Talk:Heritability of IQ

message: Panizzon in one of the largest modern twin IQ studies establishes the heredity of IQ at 86%.  General Relative deletes this citation repeatedly with no rationale and therefore should be permanently banned from this article.  He is edit warring continuously by deleting real science citations with no rationale. 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5D60:7920:5091:5113:979B:E636 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources wherever possible, and these are always preferred to WP:PRIMARY ones. (We can leave aside for now concerns about the reliability of the journal Intelligence when it deals with the topic of genetics.) I've replaced the Plomin study with a secondary source confirming the 80% number based on a survey of various primary studies. You are of course welcome to provide a rationale for adding an additional primary study, but as of yet you have not done so. If you'd like to report me for what you perceive to be behavioral problems, this is not the place to do that. Generalrelative (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Also: not a huge deal but I'm not a "he". They/them pronouns for me please. Generalrelative (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, you can use a primary source. It's very common. Just make sure not to interpret it; simply plainly state the facts. BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I also suggest that you self-revert since you are now past the 3RR red line per WP:EW. Generalrelative (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Hi Mr. 2600, I read the source you listed. It's reliable and has a good methodology. I would support its inclusion, with the caveat that g is not the same as IQ. g will likely be slightly more heritable than IQ is, because IQ is a very good but imperfect measure of g. BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support the inclusion of study. We have something of a consensus then, don't we, @BooleanQuackery? Thespearthrower (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't have a consensus to include a primary study reported in a highly unreliable journal. NightHeron (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

text: I've been known to communicate with you too, BooleanQuackery. There is most certainly no consensus for inclusion here. Generalrelative (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

text: There is not a consensus to include a primary study from a questionable journal. Also, quit digging up months-old posts and resurrecting them. If you have a coherent argument to make, create a new section rather than digging up an old one. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

text: There is no consensus for this. Treating consensus as a popular vote is misguided, at best, and dragging this out over a full year is bordering on disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panizzon paper 

message: Reviewing the article, it appears that large chunks of the content are attributable to User:Miradre, an editor that was topic banned from articles of this nature. As one might expect, this has left the article in a very poor state with respect to sourcing. I would attempt to improve the situation, but I suspect that some strange sort of false consensus has fallen over the content from the topic banned editor. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the fact that I've found you difficult to work with (see above), I encourage you to continue to make WP:BOLD changes –– and for the record, I approve of much of what you've just done, e.g. . If we have to bring things back here to discuss, I'll ask you to respect process and policy (in particular not violating WP:LOCALCON with respect to how we define heritability), and actually read the comments of others. If you can do that, we can make progress. And if need be, I'll be happy to post at WP:FT/N myself, but for now I'd like to see what you can come up with in terms of improved sourcing. Generalrelative (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much of the article is poorly sourced