" 

 == The need for links to references ==  
 Throughout the text, several references are mentioned within the text but there are no links to most of them.  From a practical view point, is it not desirable to see such links?  
 

 The section on IQ testing gives the following link which has been cited as a hoax: http://www.lovenstein.org/report/ 
 Check THIS out 
 http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/lovenstein.html 
 

 == Light Hearted Humor == 
 Off the top of my head, I can think of two fictional charcaters with high IQs, Commander Keen with an IQ of 314, and Shredder from TMNT with 675. It would be funny if there were a section pondering the probabilities of their IQs, in a comical fashion, much like what happened with Santa Clause. One example would be the percentage of people likley to have an IQ of 675, things like that )   

  
 ............. 

 

 == Include online IQ tests at your own risk == 

 Junk external links on this page (if the definition of ""junk"" is ""unprofessional, unethical, and meaningless to the psychological community"") have little place on a page that claims to describe the measurement of intelligence.  If you haven't yet discovered the difference between standardized tests like the Wechsler Scales and the top 25 results of ""iq test"" on Google's search engine then you need to attend, at minimum, an entry-level class in graduate school.  Profesionally designed sites deserve their place in the Wiki sun far more than sophomoric attempts at mimicry.    

 :An intro undergraduate course would be sufficient, graduate study isn't necessary to learn the difference between standardized and ""good luck, sucker!"" 

 ==Why is Gould given prominence in this article?  Gould was not an expert on intelligence.== 

 Why is Steven Jay Gould given his own section in most wikipedia articles, including this one, when it comes to ""intelligence"" and related fields?  It appears that either some think that Gould was an expert in the field or want, to at least, leave that impression.  He wasn't, as far as I know. 

 Probably because it's useful to use his criticisms to address or encompass other criticisms of IQ. I've seen the ""Mismeasure of Man"" a lot throughout my readings about IQ, and since his statements have an impact on public opinion, he does deserve some mention.  

 == Standard deviation differences not mentioned == 

 Wikipedia articles on IQ and its tests seem to completely ignore the differences in standard deviations used in different tests. This makes the statements about point differences somewhat meaningless as the used standard deviation is not mentioned.   

 == Race and IQ == 

 Sorry first time contributing so forgive me for any signs of being a newbie, but I believe that the words ""higher income caucasians seem to produce higher scores on IQ tests than black loser classes"" is racially insensitive especially on such a controversial article.  

 Thanks, some smart-aleck was probably at work here. The wording has been corrected.   

 :I removed it completely.   

 ::I certainly won't complain. )  

 Hi! It's back...I just read and saw it at 0753 Greenwich Mean Time, 25 August 2006... just thought you should know. -Justin Bello 
 ::Strange, I don't see it.  

 == IQ score distribution == 

 Why was this section taken out? I can't find any reasoning behind it being removed, and it was in my opinion the most useful part of the article.  

 == Merge from IQ test controversy == 

 See Talk:IQ test controversy.   
 :Nobody disagreed, so I killed that page and redirected it here. There was not much there that was not already here. I renamed the Social construct section into Controversy, so that headline now also includes MoM. I don't know why we need The view of the APA. It just repeats what this article says anyway, the only controversy it highlights is a debate about the  genetic explanation of between-race differences in intelligence, which is cove