Talk:IQ classification
Add topic | IQ classification has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 29, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about IQ classification.
|
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | A fact from IQ classification appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 October 2013. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
"I.Q. test results" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect I.Q. test results and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 6#I.Q. test results until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
This is wrong
[edit]its missing the lower half of the average range. Looking at the source, “normal or average” should be 90-110. Not 110
Terman's Stanford–Binet original (1916) classification IQ Range ("ratio IQ") IQ Classification Above 140 "Near" genius or genius
120–140 Very superior intelligence
110–120 Superior intelligence
110 Normal, or average, intelligence
80–90 Dullness, rarely classifiable as feeble-mindedness
70–80 Border-line deficiency, sometimes classifiable as dullness, often as feeble-mindedness
Below 70 Definite feeble-mindedness 68.55.76.245 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- done, Thanks. Moons of Io (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
contradictory text
[edit]The third paragraph states that test scores are "approximately the same" across different testing procedures and then states that the scores diverge across different tests; this is confusing! 174.180.41.129 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Edit request: supplementary external link for historical classification context
[edit] | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I'm making this request because I have a conflict of interest: I'm associated with the site below, and that disclosure is noted at User:Baycanemir.
Would an uninvolved editor consider adding the following link to the article's ==External links== section?
- IQ Tests Timeline 1880-2024: 108 Tests Across 5 Eras - a free educational timeline that includes historical classification context and milestone test materials relevant to the article's "Historical IQ classification tables" coverage.
Why I think it may be useful here:
- this article already includes a dedicated section on historical IQ classification tables
- the linked page is not being proposed as a citation for article content, only as a supplementary external resource for readers
- it is educational and non-paywalled, with source notes and archive links
If this is not appropriate under the external links guideline, I understand. Thanks for considering it. Baycanemir (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done. This would not be useful or compliant with WP:ELYES. Katzrockso (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)