This is all very fuzzy. "Heritability", of the sort that we have numbers from peer-reviewed articles on, means something specific, and that specific meaning is not genetically causal.
That wiki page lists a lot of evidence that a meaningful chunk is genetically causal. Is there a strong reason for me to think otherwise? Even the pessimistic numbers from gene mapping that are cited are .1-.2
I mean, start with the fact that it's a correlation statistic and not a causal statistic and just work your way back from that. Heritability --- of the kind with a research literature cite record --- is simply the ratio of phenotypical variation to genetic variation. The number of fingers on your hand is not, in that statistic, highly heritable.
I don't think there's a Wikipedia cite that's going to get you over that speed bump in your argument.
A lot of those studies work very hard to split apart the genetic (and sometimes including epigenetic) factors at point of sperm meets egg, the environmental factors in the womb, the parenting factors, and/or the rest of the post-birth environment. They're not doing a simple ratio.
And to the extent that research successfully isolates the genetic factors, we know it's not some outside factor causing a correlation, and we know it's not IQ causing genes. Anything isolated there is genes causing IQ.
I think you should take a beat and read up on assortative mating; also on heritability, which is a population statistic, not a measure of any single person. As it stands, this response you just wrote doesn't make sense.