Talk:Intelligence

Intelligence as seen by other cultures
This article needs an addition that describes how other cultures conceive of intelligence

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2022
Please add the following recent title to further reading :

Holm-Hadulla, Rainer M.; Funke, Joachim; Wink, Michael (2022). Intelligence - Theories and Applications, London, Berlin, New York: Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-04197-6. source: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-04198-3 Homoscribens (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please provide rationale and secondary sources establishing noteworthiness. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022
I'd like to add to "Intelligence - Further Reading":

Rainer M. Holm-Hadulla, Joachim Funke, Michael Wink: Intelligence - Theories and Applications. Springer Nature, Switzerland 2022; ISBN 978-3-031-04197-6. Kreativität und Intelligenz (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Looks like this is a duplicate of a previous edit request; please establish noteworthiness as requested by . Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Genes for intelligence
Why was what I wrote reverted? 12.110.37.3 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 12.110.37.3 (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * For reference, this is the source:
 * The added content was overly-broad and misrepresented the source, and it wasn't clear why this would belong in the lead of the article. Additionally, saying "already" is editorializing language which misrepresents the study to imply a degree of importance and obviousness which is not supported by the source, and again, wouldn't necessarily belong in the lead even if it were. Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The added content was overly-broad and misrepresented the source, and it wasn't clear why this would belong in the lead of the article. Additionally, saying "already" is editorializing language which misrepresents the study to imply a degree of importance and obviousness which is not supported by the source, and again, wouldn't necessarily belong in the lead even if it were. Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

marks remove 27.114.165.106 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)