Talk:IQ testing environmental variances

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2011. The result of the discussion was merge to Environment and intelligence.

This article was taken as a cut & paste from Race and intelligence since it has grown to the point where it seems independent of that topic and can be referenced from multiple articles

Missing references

The references from the text (all the harvard references) are missing. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs organizing

I feel this article needs some organization, see Wikipedia Manual of Style. Principally it needs a leader section that says what it is in aid of. Sections saying what the main points are and what analysis and disagreemnets there are about it might also be good. Currently it is just a list of notes and references cobbled together waiting to be made into a proper article as far as I can see. Dmcq (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_intelligence

I'm new as a Wikipedian. Maybe this can be my first merge. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is there in this article that should be added to that other article? BTW, the name of this article is gibberish, so there's no reason to make this a redirect page.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and POV tags

This article is not up to normal quality levels, it does not really address the ostensible topic, and my overall impression is that it argues against a genetic component---or, at a minimum, wants to put an overly heavy emphasis on the environmental.

The strength of the relative components can be discussed and investigated, and it is Wikipedias job to neutrally report on the resulting conclusions and opinions. It is, however, not appropriate to push a particular pro- or contra-agenda.

I suggest either a complete rewrite or a deletion. Possibly, alternately, a careful and selective merge into another article would work. Michael Eriksson (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your friendly suggestion, I am thinking merge, and I am looking for the best merge candidate for the content of this article. Let's discuss. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article

See discussion here[1].--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]