We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately andimpartially. Our purpose isnot to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly.Never present fringe theories as fact.
If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use{{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy{{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevantWikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
No, but I can think of several editors who would write "Yes," which makes me hesitate in pursuing a time-sink at AfD. The lede does, however, require extensive trimming and re-sourcing if possible. As an aside, the combination of Arcturus' location in the red giant branch and its metal-poor state make it an...interesting star for positing the location of a "very advanced extraterrestrial civilization," but who am I to question the real estate preferences of ascended masters?JoJo Anthrax (talk)14:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed what looked like the most egregious source and its associated text in the article. Kinsha Books is a Netherlands-based publisher that mainly publishes works onquantum healing. --Reconrabbit17:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, do weneed pages on anything? This is a fairly well discussed topic in scholarly discussion of New Agers, which there is a lot of.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have stubs? Why do we have hundreds of thousands of badly written articles? That the sources are not IN the article means little.PARAKANYAA (talk)17:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion it is better to have no article at all than it is to have a poor article with poor sourcing. I know others disagree, but it is a defensible position considering that we should strive to put our best foot forward.jps (talk)18:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need these sorts of documentation of every harebrained alien community believed by New Age cultists? In general -- absolutely we do! (assuming RSes exist to support an such article). Does Snopes really need to document every single false urban legend? Yeah, they do. Learning the evolution of a culture gives the reader the tools to understand it. Much of what we think is 1950-70s "Saucer culture" turns out to actually be 1890-1920s "Theosophy/New Age culture", and that's an important fact for readers to know.Feoffer (talk)11:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that this could be a subsection ofStar people (New Age) as it is sometimes described as a subsection of that belief system (though the narrative is a little different as noted on the talk page discussion linked). --Reconrabbit13:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the same thing, which is my issue. Other than the fact they're both broad beliefs that involve aliens that are believed by New Agers, there isn't much commonality. Their origins histories and details are different.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if we had sources which studied these claims and made comparisons. But unlike the social science work done onUFO religions, discussion of how "benevolent extraterrestrials" are used as a shibboleth in New Age circles is confined to individual instances rather than being looked at as a common undercurrent. See alsoRamtha.jps (talk)11:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
warped-in. So Wikipedia now describes USRTK merely as "a nonprofit public health research and journalism organization which is dedicated to promoting transparency". But consideringWP:FRINGE, that's not the whole (or even the correct) story right?Bon courage (talk)05:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief.
In related news I constantly have to remove self-sourced statements by them that are presented as fact in articles relating to GMOs.Guy(help! -typo?)16:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief is right. I feel like I've seen a resurgence in people uncritically using organic industry related sources like that and becoming a huge time sink in saying it's ok to use them while ironically complaining about Monsanto's influence (whether real or spin) in the same vein. While we do occasionally catch non-independent stuff from the pesticide industry, it really feels like we're having to deal with the opposing industry(s) in terms of volume that people often have a blind spot for.
More recent cases I'vehad to remove have also tied into glyphosate-related litigation where people are trying to use sources with financial ties to the lawfirms trying to claim glyphosate causes cancer. Inthat case the author is a paid consultant of the lawfirm making those claims for about the last ~20 years, and it spells that out right in the paper. When we have editors insisting authors like that still aren't paid consultants for anyone even though they've been frequently referencing that very study, that just stirs things up even more. I know @Silver seren has been helpful too, but it's really feeling like editors are coming in very hot with these types of sources and creating timesinks often bowling over previous compromises on talk pages that long-time editors have helped craft while navigating more than just the competing industry viewpoint against GMOs/pesticides. It does seem like the issues fromWP:ARBGMO are flaring up again when it comes to advocacy in this topic, though there hasn't been much luck at AE in recent years on tamping down advocacy before it gets to be an even bigger problem, so it feels even worse in terms of support when repeatedly having to deal with sources like you mention Guy.KoA (talk)17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to see it too since while I think it can meetWP:FRINGEN, that iteration was pretty bare bones in sourcing and gets into someWP:PUFFERY language too. I at least added the mention of organic funding since the source had it already. It looks like they've expanded from mostly being a science-denialism group on GMOs to now expanding to anti-vaccine/COVID-19 conspiracies. It seems like they're filling the gap theNatural News used to hold.
This Guardian article actually gives good context on USTRK's interactions in the science denial real on the scientific consensus on GMO safety and close relationship (maybe an understatement) with the organic industry:The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook. I remember when their FOIA request activities in the anti-GMO realm got bad enough that even journals started speaking out.[1] You'd often hear of lesser known cases in ag. news too.[2]
Because theOrganic Consumers Association is involved, you get a tangled web on fringe stuff like anti-GMO and anti-vaccine.[3]. If you go searching for sources, you also have to be really careful to remove sites like USRTK, but you're still going to get a lot of the organic industry affiliated websites. While it's just a college newspaper,this one gave a good overview, and the lineOrganizations that claim scientists are in bed with corporate America aren’t necessarily free of those entangling alliances either. They are just better at keeping it on the down low. really describes the situation we run into as editors.
I'm not as up to speed on recent vaccine/COVID stuff with the group, but this 2021 article seemed to have a good summary.[4]. There are a few otherWP:PARITY type sources I saw too on COVID/vaccines.[5][6]KoA (talk)16:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your objections to citing USRTK seem to actually be objections to citing documents obtained by USRTK via FOIA or other releases. Regardless of USRTK's fringe status, that should not affect the ability of editors to cite such documents (which are not produced by USRTK). Who filed a FOIA request (or is hosting a released document) has little to no bearing on the reliability of the document.Nosferattus (talk)22:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
USRTK is an advocacy group. Nothing they say, or republish, can be taken at face value. Any reference to their webshite must be via third party sourcing. They lie. You cannot trust them as an honest broker.Guy(help! -typo?)00:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the reliability of USRTK FOIA releases or any source which is simply republishing FOIA releases is going to be very rarely relevant. While I admit I'm fairly biased against primary sources given my greatest concern tends to be BLP, even outside BLP there must be very few cases when FOIA releases have any use in articles except perhaps as additional links to documents discussed or maybe as external links. Even in cases outside of BLP where we can cite primary sources must more readily, I'm fairly sure very few FOIA releases should be cited directly since they are most likely documents or communication intended for internal usage of some government or government linked entity subject to FOIA so are would need interpretation from a secondary source before they can be used no matter if we are certain they are the original FOIA releases. In cases where someone asks something like "please provide the number of people arrested by federal agents in 2024 in each state or territory of the United States" or something else where it's more a case of the government compiling some data they have, I'd argue the information is undue if not covered in reliable secondary sources since it's not even info the government has specifically chosen to share but instead info they did so because someone asked them.Nil Einne (talk)08:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The past few days have felt like I've been transported back to 2015 with all the anti-GMO fringe nonsense going on on Wikipedia at the time. That USRTK article is a complete no-go. It doesn't help that both of the currently existing sources in the article are about how the group has been promoting the Covid lab leak claims, but specifically from a fringe conspiracy standpoint regarding EcoHealth and research that never actually happened in the first place. The first reference also discusses how USRTK members have been actively harassing people that work at EcoHealth and that has been resulting in death threats and other such nonsense. That article needs a complete overhaul to discuss the fringe, conspiracy nature of the group, both on the Covid topic and on all their past anti-GMO nonsense.SilverserenC23:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently only 4 sentences long (and only 3 at the time this thread was started). Please expand so the world knows how bad the organization truly is.--Animalparty! (talk)16:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the problem is escalating that I mentioned earlier with Nosferatus who commented above. There's more atTalk:Monsanto#Williams_2000_ghostwriting_controversy, but in short, the initial content was removed Imentioned earlier and justreinserted byNosferattus within 24 hours. They've been repeatedly alerted to 1RR in the topic and the expectations to get consensus and also revert to self-revert, but the kicker is that instead of trying to add the McHenry source (lawfirm COI source) while keeping the same text, they're now trying to add Carey Gillam (organic industry/USRTK COI source). I'm really short on time at this point to bring it to AE, so I don't know if you want to look at it as an adminDoug Weller, or if you have ideasGuy problem of people pushing those sources? 1RR was at least supposed to keep people from inserting problematic content and just reinserting it when someone said it needs to be taken to the talk page, and I'm not getting any traction with this editor on understanding that.KoA (talk)22:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, "people" are not fringe, and even FRINGE says it's about beliefs, not people. Even the best or worst people, in a BLP biography, will have not the entire article be about their valid or nonsense beliefs. Balance the views correctly when they need to be mentioned, but the article still has to be neutral to every character and word written. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)16:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not a fringe person but a person many of whose views are on the fringe. I think that could be a bit picky for some people but not her, Nevertheless I hope others would take a look at her article.Doug Wellertalk17:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with the word balance asWP:FALSEBALANCE is policy in the context of fringe. In this case we are definitely dealing with a fringe advocate (i.e., fringe person in any plain meaning as Doug put it).KoA (talk)20:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in poor shape, for instance the balancing of her beleives infunctional medicine with one person view against gives a false balance. Functional medicines, as per it's article, is pseudoscience. This isn't a case of her opinions against another person's opinion but her believes being pseudoscience according to the mainstrean. I don't think this is the only instance of softballing some of her more out there believes. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°18:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it does seem untethered from MEDRS sourcing when it comes to validity of views, not to mention difficult to sort through the very bare references. I'm seeing at the bottom her repeating the myth that somehow knowing your farmer magically makes raw milk safe too.KoA (talk)20:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem saying “she is an advocate for fringe views” with perhaps some examples… (I suspect that there are likely multiple sources to support this).Blueboar (talk)20:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the article gives way to much validity to many of those views, and describes them how practitioners would like them to be described rather than how the mainstream view describes them. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of, it will likely need to be rewritten. Removing part of "view A" from the structure of "this is view A and this is view B" doesn't fully solve the problem, as the problem is the structure itself. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sorry for my long statement, but there is a big mess going on in Lithuanian topics for years (which recently increased) and I think it is necessary to present context, description of recent disruption to simplify the understanding of the problematics of these issues for unrelated users
A new articleGreat Lithuanians was created by user Heroldicas on September 10, 2025 which includeLitvinist statements that "The aim was to foster mental and civic Russification ofyoung “Samogitians” (i.e., modern Lithuanians)" and "In informal schools for “the people” set up at manor houses, instruction was usually in Polish, and less often in thelocal “Samogitian dialect”, i.e., modern Lithuanian". Multiple users atTalk:Lithuanians#Revert war about hatnotes andTalk:Great Lithuanians noted that article "Great Lithuanians" featuresWP:OR,WP:SYNTH. The first version of this article (English version is just a direct translated version of it) was created in 2023 in the Polish Wikipedia (see article:Starolitwini) solely by a user with a hidden IP and justone edit, so highly likely he was just aWP:TROLL. When it was attempted to remove (with provided justification) the English Wikipedia article "Great Lithuanians" user Bildete started reverting and received support fromIP user 46.112.94.52. Another user Mindaur also stated in article's edit history that the article's content is WP:FRINGE (his edit).
Long story aboutLitvinism in short (context): this point of view theories claim that the "real"Lithuania (Belarusian:Litva) isBelarus and the "real"Lithuanians areBelarusians (WP:FRINGE,WP:NATIONALISM, not recognized by top-class reliable sources), while the nowadays Lithuanians and Lithuania is a "falsification of history" (Litvinists equate nowadays Lithuanians, Lithuania,Lithuanian language toSamogitians,Samogitia,Samogitian dialect), however internationally recognized scientific point of view (WP:NPOV) recognize Lithuania's continuous history sinceat least 1009 and support that modern Lithuanians ancestors (see:Lithuanians (tribe) article) created Lithuania (Duchy of Lithuania,Kingdom of Lithuania,Grand Duchy of Lithuania). The statehood continuity of Lithuania is also noted in thepreamble of the nowadaysConstitution of Lithuania (see:here). As a proof that these Litvinists claims are niche even in Belarus see the Belarusian Wikipedia articles:be:Літва (Litva = Lithuania) andbe:Гісторыя Літвы (History of Litva = Lithuania) which support claims that Lithuania (the same country as nowadays) was first mentioned in 1009 and now continues its long history.
Multiple users atTalk:Lithuanians#Revert war about hatnotes,Talk:Great Lithuanians,Talk:Lithuania proper#Merge proposal stated that article "Great Lithuanians" should not exist and multiple users also opposed its deletion/merging. I provided (see:my statement of 17:06, 6 October 2025) many quotes from multipleWP:RS that the "Great Lithuanians" are "Lithuanians ofLithuania proper" (also known as "Great Lithuania" or "Real Lithuania") and in the Lithuanian language they are called "didlietuviai" (a very popular and widely used term), which is acompound word of two Lithuanian words: "didelis" (Great) and "lietuviai" (Lithuanians). This is a distinction ofLithuania proper's Lithuanians from the Lithuanians ofLithuania minor who are called in Lithuanian as "mažlietuviai", which is a compound word of two words: "mažas" (Little) and "lietuviai" (Lithuanians), so translates to English as "Little Lithuanians". Even in article "Great Lithuanians" used source by Piotr ŁossowskiPróba przewrotu hitlerowskiego w Kłajpedzie 1933–1935 describe Lithuanians of Lithuania proper, so the article "Great Lithuanians" was so poorly written that its sources even contradict each other (or statements based on them are simplyWP:SYNTH,WP:OR,WP:HOAX).
User Bildete even made defamatory statements towards Lithuanians: "Someone could also be saying modern Lithuanians are fake" (his edit), so he clearly demonstrated that according to him there is a probability that "modern Lithuanians are fake" (his repeated reverting to keep previously mentioned theories about Samogitians and Samogitian dialect:1,2 also support such point of view of his). User sbaioreported user Bildete at WP:AN for violation of multiple rules and guidelines, however since the article "Great Lithuanians" was created by another user Heroldicas and the actions of users Heroldicas, Bildete received support from other users and IP user 46.112.94.52 (who alsorestored the same claims about Samogitians as user Bildete) it is clear that it is a much broader problem.
1) So firstly I invite to discuss here: whether perWP:RS the "Great Lithuanians" (Lithuanian: didlietuviai) are "Lithuanians ofLithuania proper" and whether theories stating otherwise areWP:FRINGE.
Secondly, since the activity of Litvinist editors in the Lithuanian topics of the English Wikipedia increased in the recent years, so I think now is the right time for the English Wikipedia community and its administrators to act strictly againstLitvinism because if Litvinists will be allowed to attempt rewriting Lithuanian topics articles by pushing their point of view then thereliability of Wikipedia will be severely damaged and it will result in manyWP:BATTLEGROUND situations because the Lithuanians and other users who areWikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia will certainly oppose Litvinist editors who present defamatory claims towards the Lithuanians, Lithuania, Lithuanian language, name of Lithuania. I think that this discussion about fringe theories here can be a foundation for the future implementation ofWP:TOPICBAN perWP:NOTHERE to aggressive Litvinist editors (who deny Lithuanians, Lithuania, Lithuanian language historical continuity since the early statehood periods of Lithuania). In the past Litvinist editors multiple times attacked such high-importance articles asLithuania,Name of Lithuania,Grand Duchy of Lithuania, etc., so a clear identification how to tractate the problem of Litvinism would simplify the reporting of disruptive users atWP:AE perWikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe instead of discussing with thousands of characters whethermodern Lithuania/Lithuanians are fake or not.
2) So secondly I invite to discuss here: whether perWP:RS users/sources denying Lithuanians, Lithuania, Lithuanian language historical continuity since the early statehood periods of Lithuania areWP:FRINGE. This would also be useful in the context of page "Historical Lithuanians" (= are "Lithuanians" also are "historical Lithuanians").
Previously mentioned and talk pages discussions participants were notified about this discussion with a dedicated template.
The "Great Lithuanians" is a straight translation of the plwiki articlepl:Starolitwini. There are two problems with this: (1) Polish word "Linwini" is polysemic, so word-for word translation can and did cause issues. (2) Other language Wikipedias have way less stricter rules for citing and OK, so II am alwways lookking with suspicion on these. That, said, I agree that the current text is of dubious quality and mmust be rewritten from scratch. I was initiaaally supporting merging (after severe cleanup), but some search shows that the term "starolitwini" is indeed discussed in RS, e.g.,"Senalietuviai" ir "jaunalietuviai" kaip analitinės kategorijos, apibūdinančios lenkų ir lietuvių konfliktą, mostly as a point of contention. --Altenmann>talk20:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Clarification of the position: clearly, no sources say thatstarolitwini is the same asGreat Lithuanians, i.e., the article "Great Lithuanians" is ignorant or intentionalWP:SYNTH so it must not exist, whilestarolitwini is a valid subject about the controversy on the break of 19/20 centuries. --Altenmann>talk19:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: I presented the main questions to discuss in bold, so it is not necessary to read everything, but the provided context might be useful for users unfamiliar with Litvinism topic (in fact very few people really are).
Your mentioned "senalietuviai" (Old Lithuanians) and "jaunalietuviai" (Young Lithuanians) is a confusing terminology and it does not have clear definitions, distinctions to create dedicated articles. It does not mean that all supporters of the 1918Act of Independence of Lithuania were "jaunalietuviai" (Young Lithuanians) and that either "jaunalietuviai" (Young Lithuanians) or "senalietuviai" (Old Lithuanians) were automatically not "Lithuanians". For example, Lithuanian nobleman Konstantinas Radvila of the historicalRadziwiłł family was a friend and supporter of the Lithuanian PresidentAntanas Smetona (source with photos), whileJózef Piłsudski, who personally spoke in the Lithuanian (sources:1,2) and Polish languages, hailed fromLithuania proper and belonged to the Lithuanian originHouse of Piłsudski, was a cherisher of thePolish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, not Independent Lithuania. Lithuanian noblemanStanisław Narutowicz was one of the20 signatories of the 1918 Act of Independence of Lithuania, while his brotherGabriel Narutowicz was the first President of Poland. All four of these individuals can be easily described as "senalietuviai" (Old Lithuanians) and they belonged to the oldLithuanian nobility (who were significantly repressed by Russia in 1795-1918 and quite few of them remained until 1918). The "senalietuviai" (Old Lithuanians) can be either described as purely "Lithuanians" (e.g. Konstantinas Radvila, Stanisław Narutowicz) or as "Polish–Lithuanians" (e.g. Józef Piłsudski) and no additional pages/articles are necessary. Nowadays there are no "senalietuviai" (Old Lithuanians) or "jaunalietuviai" (Young Lithuanians). --Pofka21:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: An important point to note here about term "senlietuviai" (English: Old Lithuanians; Polish: Staro-Litwini) is that perWP:RSthere were no "Old Lithuanians" who were neither "Lithuanians", neitherPolish–Lithuanians. Claiming otherwise isWP:FRINGE because per WP:RS nowadays Lithuanians ancestors speaking and writing in theLithuanian language and who restored Lithuania's statehood in 1918 did not appear from nowhere in the 20th century and their ancestors also were "Old Lithuanians" (e.g. Lithuanian monarchsGediminas,Algirdas,Kęstutis,Vytautas the Great are simply "Lithuanians", so same as Lithuanian presidentsAntanas Smetona orGitanas Nausėda). There already is an articleLithuanians (tribe) about old easternBaltic Lithuanian tribes - pay attention that the term "rytiniai senlietuviai" (English: Eastern Old Lithuanians) is already used there and it is a notable topic for the period when there still was no Lithuanian state (Lithuania), which was before KingMindaugas united Lithuanian tribes into a single state and founded Lithuania (see:Encyclopedia Britannica's article about Mindaugas). So per WP:RS and reliable scientific point of view there is no valid justification to have additional articles "Old Lithuanians" or "Great Lithuanians" because personalities who sometimes are described with these terms fall within other articles "Lithuanians" and "Polish–Lithuanian identity". Personalities with a Polish–Lithuanian identity like Jozef Pilsudski are already covered atPolish–Lithuanian identity#19th and 20th centuries. If there would be an article "Old Lithuanians" then its reliable content would have to be dismantled into two articles "Lithuanians" and "Polish–Lithuanian identity". --Pofka17:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mindaur it's pretty easy to find such sources. There is article by Rimantas Miknys and Darius Staliūnas, Lithunian historians, calledThe “Old” and “New” Lithuanians: Collective Identity Types in Lithuania at the Turn of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. You can also check other writings of these authors.Marcelus (talk)16:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: We are discussing the term "Great Lithuanians", which usage overlaps but not the same as "Old Lithuanians" (starolitwini) (I will not go into detail here); and mix-and-matching them is one of the problems with the discussed article. An example of bullshitting copied from plwiki intoGreat Lithuanians inA “historical Lithuanian” was someone inhabiting “historical Lithuania”, i.e. the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, of noble or princely origin, which is amisinterpretation of the source, not to say that it excludes 80% of the population of GDL. In the same way the article you mentioned"The “Old” and “New” Lithuanians:..." is misinterpreted. In other words, while the terms "Great Lithuanians" and "Old Lithuanians" are indeed in use, Pofka's complaint is not about them but aboutthe WP article, which in current state is grossly misleading and must be rewritten from scratch, following the sources, and not what Polish wikipedians wrote inpl:Starolitwini. Hence Pofka's suggestion: kill the article into a redirect. --Altenmann>talk17:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we doWP:TNT sometimes. In this case the rticle is long and fixing it would require a long and meticulous check against each and every reference. I did check first best two and immediately detected serious problems: quoting out of context and misrepresenting the source cited. Keeping in mind that quite a few sources are not readily accessible, I am inclined to favor TNT and a complete rewrite from scratch. --Altenmann>talk19:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a fork, but rather a subtopic, but I agree that a good start would be to see if it is possible make a separate section about the controversy there. If it grows, it may be split out perWP:Summary style. --Altenmann>talk16:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: I looked into the WP:RS you referenced. From its introduction:Researchers who have revived these terms seek among other things to criticise the dominant view among historians that the Lithuanian-Polish conflict of the late 19th to the early 20th century was a clash between two modern nationalisms. So, the authors: 1) discuss the "Old Lithuanian" and "New Lithuanian" terms, but point out that thedominant view by historians is different; 2) the whole debate is around the Lithuanian-Polish conflict in late 19th century. The entire chapter by these authors discusses thisconflict. In conclusion, the authors write:At first sight the section of the conservative Lithuanian gentry which often referred to themselves as Lithuanians might be the most ideal representatives of the “Old Lithuanians.” However, <...> the main axis of the conflict lay between the modern Lithuanian movement and the modern Polish, primarily ND [ – National Democratic Party], national movement. It is evident that WP:RS is about a different context and topic – the Polish-Lithuanian conflict in a particular time period; moreover, the authors refute the proposed terms as a useful explanation, arguing (consistently with the dominant view amongst the historians) that the conflict was indeed between the two national movements (nationalisms).
The article "Great Lithuanians" neither provides such context nor discusses the conflict in such light; it uses different terminology; it even includes 16th–18th century. Worth noting that most historians agree that thenation state is generally a late 19th century concept. In this regard, most European states have difference between the old and newpoliteia.
Random reply, I haven't looked into this but not all historians agree that nationalism and nationstates are a 19th century concept, and that is SYNTH to apply it to a specific region unless sources do. Many historians have argued that there are nations and nationalisms that predate the traditional 19th century timeframe which is limiting and overly restrictive to a certain historical school.Andre🚐19:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre: Thanks for joining. There is absolutely no dispute in the top-classWP:RS that, for example, medieval Lithuanian monarchsMindaugas,Gediminas,Algirdas,Vytautas the Great are of the same Lithuanian ethnicity/nationality as modern Lithuanian presidentsAntanas Smetona,Gitanas Nausėda (for example, see anarticle about history of Lithuania in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times."). Some representatives of Poland (when the statehoods of Poland and Lithuania were restored in 1918 and thePolish–Lithuanian War began) attempted to prove withWP:FRINGE theories and propaganda that those who restored Lithuania's statehood in 1918 were not Old/Historical Lithuanians and in 1920 initiated the creation of theRepublic of Central Lithuania. The result? The project of the Republic of Central Lithuania failed miserably because it was not recognized by ANY countries worldwide except for Poland and eventually it was simply annexed by Poland. In contrary, Lithuania restored by Lithuanians in 1918 was recognized by all major countries worldwide in late 1910s – 1920s, except for Poland which recognized Lithuania only on August 26, 1991. So even more than 100 years ago in the prevailing and mainstream views of politicians and scientists it was clear that those who restored Lithuania's statehood in 1918 were descendants of Old/Historical Lithuanians and that there is a historical continuity of Lithuanians and Lithuania since premodern times. Consequently, even if there still are some 21st century authorsattempting to prove otherwise (thatLithuanians/Lithuania is not Lithuanians/Lithuania), it is even moreWP:FRINGE than 100+ years ago. --Pofka10:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems reasonably well referenced; the problem is how to translate Polish historiography terms to English. We also need to elaborate on whether this is mainstream historiography or more fringe-ish in Poland. I am pretty sure it is rather unpopular in Lithuania (which leads to recurring attempts by Lithuanian editors to delete it...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Instead of accusing Lithuanians that something is unpopular in Lithuania can you, as a Polish user, answer to a few questions? Firstly, how do we translate English words "Old Lithuanians" to Polish language? It is "Starzy Litwini", right? Secondly, how do we translate English words "Great Lithuanians" to Polish language? It is "Wielcy Litwini", right? So why do you support a creation and preservation of an article titled "Great Lithuanians" (Polish: Wielcy Litwini) but based on sources about "Old Lithuanians" (Polish: Starzy Litwini)? "Old Lithuanians" (Lithuanian: senlietuviai) and "Great Lithuanians" (Lithuanian: didlietuviai) are completely different things.Can you provide at least some quotes from multipleWP:RS which support your actions and statements that the "Great Lithuanians" (Polish: Wielcy Litwini; Lithuanian: didlietuviai) are not Lithuanians ofLithuania proper (I say this because you oppose the remaking of an article "Great Lithuanians" to a redirect page to "Lithuania proper")? If you do not provide such quotes from multiple WP:RS and continuereverting + supporting an article full ofWP:OR,WP:HOAX,WP:SYNTH, do you realize that your actions highly likely fall withinWP:NOTHERE in Lithuanian topics? By the way, do you automatically fully trust content published by auser with a hidden IP and just one edit just because he included and cited many Polish language sources (highly dubious that he cited them correctly as it was already questioned by other users, not only me, so that is why I request you to provide relevant quotes of WP:RS)? --Pofka19:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked to provide at least a single EnglishWP:RS that would describe the concept of "Great Lithuanians" as such. So far, the authors provided only the same few Polish sources. FromWP:DUE:If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts. If it's notWP:FRINGE, then why is it problematic to find EnglishWP:RS? So far, I have not seen any evidence that such point of view is accepted in Lithuanian or, in fact, widely accepted in Polish historiography (let alone the total absence of sources in English). The article itself is problematic and echoes the points of the pseudo-historicLitvinism theory. We exclude pseudo-historic concepts, unless they are regardedWP:N and are described as such. FromWP:PSEUDOSCIENCE:Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. Hence, I am of the opinion that the article under such title should not exist; the position of those few Polish sources can, however, be evaluated and if they represent a significant minority view, then they can be included in another article as long as they are attributed and notWP:UNDUE. --Mindaur (talk)15:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree withPofka, but conciseness is desired. Regarding question 1), clearly, perWP:RS, the term "Great Lithuanians" should not be used because it in such a fringe term in itself - asMindaur already pointed out,WP:DUE states:If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts". From my search on Google Books and Scholar, when the term "Great Lithuanians" is used, it's either an outdated term in 1930s texts, or translated from German as a term used in reference to "Lithuanians ofLithuania proper", generally in the context of relations with the Lithuanians fromLithuania Minor. Examples from texts (both coincidentally written by Germans)And now the influx of Lithuanian citizens from Lithuania begins, whom one calls Great-Lithuanians (Großlitauer) in contrast to the Lithuanians Minor [...][7];The analysis of organisational structure and semiotics reveals a special kind of German nationalism centred on the regional category of Memelländer, which contrasted with the national category of Great-Lithuanians.[8] As for question 2), it is clear that users and sources that engage in denying Lithuania, Lithuanians, and their language's historical continuity areWP:FRINGE, because merely making such statements makes their reliability suspect - akin in absurdity to if someone said that the Romans never spoke Latin. On a sidenote, just a reminder about Kremlin being engaged inRussian disinformation andpropaganda, especially in historical articles - see the articleLitvinism about how Russians repeatedly make claims about how the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was not Lithuanian/Baltic but actually entirely Slavic as well as other narratives to separate Lithuanians from their historical state to justify Russian imperialism, which is now causing the biggest war on the European continent with theRussian invasion of Ukraine. PS: The articleGreat Lithuanians is clearly poorly-referenced, because the first source in that article for the term itself is from a text about interwarKlaipėda instead of a book dedicated solely to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the identity of the people that lived in it. Another source is calledUtracony Wschód: antropologiczne rozważania o polskości - translates to "The Lost East: Anthropological Reflections on Polishness". Sounds like it's continuing the nationalisticKresy myth. I checked another source - Buchowski's bookLitwomani i polonizatorzy - for how many times the term "Old Lithuanians" (starolitwin) is used. The grand total is... FOUR times. In a book that has +460 pages. Clearly,Great Lithuanians does not merit its own Wikipedia article, judging by the sources it resorts to -the existence of that article, as well as that of other potential disinformation targeting Lithuanian history and identity, on Wikipedia is a complete mistake and should not be.--+JMJ+ (talk)19:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andre has asserted thatthe consensus on race and intelligence does not apply to the question of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence sinceAshkenazi Jewish and Jewish in general are not races, but an ethnicity and ethnic groups.
Katzrockso and I have countered that geneticists don't make a substantive distinction between races, ethnicities, or other conventional names for population groups –– they speak instead about "population groups" and "group differences" when speaking precisely about this issue.
This disagreement emerged in the context of a specific disagreement about sourcing, and over the fringe status of the work of particular individuals (Henry Harpending andGregory Cochran). We can certainly discuss that too, but I would like to differentiate that discussion from the core question of whether the consensus on race and intelligence –– i.e."the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory" –– applies broadly to ethnic groups as well.
To be clear, the main dispute, which was initiated by the revert by Zenomonoz, is whether it is fair to add the sentences, sourced to Ferguson, that Talmudic reasons are to do with Ashkenazi intelligence, usingWP:PARITY to use an unpublished, un-peer-reviewed article by Ferguson to debunk Cochran, which is published in a reliable journal by Cambridge. I concede that Cochran is in a minority view that is not shared by most scientists, but not that he was dismissed out of hand as a crank such that it is fair to use PARITY on him. The article is highly critical and dismissive of Cochran, and nobody has proposed a change to that, even though in part it uses SPLC to debunk research papers. Any consensus about race science shouldn't apply to a paper plainly about ethnicity, a much smaller population than a race (were there a rigorous definition of race, which probably there isn't) and much more defensible concept. AJ is a bottlenecked population which, due to endogamy, is largely descended from a small group of fewer than 1000 individuals, which is why AJ can have some genetic diseases at a higher incidence. The ideas that this might be correlated with IQ aren't accepted, but I have yet to see a source that clearly states that this is fringe and pseudoscientific, just an opinion of editors. Without that RS, I do not think the use of PARITY is fair. It should be enough to find a peer reviewed published academic review stating an academic consensus perWP:RS/AC or find one to use in lieu of Ferguson. This does not hinge on the reliability of Cochran because he is already used and nobody is adding or removing him. This does hinge on the difference between fringe and simply questionable and not accepted minority papers.Andre🚐03:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can definitely have that conversation about the proposed sentence –– and I am not at all committed to defending it –– but over the course of that conversation you made some claims about the fringe status of claims about Ashkenazi Jewish intellectual superiority which I don't think were accurate, and it became clear that the debate was growing repetitive. In any event, let's let others weigh in on this core issue, and possibly create a separate subheader to discuss the proposed sentence.Generalrelative (talk)03:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In support of my view, I have cited a self-published explainer by four prominent population geneticists, includingEwan Birney, who is one of the most prominent living geneticists, titled,"Race, genetics and pseudoscience: an explainer":
‘Human biodiversity’ proponents sometimes assert that alleged differences in the mean value of IQ when measured in different populations – such as the claim that IQ in some sub-Saharan African countries is measurably lower than in European countries – are caused by genetic variation, and thus are inherent. The purported genetic differences involved are usually attributed to recent natural selection and adaptation to different environments or conditions. Often there are associated stories about the causes of this selection, for example that early humans outside Africa faced a more challenging struggle for survival, or that via historical persecution and restriction of professional endeavours, Ashkenazi Jews harbour genes selected for intellectual and financial success. Such tales, and the claims about the genetic basis for population differences, are not scientifically supported.
The explainer concludes by noting that such "human biodiversity" proponents constitutea vocal fringe of race pseudoscience.
Andre has countered that because it is self-published, this source is not reliable, despite thebona fides of its authors. I then provided a peer-reviewed source published inAmerican Psychologist,"Confronting scientific racism in psychology: Lessons from evolutionary biology and genetics", which mentions "race" and "nation" but not explicitly "ethnicity" or "Jewish intelligence":
Recent articles claim that the folk categories of race are genetically meaningful divisions, and that evolved genetic differences among races and nations are important for explaining immutable differences in cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime, sexual behavior, and wealth; all claims that are opposed by a strong scientific consensus to the contrary.
Because this source does not explicitly refer to to ethnicity and Jews, it was deemed by Andre to be irrelevant to the discussion.
I didn't say the self-published source was unreliable per se. SPS are reliable for the opinion of experts writing them. That doesn't make them equally good as peer-reviewed published articles and reviews. I said it doesn't say what it is being used for, and it doesn't satisfy PARITY or RS/AC.Andre🚐03:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did, Andre. You accused me multiple times of not supplying RS even after I explained why I thought this source was reliable. Do I need to hunt down diffs? And what part of it doesn't say what it is being used for? It clearly states that the idea thatAshkenazi Jews harbour genes selected for intellectual and financial success isnot scientifically supported. That's what I was using it to say to you. Folks can wade through that discussion if they want and see for themselves.Generalrelative (talk)03:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the source was unreliable. I said it doesn't support the argument or the claim of fringeness or academic consensus. Nowhere on the discussion do I say any source offered was unreliable full stop.Andre🚐03:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that wasn't clear to me, but I trust that you are speaking in good faith about your intentions. My apologies for getting heated. I still don't really understand the nature of your objection (the sources seem crystal clear on the matter to me), but I respect you as an editor and I know that whatever is going on is coming from a place of legitimate intellectual engagement. Hopefully others will find a way to resolve this.Generalrelative (talk)03:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you stated[9] that "I'm not questioning Birney reliability or credentials, that is a straw man, and I'm saying if the source being critiqued is reliable it should be critiqued by equally or more reliable sources, not blogs and unpublished drafts".Katzrockso (talk)04:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear Andre, I do think interrogating the evidence something is fringe critically is appropriate and should be done with vigour, but I would like to raise a point of order thatWP:RS/AC, which appears to be the evidence that you requested on the talk page, is applicable to statements made in mainspace. Editors participating in talk and projectspace discussions on the evaluation of sources are expected to synthesise, analyse and evaluate evidence in ways that would not be appropriate to put in an article.Alpha3031 (t •c)04:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's true, but there still needs to beA statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view Though, I am not claiming that talk page assertions absent this violate a guideline, but they still need RS, preferably a review article for scientific topics.Andre🚐04:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And my contention was that Bird et al. satisfies this gap, by stating that claims thatevolved genetic differences among races and nations are important for explaining immutable differences in cognitive ability ... are opposed by astrong scientific consensus to the contrary. I get that this would be a SYNTH connection to make in article space (connecting this claim about race / nation to what other sources such as Birney say about population groups in general, and Ashkenazi Jews in particular), which is why I didn't propose it, but as Alpha3031 reminds us, the rules for establishing talk page consensus are different.Generalrelative (talk)05:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than just SYNTH - it's making a different claim altogether, as races and nations, are not equal to ethnic groups, they are different words, different meanings, both in terms of technical terms like in genetics or anthropology, and in common parlance as well. It is not reasonable to assume that "race and nations" means "ethnic group." The other source that says "population" is different but that didn't make the same claim of a strong scientific consensus. The consensus is indeed quite strong for races and nations as it should be.Andre🚐05:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think your understanding of this is consistent with expert opinion. If it were, Birney et al. wouldn't have said what they said –– equating claims about racial differences with claims about Ashkenazi intelligence –– in the quote above. Yes, this is SYNTH but precisely the kind of SYNTH we are expected to do in evaluating content and sources, as the lead section ofWP:NOR states.Generalrelative (talk)05:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you think that the academic consensus extends to ethnic groups somewhat implicitly based on your knowledge -- and I think you think the distinction might not be meaningful. You've said as much. But what you're dismissing as minor synth is the difference between everything and nothing. Did you know that some studies estimate that the AJ bottleneck is only 350 people? That is worlds different from the idea ofeveryone whose skin is lighter than a Crayola "peach" crayon. That is millions maybe billions of people. It's not at all a given that the descendants of 350 people, largely living in ghettos and with a strong social proscription on marrying outside the group for hundreds of years, might not have a different genetic makeup that affects behavior in some meaningful way. That doesn't mean it has been shown. There is no study that shows that or at least ones that claim to are highly disputed and not accepted by mainstream science. But there are indeed legitimate studies that ask the question and consider it, and asking it isn't automatically akin to asserting that white people are X. That is a much different type of thing. Consider the Chad and Brym article below. It considers the genetic explanation before ultimately rejecting it. But not out of hand, and not with extreme prejudice as one might reject the idea that the Moon landing was staged.Andre🚐05:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's precisely the kind of "editor opinion" I think we should be avoiding. It's not up to you or me to decide how many people constitutes a population group. We should be following what experts like Birney say. And lots of studies consider the matter before rejecting it, including the ones I cited above. The point is that they reject it. In any case, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement, even if we aren't going to agree in this instance. I'll leave it to others to continue this conversation for now. Cheers,Generalrelative (talk)05:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was! I said it wasn't for us to determine how many people constitutes a population group. That's for experts to say, and I cited Birney as an example.Generalrelative (talk)06:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that AJ as a group has a very small genetic bottleneck. So conclusions that race science is impossible scientifically or for "nations" ie everyone who lives in France, do not necessarily apply to an ethnic group in which most people have traceable cousin relationships on both sides of their family to everyone else.Andre🚐06:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article you are citing literally states "Little credible evidence thus supports the notion that genetic differences between ethnic groups can give rise to appreciable differences in intelligence." This is the precise position we have been arguing the entire time is the scientific consensus and that Cochran's theories otherwise areWP:FRINGE. Are we to presume that the black-white racial gap is notWP:FRINGE simply because Nisbett et al consider it and dismiss it now?Katzrockso (talk)05:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isnot theprecise position. "Little credible evidence thus" is not the same as "absolutely none!" Everything vs nothing.Andre🚐05:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe the evidence supports the claim that Ashkenazi Jews form a genetically homogeneous group essentially all descended from 350 ancestors. In the U.S., which has the second largest Jewish population after Israel, the Ashkenazi Jewish diaspora tends to be assimilated and in recent decades accepting of marriage outside the ethnic group. In addition, just as the practice of slaveholders of coercing sex from enslaved women resulted in African Americans having mixed Black/white ancestry, so also the antisemitic pogroms in the Russian Empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries, during which the attackers massively raped Jewish women, resulted in a large proportion of Ashkenazi Jews who have mixed ancestry. In reality, as in the case of racial classifications, the category is amorphous and not well defined. In the U.S. a common practice (for example, at universities) is to define a Jew to be someone who self-identifies as a Jew (and analogously for African Americans, Hispanics, and other racial or ethnic groups).NightHeron (talk)19:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't super relevant to the discussion but simply in the abstract interest of edification... that is an outdated view. The 350 number comes from one study, but the number of founders of most AJ was under 2000. Mostly it is now thought that the primary admixture into the AJ population were Southern Europeans, i.e. Italians or Greeks probably, and happened earlier than the 14th century (see the Erfurt study, Xue, Behar, etc.) but there were 2 or more events, pre- and post- the bottleneck. Probably from conversion rather than the scenario you propose. The Eastern European admixture, while it is does exist, is smaller, and some AJ have little or no Eastern European (ie Slavic) admixture. There has been considerable recent research into this which is well-covered in Wikipedia (Genetic studies of Jews, while it suffers from a primary source overreliance, is more or less a good place to begin. Read the citations over the article text when in doubt). The AJ population, while it is not 100% ethnically homogenous, there is considerable shared ancestry due to the bottlenecks and the strong ingroup anchoring effects, ghettos, segregation, etc in the middle ages and a strong cultural emphasis on marrying within the group leading to endogamy. That doesn't mean there aren't individuals or groups who self-identify as Jewish who aren't in this category, but we are speaking of the AJ ethnic group, which contra your claim, is well-studied, well-defined, and not as amorphous as you claim. Modern DNA testing can identify AJ components. For example in a modern DNA test, if both parents were AJ, DNA companies consider the entire founding medieval thing AJ based on their panels, so you might get a result of 98 or 99% AJ with trace amounts of something else like North African, European, or Asian. But the founding percentages of AJ are estimated at 30-70 or 50-50 Levantine/European. Someone who had only 1 AJ parent would see that go down to 48 or whatever. Someone who self-identifies as a Jew culturally or religiously, isn't necessarily ethnically AJ. The AJ population clusters tightly, which is why you have these higher rates of Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's, BRCA etc.Andre🚐19:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
regarding the race and intelligence consensus, i think the consensus could be extended to any ethnic group, if we extend a recent arbcom decision, about british muslims and UK grooming gangs.[11]in general, agree cochran is a fringe source. His other "scientific views" include the idea that homosexuality is caused by a virus.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)04:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That decision is about whether this is covered by the CTOP. I would say there is no doubt that it is covered by the CTOP. Arbcom doesn't rule on content disputes, just behavioral ones.Andre🚐04:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thats semantics though. if the broad consensus from the rfc applies across the CTOP area, which was how the RFC was initially intended, i meant to say extending the arbcom decision would also extend to AJI.In general, if we are getting into the debate of whether a group is a nationality, an ethnic group, or a race to weasel out of this, its probably a sign we are trying to look for an exception from the consensus, or seeking some new consensus.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)04:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's covered by the CTOP because the article relates to race broadly construed, if only because critics of the paper call it race science, you've now been construed. However, we don't have to broadly construe all semblance of nuance. Race is not an ethnic group, and what an academic consensus about debunked race science may be, or a Wikipedia one, does not automatically apply to all studies of the relationship between genetics and ethnic groups (unless a consensus finds that it does)Andre🚐04:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll step in here to defend Andre. I think it's clear he isn't trying to weasel out of anything. I think he believes the stuff about a population bottleneck being a reason to have doubts about whether the consensus applies here. I just think he's wrong and that the sources say so, but it's clearly a good-faith debate.Generalrelative (talk)04:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't we established that I didn't defend Cochran's theory? This isn't Cochran vs the world, Cochran already gets lambasted in the article text. I have always maintained the problem was the Ferguson material.Andre🚐05:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i'd also argue that if the area is covered by CTOP, and there is a long standing consensus not to push ideas of genetic driving a group's intelligence as a resolution to major debates throughout the ctop area, the onus is on checking if there is consensus for this specific carve-out, not on arguing that the broad consensus doesn't apply here.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)04:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one legalistically creating a wiggle room exception. The attempt is to use Ferguson (anthropologist, and SPS to boot) to make new claims about the Talmudic basis of AJ intelligence. The editor adding that even invoked IAR earlier.[12] My argument is to leave the status quo as-is, which already rakes Cochran over the coals and leaves him ragged on the side of the road.Andre🚐04:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all those who says this is clearly covered by the CTOP but also by the consensus on race and intelligence. While ethnic group can have a variety of meaning once you start talking about the genetics of an ethnic group you're getting into the areas which are akin to race. Any distinction between the genetic similarity of ethnic groups and the genetic similarity of races is meaningless IMO.Nil Einne (talk)05:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just compromise by keeping out Ferguson and including the existing non-peer-reviewed responses to Cochran, which are generally stronger than Ferguson. If Andre's not interested in pushing past that, I don't think we need to make a whole thing of this.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)03:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are the existing non-peer reviewed responses to Cochran "stronger" than Ferguson? As I described tomy response to Zenomonoz, "Our current exposition of the theory is completely WP:UNDUE as it describes the theory on its scientific merits and then largely lists the criticisms in terms of moral evaluations (e.g. Gilman's criticism connecting the portrayal of Jews to previous tropes, Adam Shapiro's criticism of Stepehn's citation of Cochran as an co-option of white supremacy) rather than any of the scientific demerits the theory possesses". An informed reader may mistakenly interpret the criticism of the thesis as "guilt by association", rather than fully understanding the much longer list of scientific issues that the theory has.Katzrockso (talk)03:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I explained why I believe that the inclusion of the Ferguson source is important from aWP:DUE standpoint, but I am not sure if "more reliable" applies here to all of the sources either. We have short criticisms from two scientists in popular science books (Rutherford & Reich), some news articles describing Bret Stephen's citation of the study (so barely even on the topic), and an argument from Sander Gilman about how the theory is reflective of some old "uncomfortable" theory from the 19th century. I don't think it's unambiguous that all or even any of these sources are more reliable or pertinent to the topic than a manuscript that did receive peer review (but was not published). One can read the second page of the manuscript, which describes how his manuscript was rejected, not for its lack of accuracy, but for minutiae that is all too common in academic publishing like the focus on one particular aspect of a topic over another.Katzrockso (talk)03:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're all pretty evidently pertinent, and you're neatly describing the ways in which those were all not self-published sources. I get your point about critiquing the substance of Cochran's argument rather than its morality, but if the body of non-self-published sources focuses on the latter, I'm comfortable with our summary doing the same. I'd be happy to discuss this part further, but I'd love to redirect us away from a discussion on where to draw the line on FRINGE that will surely be broader, more acrimonious, and overlong.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)04:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, sorry FFF! That's definitely the discussion I came here to start –– not intentionally acrimonious or overlong of course, but squarely focused on where to draw the line. Though, yeah, if others don't feel the need to pursue it further I'm 100% cool with that.Generalrelative (talk)04:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think covering largely moral critiques of the thesis is a complete disservice to the reader and is completely unbalanced (WP:UNDUE). As the guideline states, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement,juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery". I think that a reader of this page may inappropriately come away the impression that some scientists back in 2006 came up with a hypothesis that proposes serious questions, a few scientists have questions about their population genetics, but most of the criticism was on moral grounds. There's a reason this article has been deleted before, because it is very difficult to present this topic at all without violatingWP:NPOV.Katzrockso (talk)04:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, Ferguson is an anthropologist. Anthropologists do commonly study related topics, such as evolution, populations, etc (hence the subfield of biological/physical anthropology).Katzrockso (talk)04:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in the original thread, I only supported the inclusion of Ferguson insofar as we are citing Cochran. We should also strike the PGS study by Dunkel et al which was written by fringe racists like Emil Kirkegaard and other psuedoscientists who publish in Mankind Quarterly.Katzrockso (talk)04:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your argument is "we shouldn't cite Cochran," argue that, don't shoehorn in Ferguson. I reverted adding Ferguson, you never attempted to remove Cochran.Andre🚐04:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is both or neither, I added the source because Cochran was already cited and there was insufficient scientific criticism of the specific claims in the article.Katzrockso (talk)04:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't believe that the Cochran study should be removed, because it was covered widely in secondary sources, which means that it is ripe for mention in Wikipedia. My argument was just specifically thatinsofar as we include Cochran, we should include a exposition of the flawed scientific claims made in their article. I don't know how to make myself clearer on this point.Katzrockso (talk)04:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i think i support the inclusion of cochran as is when i look at the studies. For all his flaws cochrans study got significant media coverage. The study was also fairly criticized in later works and thats included on the page.
it seems undue actually to remove cochran. I think the current wording seems fine enough at neutrally discussing his work. And he is the guy who generated a lot of the discourse around a possible genetic effect, as long as we condition it with the current wording.
The paper received peer review - it was read by his peers. It is not certainly not the same as any random webpage of criticism posted to the internet. The second page clarifies that he submitted the manuscript and got responses saying that he should focus more on population genetics or more on anthropology, or that it was "obviously false". He made changes to the paper following peer review. He says he did not go forward with its publication because it does not fit in an academic journal (too long) but not long enough for a book - which is accurate. What academic journal is publishing 48 page critiques of a fringe theory? I implore editors in this thread to read the whole paper, when I first read it years ago I was shocked by how deplete of facts the original Cochran paper truly is.Katzrockso (talk)05:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not much I can add. My only contention was that it would be better to use a published source over a self published one. There are published ones arguing the same point as the sentence that Katzrockso inserted. I felt the proposal to completely delete the section on Cochran's thesis was unjustified. Controversial ideas get discussed on Wikipedia when those ideas have a lot of secondary source coverage and critique. There's no doubt some people come to the article precisely to see critique of this hypothesis.Zenomonoz (talk)04:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There are published ones arguing the same point as the sentence that Katzrockso inserted" none explicitly present the Talmudic theory in opposition to Cochran's theory from what I remember, so including them would beWP:SYNTH, but providing an alternative explanation for a observed set of facts is crucial to explaining why it is inaccurate.Katzrockso (talk)05:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Ferguson isn't qualified as an expert on Talmud, Jewish history, or on genetics, and his paper was, as you say, not published, and the peer review had significant concerns about the paper. That isn't "peer reviewed," the implication is that itpassed peer review after the changes. Might theWP:EXCEPTIONAL claims therein be related to why his paper was rejected and had to be self-published? He also hasn't published anything else about this topic. Everything else he's published is about warfare and poli sci stuff. Aren't there reliable geneticists or better suited other scholarly sources that make similar types of arguments that cultural factors were more salient? I really think there are, and not just because Zenomonoz asserted this.Andre🚐05:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He makes no "exceptional claims" in his paper, which is a ludicrous accusation. The reason the paper was not published is clearly explained on the second page of the article, as I have emphasized a number of times. The "significant concerns" you allude to were:
Another problem is the multidisciplinary character of this essay, and the single disciplinary character of reviewers. A population geneticist (apparently) said there should be more about population genetics, while curtailing the rest. An anthropologist (apparently) said it should focus on the anthropological literature criticizing genetic explanations (even though this article is an example of just that). Also, positions are very polarized. One reviewer said I did not recognize the strengths of NHAI, while another said that population geneticists regard it as obviously false, so that it may not merit such a published response.
Moreover, there is no extant evidence that the paper was "rejected" for content rather than the author deciding not to continue with attempts to publish it. Anyone familiar with scientific peer review understands that it takes a considerable amount of time, sometimes years, for a paper to be published, for a variety of reasons. That Ferguson deciding not to continue attempting publication of the manuscript is not evidence whatsoever that the paper is unreliable or flawed.Katzrockso (talk)05:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence can be explained by the tradition of the Talmud is pretty exceptional. Kind of like trading one unproven hypothesis for another.Andre🚐05:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One already present in the Wikipedia article, if one scrolls down toAshkenazi Jewish intelligence#Sociological explanations, and not some novel theory that Ferguson is proposing, but one based onprior scientific research. Read pages 29 and 30. As he states, "Before NHAI, we already had a very good answer--that Jews today partake of a cultural tradition emphasizing scholarship and abstract thought that may be without parallel in the Western world." It is not an exceptional claim to suggest that an already established theory is an alternative to a new theory.Katzrockso (talk)05:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could always attribute the claim with "In an unpublished manuscript from Brian Ferguson" and connect his claims with the evidence that supports them (largely included in his article). This will allow us to incorporate specific scientific criticism of the claims Cochran et al. make with the inclusion of non-SPS sources.Katzrockso (talk)05:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think there is a consensus that we should cite Ferguson at all? How about we use Chad and Brym instead and do not cite Ferguson.Andre🚐05:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there was any consensus, I proposed an alternative solution that tempers your criticisms of the source being self-published.
Chad and Byrm is a good start, though I'd rather see a comprehensive critique than one that mentions the Cochran theory in passing. We may have big problems citing them without it turning intoWP:SYNTH.Katzrockso (talk)06:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, multiple sources already cited in this article cite the Ferguson article, such as Chad & Brym 2020 and the Dunkel et al. paper.Katzrockso (talk)05:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whaa... you mean the Dunkel paper you moments ago said should be stricken from the article? If you don't even think it should be included, how does it support Ferguson? Regarding Chad & Brym, which cites Dunkel[13], it seems like a good source / set of sources/authors to use. Perhaps you could just read that source and paraphrase it and include what it says and the source it cites along with it itself, while using it for the bulk of the analysis.Andre🚐05:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I stated was the mere fact that these are already cited in the article and have specifically cited the Ferguson manuscript. No histrionics needed.Katzrockso (talk)05:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a legitimate suggestion. Here is the JSTOR version for ease ofWP:TWL access[14] This is a very good source to fix the article with. It fairly covers the genetic and cultural theories and proposes a theory, which is distinct from Ferguson's facile Talmudic theory, rooted in intellectual attainment and social factors.Andre🚐05:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Talmudic theory may ultimately be wrong, but to claim that is "exceptional" and now "facile" is grossly misrepresentative. It's not even Ferguson's theory! I have no idea why you keep on attributing the thesis to Ferguson himself when he is merely restating an alternative theory that other researchers have proposed.Katzrockso (talk)06:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then propose some new text for the article that uses another source! How about Chad and Brym, who cite a bunch of other people including Cochran and Wikipedia. Not everything that they cite should be cited by Wikipedia but much of their article is fine, so why can't we agree to just use that?Andre🚐06:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can propose a version of text citing Chad and Byrm that focuses on scientific criticisms of Cochran without having issues withWP:SYNTH, I would have no problem excluding Ferguson.Katzrockso (talk)06:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit of text based on Chad and Brym to the article[15][16] and I think it adequately summarizes their position, but I am open to suggestions and feedback. I want to point out that trying to decide what you want Chad and Brym to say in advance is basicallyWP:CHERRYPICKING. Chad and Brym are moderately critical of both the genetic explanation, and an arguably equally or nearly as problematic and stereotypical cultural/Talmudic explanation. They do criticize Cochran and Dunkel, and also in nearly equal measure a group of people which includes Ferguson. This can be expanded in the article without it being SYNTH but it will not support the verbatim text you wanted to add, and that text should not be added. It's clear that theWP:BESTSOURCES are relatively critical of both the genetic and cultural explanations and they both have a variety of problems. The sociological explanation isn't equivalent to the Talmudic theory as a close read of Chad and Brym should reveal.Andre🚐20:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, let's just keep the article focused on the published sources rather than than the SPS ones. While it is interesting it's been cited itself, I'm not convinced that's enough to make it a good source. Whatever reason Ferguson didn't publish their work and whoever they may have submitted it to, it's not a great source. While I appreciate it's often a problem with fringe work that has received enough attention that we probably should cover that it's often still the case there isn't great published criticism, it seem to me there's already enough that we can do without it. If Ferguson does eventually publish their work in some form we can re-visit.Nil Einne (talk)09:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He posted his manuscript online a decade almost 20 years ago, there is no reason to believe it will ever be published in another format.Katzrockso (talk)09:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that for Wikipedia's purposes the Ferguson source has beenWP:PUBLISHED, in this context published only means that it's available to the public. So describing this as "unpublished" could be slightly misleading. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunkel et al paper on polygenic scores for IQ in Ashkenazi Jews
We are discussing whether this paper Dunkel et. al "Polygenic scores mediate the Jewish phenotypic advantage in educational attainment and cognitive ability compared with Catholics and Lutherans"[18] is due for inclusion on the article Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Currently we have it in its own section, mostly describing the response to it. I believe this is not a reliable source whatsoever, as it was published in an extremely impact factor journal (1.4 according to the APA's website[19]) by authors who have since been accused of researcher misconduct such as Emil Kirkegaard (a graduate student who was described by his university as "not a scientist"[20], see also[21]), Michael Woodley of Menie (an "independent researcher" according to his Linkedin and Google Scholar profile who received a PhD in molecular ecology), Jonatan Pallesen (a "data scientist" who received a PhD in statistical genomics according to his CV), andCurtis Dunkel (a former professor of psychology forWestern Illinois University who was "no longer an employee" as of 2024[22]. His PhD was in social psychology). The paper in question was quickly shown to be based on a misunderstanding of polygenic scores[23] by a group of professors that work in social genomics.
Andre appeals to the fact that Curtis Dunkel was a professor at the time of the paper's publication and the fact that the journal is a real peer-reviewed journal to justify its inclusion in the paper, as well as a few citations in other papers. I do not believe that it isWP:DUE to include such a paper and believe it is bare promotion ofWP:FRINGE science that has received the smallest amount of coverage in other research.
Shouldn't this section be in the above section also about this? As far as I can tell the journal is a real peer-reviewed journal, and the primary author was a tenured professor when he wrote the paper. The paper is cited by several other of the sources that we agree are good sources. It is largely criticized in our coverage so it's not like anyone is being kind to the quality or conclusions of the paper. It provides a useful anchor point for the crticism and serves to inform and educate readers. I would change my view if you had a reliable source that claimed that the journal or the paper was bunk and fringe, but that does not appear to be the case. It's not a gold standard paper but it is prima facie in a reliable publication by credentialed authors and no evidence has been provided otherwise. We could simply include the responses and criticism to it if they aren't already.Andre🚐02:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is taken so unseriously by geneticists that these response was released as a preprint and have no chance of being published as a peer-reviewed paper for debunking an obviously wrong paper has no use for readers of a genetics journal. It is in no way a reliable source. Not every paper that is published in a low-impact factor journal by a professor is a reliable source. Andrew Wakefield published his article in The Lancent, which is one of the most renowned medical journals, yet it is not a reliable source for anything. But we are talking about whether this is a fringe source, which is most definitely is.
If you are going to move it down here where most people will scroll past as this conversation as already gotten long, I suggest we ping all previous participants in the previous discussion.Katzrockso (talk)03:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be due for inclusion if it were cited by any population genetics papers or research that studies the application of polygenic scores, but it was not cited in the relevant literature. Moreover, the paper was published in "Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences", not a genetics journal. It was not peer reviewed by any geneticists - not one single member of the editorial board for the publication has any primary research expertise in genetics, molecular genetics, GWAS, polygenic scores, etc. Neither do the authors.Katzrockso (talk)03:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not every paper is reliable, but also not every wrong paper is fringe. My point is that reliable sources cite the paper to critique it, so why shouldn't we also?
I agree that some authors are fringe and some journals are fringe. I do not see that the journal is; perhaps the author is (though, I still don't see the RS that say that), but on a topic on a fringe theory we do not necessarily want to completely exclude the fringe material. The point is that it is a notable theory, because good RS discuss it. We definitely aren't promoting it, at all.Andre🚐03:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That the authors are fringe has been established by prior consensus in FTNB discussions. See[26]. As a matter of fact, Emil Kirkegaard was banned from Wikipedia by ArbCom. See[27].
Fair enough, prior consensus has established that at least one of the coauthors is fringe. I still submit that it is a notable fringe paper so it can be criticized in the article.Andre🚐04:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that the journal is not reliable for genetics research, as I explained above - we wouldn't trust a paper on the nosological classification of ADHD if it were published in a low impact factor journal on gender studies, would we? This is compounded by the fact that the paper has received very limited academic attention; a mention as an example of discredited psuedoscientific hereditarian racial psychology by Panofsky et al., a brief mention by Charney as an example of why polygenic research is problematic, and a bare citation to the idea of genetics and Jewish intelligence being related by Chad and Byrm before dismissing this theory by saying "Little credible evidence thus supports the notion that genetic differences between ethnic groups can give rise to appreciable differences in intelligence". These are not substantive mentions or engagements with the fringe research, it is briefly cited as an example of a fringe theory. Insofar as the paper is mentioned, it should be mentioned as discredited in a separate article likeDiscredited HIV/AIDS origins theories, but I don't believe there is any encyclopedic material that can be extracted from the paper as it currently stands.Katzrockso (talk)04:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion reflectsWP:ONEWAY, a policy, which states "Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sourcesconnect the topics in a serious and prominent way" and "If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, oreven omitted altogether" (emphasis mine). I believe that mentioning this fringe theory in theAshkenazi Jewish intelligence article gives undue weight and have explained why this is the case at length. It is not necessary that Wikipedia include every fringe theory that has been discussed in a couple academic scientific papers and in fact Wikipedia should positively NOT list every fringe theory. There is a reason thatRace and intelligence does not mention discredited psuedoscientific articles by David Piffer using incorrect methods. There is no reason we should do the same atAshkenazi Jewish intelligence. The paper should be discussed in weight to its prominence within the larger literature, which is to say that it has almost no prominence whatsoever and should be ommitted.Katzrockso (talk)05:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've already established that the reliable sources do discuss this paper, making it at least an ostensibly notable fringe paper. The question is how much. You are arguing that their discussion is not prominent or serious, I guess? I think it's serious enough. Prominent is harder to say, but to me we're over the line. It's one sentence in the article and several debunking it. One sentence doesn't seem undue to me. The article is too short right now relative to everything that's been written on this topic. Other editors can opine if they disagree. You are saying to exclude it altogether. That is not typically what is done in a case like this as far as I know. This article is essentially about this topic. I would agree with your argument if the paper made it toAshkenazi Jews.Andre🚐05:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed to a comparable example in how fringe papers from David Piffer and Emil Kirkegaard are correctly not included onRace and intelligence, despite there being published responses to their misinformation and they are cited in other peer-reviewed papers. See[28][29] for examples of these refutations being published, but no corresponding inclusion inRace and intelligence because mentioning fringe papers is notWP:DUE. It is not the same as a paper like Rushton and Jensen that received almost 1000 citations in the scholarly literature and numerous published responses, or the significant public coverage that a paper like Cochran et al. These are allWP:DUE for inclusion in an article on intelligence. Dunkel et al with 15 citations, almost exclusively from other race scientists citing them, is not. I wil emphasize another point you dodged: that it is not merely pertinent that the article be mentioned in reliable sources, it should be mentioned in reliable sources with relevant expertise. A genetics paper was published in a non-genetics journal and is mentioned by non-geneticists, does not warrant inclusion in an article for its genetics theories.Katzrockso (talk)06:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the latest discussion seems to be progressing the way they normally do, so while I'm still watching it I don't think I have anything I want to add to the above, and most likely won't join in unless there's some kind of deadlock. I might look at what the two of you have said on the article talk page itself as I see there's discussion there too, but I might not have the time for a while.Alpha3031 (t •c)10:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the section on Religion and Science which is sourced almost exclusively to unnoticed, primary-sourced claims which are entirely fringe, as far as I can tell. Note that this was the fellow who guided the lateAntony Flew away from his militant atheism long about the time Flew was suffering from dementia.jps (talk)15:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As predicted inWP:PARITY, most of the sources I could find on this are from sceptics or other creationists (some of the latter were supporting, most criticizing because he is the wrong flavor of creationist). I am thinking that maybe a reactions by sceptics and a reaction by other creationists section might work here. I did find something from the National Center for Science Education and something from a scholarly Jewish site.
There was a review ofThe Science of God in Volume 18 No. 2 of Reports of the National Center for Science Education (December 4, 2008)[30]
According to[31], Mark Perakh published critiques of Gerald Schroeder's theories in vol. 23, No 4 (2003) of Skeptic (Australia) and in his book Unintelligent Design (Prometheus Books, November 2003).
The Young-Earth Creationists were not amused:[32][33]
Judaism in Science had an interesting writeup:[34][35][36]
I think if we count Gerald as an Old Earth Creationist, we would also count Russell Humphreys (of white holes give me the time dilation I need to get 6000 years of bible-time into 14 billion years of observed universe time) as one, but I don't really care to do the parsing myself. For Wikipedia's purpose, I'm not sure there deserves to be very much said about these harebrained schemes...jps (talk)22:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Friends, we have two bloated paragraphs sourced ONLY to the writing of Schroeder that read as follows:
“
Schroeder's works frequently cite Talmudic, Midrashic and medieval commentaries on the biblical creation account, such as commentaries written by the Jewish philosopher Nachmanides. Among other things, Schroeder attempts to reconcile a six-day creation as described in Genesis with the scientific evidence that the world is billions of years old, using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer's perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Albert Einstein's general relativity.
Namely, he claims that from the perspective of the point of origin of the Big Bang, according to Einstein's equations of the 'stretching factor', time dilates by a factor of roughly 1,000,000,000,000, meaning one trillion days on earth would appear to pass as one day from that point, due to the stretching of space. When applied to the estimated age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, from the perspective of the point of origin, the universe today would appear to have just begun its sixth day of existence, or if the universe is 15 billion years old from the perspective of earth, it would appear to have just completed its sixth day
Sure, we can call an area which has a, to quote the HRP,small body of scholarship but that the rest of the field hasn't really studied in detail FRINGE/ALT. As the section header implies, those sections more typically and appropriately apply to specificformulations and theories, andPlurality (identity) seems like it may be broad enough to have multiple theories on it.Alpha3031 (t •c)10:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the basic center of this the proposal (medical or otherwise) that people so completely disassociate as to seeminglyactually comparmentalize their selves, to where they can interact (I guess?) as separate entities? And anything else then hangs off that central core topic? So basically, I suppose, how theHulk is depicted as an analogy? —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)17:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I’m happy with this statement in Otherkin: “ Because of the neurodivergence, transgender people who identify as otherkin are common.”. That only has one source.Doug Wellertalk18:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's not really a hard line between strongly held belief and religion is there? The lead of the plurality (identity) article explicitly mentionstulpas, which are an entirely religious concept.Hemiauchenia (talk)18:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Mobile, at nkd protest) Sources for plurality make Tulpamancy out to be all intentionally/unintentionally non disorded created system.s
there's not really a hard line between strongly held belief and religion is there?
The way I see it, one can have a strong belief about anything, while a religion is usually organised, has canonical texts and a community of believers.TurboSuperA+[talk]19:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This VICE article is cited 8 times in the article. It is written by Tori Telfer, a freelance writer, who doesn't seem to have any relevant credentials in psychology/psychiatry and hasn't been published in the discipline. She writes true crime/non fiction novels. I think the use of that source should be evaluated, as I don't think it passes the BESTRS (MEDRS?) muster.TurboSuperA+[talk]19:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a split. One issue I can see is that the glossary consists of terms that are sourced to peer-reviewed scientific journals and the aforementioned VICE article, resulting in false equivalence. I also wonder if other editors think there areWP:FALSEBALANCE issues with the article.TurboSuperA+[talk]20:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching the article for a month or so now and yeah, I would say my main concern with it is related toWP:FALSEBALANCE. The problem with this topic is kind of the classicWP:FRINGE problem where it just doesn't get much attention from mainstream figures in the relevant field, even if it's notable enough for an article. There's also the fact that analyzed through one lens it's medical but there are other frameworks for analysis that definitely aren't--there's the subcultural/internet phenomenon aspect, there's philosophical claims about personality, and those can and should be covered without using MEDRS sourcing. I think the internet subculture aspect is being reasonably well-covered in the article, but I think some of the existing sourcing could be used to make it more clear that the claims about non-disordered plurality are controversial (and controversial in a way that's distinct from the "doesDID even exist" conversation).CarringtonMist (talk)15:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
essentially "But since tulpagenic plurals do not meet the diagnostic criterion for DID (nor perhaps for any mental disorder), they may show that being multiple, and even having a plural identity, is not in and of itself unhealthy.⁹"24.155.147.109 (talk)15:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know a handful of people who identify this way, and while I'm not suggesting citing my anecdotal claims for any article use, I can say with absolute certainty that not one of them identifies this as a mental illness.
As it was explained to me by the first person I met who identified this way (who got pestered with questions because I'm a giant, curious nerd), "It's more a matter of different moods having different identities, and sometimes, there's not a lot of communication between them."
My experiences may be an outlier, but I would say that, absent any reliable sources which show that most people who identify this way claim to have DID, the claim that they're 'pretending' to have a mental illness isn't worth the pixels it displays on.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion about source quality and whetherEarthquake light should have a Skepticism section taking place, and whether it's justified considering scientific skeptics' lack of credentials. Also, concerns about sourcing quality in the article overall.Geogene (talk)16:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comment contained a factual error which I have corrected, and the current version no longer contains the phrase you seemingly took exception to. You may consider it struck. I do however agree with Very Polite Person about their reliability for obvious reasons. —Rutebega (talk)19:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunning's credibility was previously challenged on those grounds at RSNB[39], the outcome was that the editor making that argument was topic banned from UFOs[40].Geogene (talk)19:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was the outcome of an ANI thread, not the RSN discussion, which was never closed with a clear consensus. I assume you were not intending to threaten me with similar sanctions. —Rutebega (talk)20:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most discussions aren't closed, that doesn't mean no consensus is apparent. You could start a new thread there, if you really think that Dunning is unreliable. His bog is widely cited in other articles.Geogene (talk)Geogene (talk)20:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such palaeocontinents aren't typically very widely discussed so it's hard to tell what's mainstream, what's opinions-are-split-on-this and what's fringe. Another problem is when different names are applied to the same thing, or slight variations on the same thing.doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2016.04.008 bespeaks fringe though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)06:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page was subject to some disruption last month that put it back in the NPP queue, but it has more issues that have been there for ages in the way it presents the subject. Assistance in cleaning it up would be helpful, even if that's gutting the whole thing - I don't know if there are any objective sources even in the article. --Reconrabbit17:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NutritionFacts is a fringe organization definitely not evidence-based as the Wikipedia article currently suggests[42]. The sourcing on the article is being misused. For example the two sources in the lead do not describe the website as "evidence-based". There has been a suggestion to merge this intoMichael Greger.Veg Historian (talk)20:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y alright.Flower (she/her;User talk:IPOfAFlower)18:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a student editor.24.155.147.109 (talk)16:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]