template (16 October 2010) [2] by a newly registered wikipedian. [3]) In light of the Arbitration Committee findings, I think it's especially important that our response to WP:BEBOLD, a general Wikipedia conduct guideline, include boldness in discussing and referring to sources as articles in the scope of the case are further discussed. Perhaps new editors are still getting up to speed with the long history of edit-warring on these topics, which I hope will be resolved by editors jointly referring to sources and discussing what those sources say. Because of the much superior sourcing of History of the race and intelligence controversy, which is largely sourced to reliable sources for medicine-related articles and has had substantial editorial attention from multiple editors working on it from top to bottom, I am changing the template here to link to that article rather than to other articles in the scope of the ArbCom case. This issue, of course, can be further discussed here. Referring to sources and to the overall weight of current reliable professional literature on the subject would be helpful in achieving consensus in accord with Wikipedia policy. (And of course all of the articles that might be linked here, just like most of the 6,816,396 articles on Wikipedia, can be improved by further efforts to find good sources. Editors can look up sources and discuss what the sources say on this template talk page and on each article talk page.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I see from the Template:Cognition talk page that when that template was newly formed, there was editor discussion advocating referring to reliable sources rather than to original research to put together the content of the template. For a while there were bold removals of the template from various articles, just as that template had been created by one editor and then placed on various articles. It seems to me that there is some possible subject overlap between "cognition," on the one hand, and "intelligence" on the other hand, so what do reliable sources say about the subtopics and boundaries of each topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 04:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Just an idea... [ [6]] 173.183.79.81 ( talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The template has a problem with the factors section. While the subsection Inteligence#Factors associated with intelligence details that Correlation is not causation a factor is something that has to have a level of causation. while an attempt to water down the statement using the word associated, it still leads to a scientifically incorrect assertion. I think that the sidebar needs to avoid presenting unsupported correlations alongside mainstream research. Tetron76 ( talk) 15:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The list as it currently stands falls into 3 categories as I see it:
Evolution of human intelligence, Heritability of IQ and Health and intelligence
It is this last group that I think is not supportable as a factor of IQ and in some cases it is measuring a different correlate: Being royal makes someone rich just because someone is rich doesn't automatically make them royal. I think it would be better to have an other correlates to IQ link to Intelligence#Factors_associated_with_intelligence for these as there is no supporting control experiments. Tetron76 ( talk) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the template is sort of grab bag of related articles, without much organization or rationale. I've reviewed the Intelligence article and come up with a list of other articles to consider for inclusion.
I'm sure there are several other articles which should be included in the template as well, especially some of the more historic views of intelligence. aprock ( talk) 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing the "fields of study" section of the template, most of the items listed are not actual fields. All indications are that this is just a hodge podge of articles which various editors have selected to include based on their own personal interest as opposed to a broad overview of the topic. I suggest removing the entire section for the time being until better sourcing and organization can be developed for the items. aprock ( talk) 18:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you've made constructive changes. I'll suggest removing the "factors" section as that is an amorphous section with no clear criterion for inclusion. Likewise, many of the factors are not in any real sense related to intelligence, most notably the Nations which was remove for POV purposes. aprock ( talk) 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
collapsing per WP:SOAP aprock ( talk) 19:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I also support that at least the articles mentioning intelligence in their title should be included in the template. As such I propose adding back these articles. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 18:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no clue what you're talking about here. The rationale for removing those links from the template have now been discussed
ad nauseum. We're done.
aprock (
talk) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Stop using collapse to try to win an argument. You seem to be the minority view here. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggest renaming this article to Intelligence, because intelligence and it's derivatives aren't only for humans. -- Rezonansowy ( talk) 20:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I see that there is a renewal of Wikipedian editing of this template. As discussed in the last few months through an RFC on the Race and intelligence article talk page (the talk page of an article often linked from this template), there are a number of current sources available to editors that meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources in medicine, which is generally the correct source guideline to apply to articles on human intelligence and IQ testing. (That's because IQ tests are literally used in medical diagnosis, and also used in high-stakes forensic contexts such as finding diminished criminal responsibility in criminal trials, and consequential decisions such as school placement for children.) It's important to note that several of the articles linked to from this template are under active ArbCom sanctions because of past edit-warring. I hope it will be helpful to mention sources previously agreed to in a nonexhaustive list of good sources for the other article that also fit most articles that have ever been linked to from this template here, along with a few other sources that come just with my personal recommendation until other editors comment here (as I encourage all of you to do).
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This authoritative handbook appears to be cited only as a further reading reference, for one specific chapter in this handbook, in the current version of several Wikipedia articles. It deserves dozens of citations to most of its chapters in most Wikipedia articles that fit within the scope of this template. Moreover, this source does a lot to define the scope of the subject of human intelligence.){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This major review article in a flagship publication by the American Psychological Association deserves a lot more citations than the tiny number it now has in articles linked to from this template. Again, this source reflects a consensus of current researchers on what the scope of the topic is, and thus is especially useful for deciding what to include on the template and what not to include.){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This is the second edition of an authoritative textbook that is exactly focused on the topic of this template. Most articles linked to from this template should be updated with many more citations to this edition, and the template itself could well use checking with this textbook as a guide to the scope of the study of human intelligence.){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This appears not to be cited at all in the current version of many articles linked to from this template, which is a serious omission. This book too, as its title suggests, is a useful reality check on what to include and what not to include on the template.){{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This comprehensive handbook by multiple authoritative authors is currently mentioned only in the further reading section of a few articles, which is too little use of this high-quality source.){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This book includes a solid general overview of principles of psychological testing, including IQ testing. It is completely neglected in the current version of most articles linked to from this template. It is also a good reality check on the scope of the template.){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help) (This source, the second edition of the key volume of a massive, authoritative handbook of psychology, is so recently published that no editor had seen it as of the last time sources were discussed in the RFC at the other article. It is very good. It should also be used as a reality check on this template and the related articles.)
There are quite a few good sources on the topic of this template that are recent, comprehensively review the earlier literature (both primary research articles and previous secondary sources), and meet the standards of the
WP:MEDRS guidelines and yet are entirely unused in the linked articles. I would be delighted to hear suggestions of other sources. --
WeijiBaikeBianji (
talk,
how I edit) 01:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The following 2 comments are copied here from Talk:Genius#Scope of See also section:
Typically, nav/series boxes are included in all articles to which a link is included in the box itself, thus linking all the articles in the series to each other. Therefore, I've restored the template only to the links that Prmct mentioned that are represented on the template. I'm in the process of checking all the links on the template to make sure that the template is placed on all of those articles. The Transhumanist 08:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm also in the process of splitting off human intelligence from intelligence per WP:SPLIT, and I look forward to your feedback there. If I can find the time, I will endeavor to overhaul the new article. I'm currently working on it's lead paragraph. The Transhumanist 08:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of relevant links to the template. -TT
Just so it can be clear what we're talking about, the statement that the template was "developed without any on-wiki consensus" is only true for the first few weeks after the template was created. When WeijiBaikeBianji first began removing it from articles, a consensus formed that it should not be removed. See (for example) the discussion here, where five other editors commented on his removal of the template, all in favor of its inclusion. The only thing which did not have consensus was whether the template should be at the top or the bottom of the page. -- 185.2.138.125 ( talk) 18:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The template has been removed again from Fertility and intelligence, with no explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. [15] Why was it was removed again? -- Prmct ( talk) 20:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
In the same edit, what was the reason for removing the paragraph that was cited to the Meisenberg paper? Neither editor who removed that paragraph gave a reason for removing it. I thought when editors remove sourced material without discussing it on the talk page, they are supposed to give a reason in the edit summary. -- Prmct ( talk) 00:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
What WBB and AM said. Furthermore, I think that using Meisenberg's - an editor of the racist Mankind Quarterly - stuff violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 04:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious if any of the editors watching this page have commments on the top category (currently) of the template, namely the Types category. Is this a typical way to divide up the topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 03:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I think something like "Intelligence assessment" is a more appropriate scope for {{ High IQ}}, but maybe it's better still to assimilate the most useful bits into {{ Human intelligence topics}}. My only reservation about the latter is a vague uneasiness about listing standardised tests in {{ Human intelligence topics}}. Thoughts? — Ringbang ( talk) 23:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Psychology Template‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
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) 03:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I see there is this brand-new template Human intelligence, still being actively edited. I note that it links to and is being added to articles that are the subject of active Arbitration Committee remedies and I wonder if there has been any discussion of the content of this template before it was added (to the top, I might note) of several high-visibility articles here. I think there is sufficient instability in the article structure being linked to and sufficient continuing undue weight problems in several of the linked (or templated) articles that editor discussion of both the design and the use of this template is warranted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 13:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious about what this template is supposed to do for readers of Wikipedia that wasn't already being done by hypertext in each article or in the several templates that were already put on articles to which this template has been added. What is the editorial purpose here? Which goal of the Wikipedia project is being upheld by further use of this template? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
" How many roads must a template walk down, before you can call him a man...?"
The template is for human intelligence articles. It contains intelligence articles. Thanks WBB for adding an article to it, I hope others add stuff too. Woodsrock ( talk) 12:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Insofar as the race IQ controversy is a topic that relates to human intelligence (and that is debatable by comparison with some of the other topics now linked on the template), it is my editorial judgment that the best available article now on Wikipedia about that topic is History of the race and intelligence controversy rather than any of several other articles in the same category. (The articles in that category are subject to active arbitration sanctions following findings of edit-warring and POV-pushing by single-purpose accounts, with the most recent enforcement action in the case (7 October 2010) [1] coming just before the creation of this template (16 October 2010) [2] by a newly registered wikipedian. [3]) In light of the Arbitration Committee findings, I think it's especially important that our response to WP:BEBOLD, a general Wikipedia conduct guideline, include boldness in discussing and referring to sources as articles in the scope of the case are further discussed. Perhaps new editors are still getting up to speed with the long history of edit-warring on these topics, which I hope will be resolved by editors jointly referring to sources and discussing what those sources say. Because of the much superior sourcing of History of the race and intelligence controversy, which is largely sourced to reliable sources for medicine-related articles and has had substantial editorial attention from multiple editors working on it from top to bottom, I am changing the template here to link to that article rather than to other articles in the scope of the ArbCom case. This issue, of course, can be further discussed here. Referring to sources and to the overall weight of current reliable professional literature on the subject would be helpful in achieving consensus in accord with Wikipedia policy. (And of course all of the articles that might be linked here, just like most of the 6,816,396 articles on Wikipedia, can be improved by further efforts to find good sources. Editors can look up sources and discuss what the sources say on this template talk page and on each article talk page.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I see from the Template:Cognition talk page that when that template was newly formed, there was editor discussion advocating referring to reliable sources rather than to original research to put together the content of the template. For a while there were bold removals of the template from various articles, just as that template had been created by one editor and then placed on various articles. It seems to me that there is some possible subject overlap between "cognition," on the one hand, and "intelligence" on the other hand, so what do reliable sources say about the subtopics and boundaries of each topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 04:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Just an idea... [ [6]] 173.183.79.81 ( talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The template has a problem with the factors section. While the subsection Inteligence#Factors associated with intelligence details that Correlation is not causation a factor is something that has to have a level of causation. while an attempt to water down the statement using the word associated, it still leads to a scientifically incorrect assertion. I think that the sidebar needs to avoid presenting unsupported correlations alongside mainstream research. Tetron76 ( talk) 15:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The list as it currently stands falls into 3 categories as I see it:
Evolution of human intelligence, Heritability of IQ and Health and intelligence
It is this last group that I think is not supportable as a factor of IQ and in some cases it is measuring a different correlate: Being royal makes someone rich just because someone is rich doesn't automatically make them royal. I think it would be better to have an other correlates to IQ link to Intelligence#Factors_associated_with_intelligence for these as there is no supporting control experiments. Tetron76 ( talk) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the template is sort of grab bag of related articles, without much organization or rationale. I've reviewed the Intelligence article and come up with a list of other articles to consider for inclusion.
I'm sure there are several other articles which should be included in the template as well, especially some of the more historic views of intelligence. aprock ( talk) 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing the "fields of study" section of the template, most of the items listed are not actual fields. All indications are that this is just a hodge podge of articles which various editors have selected to include based on their own personal interest as opposed to a broad overview of the topic. I suggest removing the entire section for the time being until better sourcing and organization can be developed for the items. aprock ( talk) 18:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you've made constructive changes. I'll suggest removing the "factors" section as that is an amorphous section with no clear criterion for inclusion. Likewise, many of the factors are not in any real sense related to intelligence, most notably the Nations which was remove for POV purposes. aprock ( talk) 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
collapsing per WP:SOAP aprock ( talk) 19:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I also support that at least the articles mentioning intelligence in their title should be included in the template. As such I propose adding back these articles. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 18:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no clue what you're talking about here. The rationale for removing those links from the template have now been discussed
ad nauseum. We're done.
aprock (
talk) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Stop using collapse to try to win an argument. You seem to be the minority view here. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggest renaming this article to Intelligence, because intelligence and it's derivatives aren't only for humans. -- Rezonansowy ( talk) 20:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I see that there is a renewal of Wikipedian editing of this template. As discussed in the last few months through an RFC on the Race and intelligence article talk page (the talk page of an article often linked from this template), there are a number of current sources available to editors that meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources in medicine, which is generally the correct source guideline to apply to articles on human intelligence and IQ testing. (That's because IQ tests are literally used in medical diagnosis, and also used in high-stakes forensic contexts such as finding diminished criminal responsibility in criminal trials, and consequential decisions such as school placement for children.) It's important to note that several of the articles linked to from this template are under active ArbCom sanctions because of past edit-warring. I hope it will be helpful to mention sources previously agreed to in a nonexhaustive list of good sources for the other article that also fit most articles that have ever been linked to from this template here, along with a few other sources that come just with my personal recommendation until other editors comment here (as I encourage all of you to do).
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This authoritative handbook appears to be cited only as a further reading reference, for one specific chapter in this handbook, in the current version of several Wikipedia articles. It deserves dozens of citations to most of its chapters in most Wikipedia articles that fit within the scope of this template. Moreover, this source does a lot to define the scope of the subject of human intelligence.){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This major review article in a flagship publication by the American Psychological Association deserves a lot more citations than the tiny number it now has in articles linked to from this template. Again, this source reflects a consensus of current researchers on what the scope of the topic is, and thus is especially useful for deciding what to include on the template and what not to include.){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This is the second edition of an authoritative textbook that is exactly focused on the topic of this template. Most articles linked to from this template should be updated with many more citations to this edition, and the template itself could well use checking with this textbook as a guide to the scope of the study of human intelligence.){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This appears not to be cited at all in the current version of many articles linked to from this template, which is a serious omission. This book too, as its title suggests, is a useful reality check on what to include and what not to include on the template.){{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This comprehensive handbook by multiple authoritative authors is currently mentioned only in the further reading section of a few articles, which is too little use of this high-quality source.){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help) (This book includes a solid general overview of principles of psychological testing, including IQ testing. It is completely neglected in the current version of most articles linked to from this template. It is also a good reality check on the scope of the template.){{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help) (This source, the second edition of the key volume of a massive, authoritative handbook of psychology, is so recently published that no editor had seen it as of the last time sources were discussed in the RFC at the other article. It is very good. It should also be used as a reality check on this template and the related articles.)
There are quite a few good sources on the topic of this template that are recent, comprehensively review the earlier literature (both primary research articles and previous secondary sources), and meet the standards of the
WP:MEDRS guidelines and yet are entirely unused in the linked articles. I would be delighted to hear suggestions of other sources. --
WeijiBaikeBianji (
talk,
how I edit) 01:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The following 2 comments are copied here from Talk:Genius#Scope of See also section:
Typically, nav/series boxes are included in all articles to which a link is included in the box itself, thus linking all the articles in the series to each other. Therefore, I've restored the template only to the links that Prmct mentioned that are represented on the template. I'm in the process of checking all the links on the template to make sure that the template is placed on all of those articles. The Transhumanist 08:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm also in the process of splitting off human intelligence from intelligence per WP:SPLIT, and I look forward to your feedback there. If I can find the time, I will endeavor to overhaul the new article. I'm currently working on it's lead paragraph. The Transhumanist 08:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of relevant links to the template. -TT
Just so it can be clear what we're talking about, the statement that the template was "developed without any on-wiki consensus" is only true for the first few weeks after the template was created. When WeijiBaikeBianji first began removing it from articles, a consensus formed that it should not be removed. See (for example) the discussion here, where five other editors commented on his removal of the template, all in favor of its inclusion. The only thing which did not have consensus was whether the template should be at the top or the bottom of the page. -- 185.2.138.125 ( talk) 18:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The template has been removed again from Fertility and intelligence, with no explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. [15] Why was it was removed again? -- Prmct ( talk) 20:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
In the same edit, what was the reason for removing the paragraph that was cited to the Meisenberg paper? Neither editor who removed that paragraph gave a reason for removing it. I thought when editors remove sourced material without discussing it on the talk page, they are supposed to give a reason in the edit summary. -- Prmct ( talk) 00:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
What WBB and AM said. Furthermore, I think that using Meisenberg's - an editor of the racist Mankind Quarterly - stuff violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 04:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious if any of the editors watching this page have commments on the top category (currently) of the template, namely the Types category. Is this a typical way to divide up the topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 03:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I think something like "Intelligence assessment" is a more appropriate scope for {{ High IQ}}, but maybe it's better still to assimilate the most useful bits into {{ Human intelligence topics}}. My only reservation about the latter is a vague uneasiness about listing standardised tests in {{ Human intelligence topics}}. Thoughts? — Ringbang ( talk) 23:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)