==Another specific example====
Under Genetic explanations, WRN has written this - 

To support these claims, they often cite several lines of evidence that they interpret as support for a partly genetic cause of group differences in IQ:   1. Black–White–East Asian differences in IQ, reaction time, and brain size are observed worldwide in a range of cultures and environments. In the United States, significant Black-White IQ differences are observable at every age above 3 years, within every occupation or socioeconomic level tested, in every region of the country, and at every time since the invention of ability tests.[106]   2. Jensen and other have argued that the magnitude of race differences on different IQ subtests correlate with the extent to which those subtests measures g,[107] which also correlates with measures of the subtests heritability.[108] From these and other findings, they argue that race differences have a partly biological basis.[109]   3. The rising heritability of IQ with age (within all races; studies have found on average in the developed world heritability starts at 20% in infants, rises to 40% in middle childhood, and peaks at 80% in adulthood); and studies showing the virtual disappearance (~0.0) by adulthood of shared environmental effects on IQ (for example, family income, education, and home environment), with adopted siblings partaking in the studies no more similar in IQ than with strangers[110] From these studies, they argue that most suggested environmental explanations for IQ difference between groups do not have a strong enough effect on IQ to fully account for group differences.
4. Studies of US comparisons of both parents to children and siblings to each other finding regression to differing means for different races (85 for Blacks and 100 for Whites) across the entire range of IQs,[111] despite the fact that siblings are matched for shared environment and genetic heritage, with regression unaffected by family socioeconomic status and generation examined[112]

This seems to be excessive detail.  WRN has essentially recreated Rushton/Jensen arguments, and placed citations in his citation.  This essentially allows WRN to write an entire section, as if it were incontrovertible based on various references, without any possible response.  The NPOV fact that should be reported is that Rushton and Jensen make some assertions, not that they make some assertions, and here is the factual evidence they use to back it up.  If anything, every one of their "lines of evidence" should be attributed directly to Rushton and Jensen, as much of that same evidence may be interpreted as undermining the "genetic hypothesis", depending on the viewer.  It seems very weaselly, in any case. 

Can we agree these four points should be removed from the article?  Comments?  

==