Talk:Intellectual giftedness

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal
Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Persistence of Trait(s) in Adult Life
I'll start off by saying that I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, so my apologies for any mistakes. Anyway, I have a problem with the following sentence: "It is thought to persist as a trait into adult life...". I changed this to "It persists as a trait into adult life...". But it was reverted, and I'm curious as to why?

-I noticed the 'minor edit' the moment I clicked 'save page'... Had I used that option, would the edit have been okay?

-Or are you suggesting with this revert that IG people might suddenly lose all the corresponding traits when they reach adulthood? If not, it makes no sense not to use my edit.

Mr. Gerbz 16:28, 29 July 2014 (GMT+1)


 * Mr Gerbz, cf WP:Weasel Lycurgus (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Unaddressed tagging
The article does in fact have a US focus, one solution for which would be to move it to Intellectual giftedness (United States). As it's not addressed in 2.6 y and to some extent it is only or at least more of a problem in the US, a lede redact pointing that out is indicated instead. Pending comment and delineation of the other human cultures with strong anti-intellectual bias will perform same, address tagging. Lycurgus (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You should have a source for saying that this is primarily a United States problem. What's really going on in editing here is that people aren't using the many sources available (in English, in the United States) with an international perspective on this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was not saying that, or not primarily that, just putting the article in context, a simple editorial move as a) in fact the problem, while universal does have a specific import in US culture which for example it would not have in Chinese culture, and b) it's unlikely anyone is going to come in any time soon and address the issue as it exists in other societies / rework content in existing articles to that end. Suggest you restore at least the scoping part of the removed sentence. 谢 谢 Lycurgus (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 沒問題. I'll work on fixing the article to internationalize it along the lines long called for by the tag. There is plenty of published literature, quite a bit of which I have in my office, for helping this article reflect the entire world and especially the entire English-speaking world. That's what I've been doing for the last few hours during this weekend's Edit-a-thon. Other editors who are looking on and who have sources at hand are of course welcome to join the fun. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intellectual giftedness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407100036/http://www.psych.umn.edu/faculty/waller/classes/FA2010/Readings/Spearman1904.pdf to http://www.psych.umn.edu/faculty/waller/classes/FA2010/Readings/Spearman1904.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intellectual giftedness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211085927/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1999_06_24_newyorktimes.html to http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1999_06_24_newyorktimes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Neurobiology of giftedness
This article talks a lot about giftedness from a psychological aspect, but recent studies have shown that there is an important neurobiological aspect to it - the brain develops differently from youth and works differently during the whole life. For good reads on the subject, "Neurobiology of giftedness" by John G. Geake and "International Handbook on Giftedness" (collective work) are both very interesting and show the recent developments on the matter of giftedness - we may soon be able to determine giftedness from a physical point of view (fMRIs have shown how the brain differs in its working and in the amount of brain grey and white matter) instead of a statistical one like the IQ. I'd like to start a discussion on this topic to improve this article and add more recent research results in it; since this is my first time posting on wikipedia, I thought it was wiser to start here, in the talk page, to try and make this article evolve with our understanding of giftedness. After this, when I have time, I'll try to post summarized information of different articles and researches on the subject, in hope we can elaborate a coherent section on this subject. Marc-Olivier D. (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, since no one seems to have a strong opinion on the subject, I'll slowly start to add to the page with content about the neurobiological aspect of giftedness - if you have any comment on my changes, if you think you can reformulate better or anything else, feel free to post here! --Marc-Olivier D. (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"Laurent Simons" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Laurent Simons. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m practicly laughing my head of reading about making extra investments foor ‘colored’ (As in non-white) gifted students. In the so called United States of America there is not even a sincere effort being made to provide enough recources for BASIC education. I’m located at the other side of the Atlantic ocean an I am appalled at what is being displayed on the newschannels. It’s nice and all to talk about “stereotype stress” and other pretty concepts. The real causes are plane & simple : NO MONY, acute leadpoisoning and don’t forget the occaisonal chockehold, young girls being sprayed with mace in the face at a peaceful demonstration. 2 put it in another was even whether you call something excrement or feces it still stinks!!Annoyed.negro (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Really messed up the editing, no idea how to get back the original.
Hi everyone, as you can see from the title of this section, I was trying to add one tiny "citation needed" tag and the ENTIRE page got messed up. Like, entire sections were deleted. I've been trying everything I can to get it back to how it was before I made that edit, but doing so has been extremely difficult, borderline impossible. So much hard work was put into the latest version of this page (before I screwed it up), and I really hope an admin can restore the original version. I'm really sorry for this. If there's anything I can do to help (aside from NOT editing a page ever again), please do let me know. PureMelodrama (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I fixed it (before seeing your note here). For future reference on how to do such a restore of an old version, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting#Manual_reverting 2A02:A44E:8DBD:1:4261:86FF:FE2B:DF67 (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)