Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not 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 relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Did you know

• 16 Oct 2025 – Hypnosis in fiction (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Piotrus (t · c); see discussion
• 04 Sep 2025 – Bruce Cathie (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Very Polite Person (t · c); see discussion
• 25 Aug 2025 – Polybius (urban legend) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Rjjiii (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

• 03 Oct 2025 – Bernard Haisch (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ජපස (t · c); see discussion (10 participants; relisted)
• 05 Oct 2025 – Kennedy curse (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Finnmahoney (t · c) was closed as keep by Liz (t · c) on 12 Oct 2025; see discussion (15 participants)

Categories for discussion

• 15 Oct 2025 – Category:Telekinetic characters in video games (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Oct 2025 – Category:Occult collective consciousness (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by PARAKANYAA (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 02 Oct 2025 – Yakub (Nation of Islam) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GettingSwole (t · c); start discussion
• 27 Sep 2025 – Bruce Cathie (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Very Polite Person (t · c); start discussion
• 15 Sep 2025 – Harley Rutledge (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Very Polite Person (t · c); start discussion
• 31 Aug 2025 – ASMR (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 11wallisb (t · c); start discussion
• 26 Jan 2025 – 2024 United States drone sightings (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Anne drew (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 26 Sep 2025 – Electrogravitics (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Anti-gravity by Johnjbarton (t · c); see discussion
• 25 Aug 2025 – Functional medicine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Alternative medicine by CFCF (t · c); see discussion
• 14 Jul 2025 – SENS Research Foundation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Lifespan Research Institute by BD2412 (t · c); see discussion
• 16 May 2025 – Cognitive immunization (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Self-deception by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 07 Oct 2025 – False or misleading statements by Donald Trump (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Sapphaline (t · c); see discussion
• 05 Apr 2025 – Mark Geier (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Mvolz (t · c); see discussion
• 22 Feb 2025 – Cloning (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (t · c); see discussion
• 26 Jan 2025 – UFO conspiracy theories (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Feoffer (t · c); see discussion

"List of botanical cryptids" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of botanical cryptids has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 25 § List of botanical cryptids until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Removal of quote from WP:Academic bias

There's a discussion about removing this quote[1] from WP:Academic bias. If anyone is interested see WT:Academic bias#"Scientism". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this is relevant here and can use some attention from experienced editors. There are two new editors involved. Wikipedia talk:Academic bias#"Scientism" Doug Weller talk 18:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

VLF weapons

I'm not a frequent visitor to this noticeboard so I'm not up to speed with current fringe theories, but this stuff about non-consensual testing of "VLF weapons" (very low frequency?) is totally fringe, right? They've apparently been conducted at Anthorn Radio Station, possibly with the involvement of incoming MI6 director Blaise Metreweli. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. Unethical tests on unwitting civilians were a hallmark of the mid-20th century US, but there's no sources suggesting this is an instance of it. Feoffer (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Glyphosate op ed in New York Times

Gifted link.

Relevant to our discussion above on #Percy Schmeiser, but perhaps broader still.

jps (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Remote viewing

• Remote viewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Low edit count SPA WP:PROFRINGE edit warring credulous anecdotes about psychics and the Carter administration [2] accompanied by WP:IDHT Talk page campaign invoking “shooters” [3], [4], [[5]]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick note to report that the SPA has received a CTOP notification, and the page has been EC protected. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I have been looking for some commentary on the whole Jimmy Carter thing and haven't found much. Carter seemed to be generally a bit more on the credulous side when it comes to matters like this. See Jimmy Carter UFO incident. jps (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

He never said anything beyond "I do not know what it was", which is simply correct. And he rejected the Venus explanation because he knew what Venus normally looks like (though it looks different sometimes and this may have been one of those cases). No credulous side there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

For my students, I have found it instructive to use Stellarium to simulate what Venus looked like that evening. When people dismiss the simplest explanations and null hypotheses because of personal attestation, I tend to think of this as being based on credulity (which is to say, a forestalling of incredulousness). YMMV. jps (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

what Venus looked like that evening Including the clouds and atmospheric conditions at the place where Carter was at the time?

Carter was interviewed by The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe [6] in 2007 to clarify his position. "I don't know what is was" is not an extraordinary claim. I think it was Venus, the SGU thinks it was Venus; Carter disagreed. Alien spaceship believers or even just-questions-askers are in a totally different league. And of course, "the Carter administration" is not Carter. He was a democrat, not a childish, boastful and corrupt simpleton who tries to get everybody fired who disagrees with him, like others one could name.

But nothing of this is relevant here, and I will stop now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikola Tesla's 3-6-9 theory

The WP:FRINGE guideline was mentioned in this discussion, so I'm bringing it to the attention of this noticeboard. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Removal of terms of conspiracy theories and alike from Infowars and Alex Jones

I notice that Steakunderwater (talk · contribs) edited Millie Weaver to remove all references to conspiracy theories and alike in reference to Infowars and Alex Jones in addition to adding unsourced "Early life" section 2001:8003:3E12:3300:CC22:DD15:B336:61 (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That certainly reflects a fringe view of how to run an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's been quite successful; a number of other 'competitor' projects have been failures. And now the architect of (some of the higher-profile) failure thinks their ideas could help Wikipedia? Hmm. Bon courage (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

In his defense, he co-founded this one too, or founded, depending on source. But, quoting the NT-page (...did he pick those letters on purpose?), "The article creator determines who works on the article." I disagree with that, I think WP:OWN is better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Very tempted to boldly add some cn tags to "[...]any number of examples of stories broken in disfavored conservative and new media sources, which are only later admitted by mainstream sources. Such stories have included the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, the lab leak theory of COVID-19 origin, censorship and coordination between government and Big Tech platforms, the issues with biological males competing in women’s sports, etc." REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I could put this to the test, but I would get a ban. It may be no accident that Wikipedia has still not gotten over its past reputation for being about as reliable as Fox news. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Surely that must be satire? Tercer (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Arcturians (New Age)

Arcturians (New Age) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The first six sources seem really problematic. Not sure if this is worth a separate article. Do we really need these sorts of documentation of every harebrained alien community believed by New Age cultists? jps (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

It does look like independent sources exist but, yeah, those first six sources are not independent. Nor reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

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 on quantum healing. -- Reconrabbit 17:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Bizarrely, there seems to be at least, or just one (1) RS+SIGCOV: Talk:Arcturians (New Age)#Slim but not zero pickings. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, do we need 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)

THen why does it not use those, rather than tripe sources? Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I do think that this could be a subsection of Star 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). -- Reconrabbit 13:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

It would be nice if we had sources which studied these claims and made comparisons. But unlike the social science work done on UFO 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 also Ramtha. jps (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the line between New Age alien channeling and UFO religion is historically very, very thin. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Bernard Haisch

Bernard Haisch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Haisch

also related:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of Earth

jps (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

USRTK

Just noticed that earlier this year,

• U.S. Right to Know

warped-in. So Wikipedia now describes USRTK merely as "a nonprofit public health research and journalism organization which is dedicated to promoting transparency". But considering WP:FRINGE, that's not the whole (or even the correct) story right? Bon courage (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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've had 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. In that 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 from WP: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)

I was surprised to see it too since while I think it can meet WP:FRINGEN, that iteration was pretty bare bones in sourcing and gets into some WP: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 the Natural 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.[7] You'd often hear of lesser known cases in ag. news too.[8]

Because the Organic Consumers Association is involved, you get a tangled web on fringe stuff like anti-GMO and anti-vaccine.[9]. 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 line Organizations 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.[10]. There are a few other WP:PARITY type sources I saw too on COVID/vaccines.[11][12] KoA (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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. Silverseren^C 23:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

More organic industry sourcing

Looks like the problem is escalating that I mentioned earlier with Nosferatus who commented above. There's more at Talk:Monsanto#Williams_2000_ghostwriting_controversy, but in short, the initial content was removed I mentioned earlier and just reinserted by Nosferattus 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 admin Doug Weller, or if you have ideas Guy 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)

Facilitated communication

See Special:Contributions/Spotoninuity. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Casey Means

Fringe person who is now the US surgeon general. It maybe just May, but the article seems to e too much self-sourced. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say that the US Surgeon General is never a “fringe person”… instead, I would say they hold fringe views. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 Weller talk 17:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Be careful with the word balance as WP: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)

The article is in poor shape, for instance the balancing of her beleives in functional 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. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That’s my impression and why I brought it here. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't we just rip out any silly language like that to be dryly neutral (e.g. the mainstream view)? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

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. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Great Lithuanians and Historical Lithuanians

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 article Great Lithuanians was created by user Heroldicas on September 10, 2025 which include Litvinist statements that "The aim was to foster mental and civic Russification of young “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 the local “Samogitian dialect”, i.e., modern Lithuanian". Multiple users at Talk:Lithuanians#Revert war about hatnotes and Talk:Great Lithuanians noted that article "Great Lithuanians" features WP: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 just one edit, so highly likely he was just a WP:TROLL. When it was attempted to remove (with provided justification) the English Wikipedia article "Great Lithuanians" user Bildete started reverting and received support from IP 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 about Litvinism in short (context): this point of view theories claim that the "real" Lithuania (Belarusian: Litva) is Belarus and the "real" Lithuanians are Belarusians (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 to Samogitians, Samogitia, Samogitian dialect), however internationally recognized scientific point of view (WP:NPOV) recognize Lithuania's continuous history since at 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 the preamble of the nowadays Constitution 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) and be: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.

The article Polish–Lithuanian identity describes a historical phenomena when residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (e.g. East Slavs who often did not spoke even a little bit of Lithuanian language) since the 1569 Union of Lublin identified themselves as citizens of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, however this phenomena do not deny that Baltic Lithuanians created Lithuania's statehood, continued living in it until Russia destroyed Lithuania in 1795 and restored Lithuania in 1918. The so-called "Polish–Lithuanians" are not "Great Lithuanians" (unless they hail from Lithuania proper) and cannot be described as exclusively "Lithuanians" because very often they were Ruthenians (mostly nowadays Belarusians, Ukrainians ancestors) who spoke Ruthenian and Polish languages.

Multiple users at Talk: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 multiple WP:RS that the "Great Lithuanians" are "Lithuanians of Lithuania 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 a compound word of two Lithuanian words: "didelis" (Great) and "lietuviai" (Lithuanians). This is a distinction of Lithuania proper's Lithuanians from the Lithuanians of Lithuania 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 Łossowski Próba 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 simply WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:HOAX).

On September 30, 2025 user Bildete also created a redirect page "Historical Lithuanians" to article "Great Lithuanians", so this is a clear manifestation that according to him Lithuanians (e.g. nowadays Lithuanians) are not "historical Lithuanians", despite the fact that the Lithuanians spoke the Lithuanian language already since the early statehood periods of Lithuania (see: this article of Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia). Per article of the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created in Lithuania proper (also known as "Great Lithuania" or "Real Lithuania").

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 sbaio reported 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 also restored 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 per WP:RS the "Great Lithuanians" (Lithuanian: didlietuviai) are "Lithuanians of Lithuania proper" and whether theories stating otherwise are WP: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 against Litvinism because if Litvinists will be allowed to attempt rewriting Lithuanian topics articles by pushing their point of view then the reliability of Wikipedia will be severely damaged and it will result in many WP:BATTLEGROUND situations because the Lithuanians and other users who are Wikipedia: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 of WP:TOPICBAN per WP: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 as Lithuania, 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 at WP:AE per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe instead of discussing with thousands of characters whether modern Lithuania/Lithuanians are fake or not.

2) So secondly I invite to discuss here: whether per WP:RS users/sources denying Lithuanians, Lithuania, Lithuanian language historical continuity since the early statehood periods of Lithuania are WP: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.

My opinion is that per WP:RS: "Great Lithuanians" are "Lithuanians of Lithuania proper" and Lithuanians also are "historical Lithuanians". -- Pofka 19:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment by Altenmann

The "Great Lithuanians" is a straight translation of the plwiki article pl: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 >talk 20:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Clarification of the position: clearly, no sources say that starolitwini is the same as Great Lithuanians, i.e., the article "Great Lithuanians" is ignorant or intentional WP:SYNTH so it must not exist, while starolitwini is a valid subject about the controversy on the break of 19/20 centuries. --Altenmann >talk 19:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pofka: I suspect "tl;dr" will be the first knee-jerk reaction. Please prepend a concise summary. People are busy --Altenmann >talk 20:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@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 1918 Act 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 historical Radziwiłł family was a friend and supporter of the Lithuanian President Antanas Smetona (source with photos), while Józef Piłsudski, who personally spoke in the Lithuanian (sources: 1, 2) and Polish languages, hailed from Lithuania proper and belonged to the Lithuanian origin House of Piłsudski, was a cherisher of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, not Independent Lithuania. Lithuanian nobleman Stanisław Narutowicz was one of the 20 signatories of the 1918 Act of Independence of Lithuania, while his brother Gabriel 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 old Lithuanian 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). -- Pofka 21:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You confirmed my point: there is a certian controversy and must be covered. But not what is in the current article. --Altenmann >talk 22:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann: An important point to note here about term "senlietuviai" (English: Old Lithuanians; Polish: Staro-Litwini) is that per WP:RS there were no "Old Lithuanians" who were neither "Lithuanians", neither Polish–Lithuanians. Claiming otherwise is WP:FRINGE because per WP:RS nowadays Lithuanians ancestors speaking and writing in the Lithuanian 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 monarchs Gediminas, Algirdas, Kęstutis, Vytautas the Great are simply "Lithuanians", so same as Lithuanian presidents Antanas Smetona or Gitanas Nausėda). There already is an article Lithuanians (tribe) about old eastern Baltic 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 King Mindaugas 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 at Polish–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". -- Pofka 17:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment by Marcelus

I think it's a 4th ongoing discussion on this topic. Do we really need that mnay of them? Marcelus (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mindaur it's pretty easy to find such sources. There is article by Rimantas Miknys and Darius Staliūnas, Lithunian historians, called The “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)

@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 into Great Lithuanians in A “historical Lithuanian” was someone inhabiting “historical Lithuania”, i.e. the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, of noble or princely origin, which is a misinterpretation 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 about the WP article, which in current state is grossly misleading and must be rewritten from scratch, following the sources, and not what Polish wikipedians wrote in pl:Starolitwini. Hence Pofka's suggestion: kill the article into a redirect. --Altenmann >talk 17:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann so Pofka thinks that the article needs to be rewritten and his solution is to... kill the article? Marcelus (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, we do WP: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 >talk 19:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Altenmann I don't mind deleting this article, but I insist that the article about Old Lithuanian / Starolitwin / Senlietuvis identity is notable, and I'm willing to write one. You can see my new scope proposal Talk:Great_Lithuanians#New_scope_-_proposition/ Marcelus (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Polish–Lithuanian identity already exists. No need to WP:CONTENTFORK. +JMJ+ (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

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 per WP:Summary style. --Altenmann >talk 16:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@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 the dominant 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 this conflict. 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 the nation state is generally a late 19th century concept. In this regard, most European states have difference between the old and new politeia.

-- Mindaur (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm advocating for changing the scope obviously. Marcelus (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

Comment by Piotrus

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 here} 11:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@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 multiple WP:RS which support your actions and statements that the "Great Lithuanians" (Polish: Wielcy Litwini; Lithuanian: didlietuviai) are not Lithuanians of Lithuania 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 continue reverting + supporting an article full of WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:SYNTH, do you realize that your actions highly likely fall within WP:NOTHERE in Lithuanian topics? By the way, do you automatically fully trust content published by a user 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)? -- Pofka 19:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment by mindaur

I asked to provide at least a single English WP:RS that would describe the concept of "Great Lithuanians" as such. So far, the authors provided only the same few Polish sources. From WP: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 not WP:FRINGE, then why is it problematic to find English WP: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-historic Litvinism theory. We exclude pseudo-historic concepts, unless they are regarded WP:N and are described as such. From WP: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 not WP:UNDUE. --Mindaur (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment by +JMJ+

I mostly agree with Pofka, but conciseness is desired. Regarding question 1), clearly, per WP:RS, the term "Great Lithuanians" should not be used because it in such a fringe term in itself - as Mindaur 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 of Lithuania proper", generally in the context of relations with the Lithuanians from Lithuania 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 [...] [13]; 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. [14]
As for question 2), it is clear that users and sources that engage in denying Lithuania, Lithuanians, and their language's historical continuity are WP: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 in Russian disinformation and propaganda, especially in historical articles - see the article Litvinism 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 the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
PS: The article Great Lithuanians is clearly poorly-referenced, because the first source in that article for the term itself is from a text about interwar Klaipėda 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 called Utracony Wschód: antropologiczne rozważania o polskości - translates to "The Lost East: Anthropological Reflections on Polishness". Sounds like it's continuing the nationalistic Kresy myth. I checked another source - Buchowski's book Litwomani 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)

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (again)

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See previous FTN discussion here.

A seemingly intractable difference of opinion has cropped up today on the article talk page between primarily AndreJustAndre and Katzrockso. Zenomonoz and I have also weighed in.

Andre has asserted that the consensus on race and intelligence does not apply to the question of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence since Ashkenazi 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 and Gregory 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.

Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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, using WP: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 per WP: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)

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)

In support of my view, I have cited a self-published explainer by four prominent population geneticists, including Ewan 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 constitute a vocal fringe of race pseudoscience.

Andre has countered that because it is self-published, this source is not reliable, despite the bona fides of its authors. I then provided a peer-reviewed source published in American 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.

Thoughts from the community? Generalrelative (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 that Ashkenazi Jews harbour genes selected for intellectual and financial success is not 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)

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)

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)

To be clear, you stated [15] 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)

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 that WP: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)

Thanks - that's true, but there still needs to be A 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)

And my contention was that Bird et al. satisfies this gap, by stating that claims that evolved genetic differences among races and nations are important for explaining immutable differences in cognitive ability ... are opposed by a strong 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)

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)

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 of WP:NOR states. Generalrelative (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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 of everyone 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)

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)

The 350 number is not just my made-up number, but comes from Carmi 2014[16]. Cheers to you. Andre🚐 06:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 are WP:FRINGE. Are we to presume that the black-white racial gap is not WP:FRINGE simply because Nisbett et al consider it and dismiss it now? Katzrockso (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not the precise position. "Little credible evidence thus" is not the same as "absolutely none!" Everything vs nothing. Andre🚐 05:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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. [17]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

For clarity, a population bottleneck would explicitly contradict Cochran's theory. Katzrockso (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.[18] 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)

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)

How to discuss Cochran

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)

How are the existing non-peer reviewed responses to Cochran "stronger" than Ferguson? As I described to my 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)

I meant "stronger" as in "more reliable", not as a comment on the merits of their critique. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I explained why I believe that the inclusion of the Ferguson source is important from a WP: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)

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)

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)

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 violating WP:NPOV. Katzrockso (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

In general, cochran is an anthropologist dressing fringe ideas up in the air of genetics. see also Gregory_Cochran#Pathogenic_infections_as_a_cause_of_disease.

Ferguson is an actual geneticist at the very least. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

R. Brian Ferguson is an anthropologist also. I initially thought that one or both was a geneticist but neither is, so neither should be used for genetic conclusions in my view. Andre🚐 04:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally would suggest exclusion of both then. I think much of the bunk research that initially fueled the race and intelligence debate on wikipedia was from the bad science from anthropologists. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sounds like you want to remove basically the whole "selected studies" section, and just leave the criticism. I'd still prefer that to adding the sentences that you had cited to Ferguson. I think we should all consider that Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable. My problem is with the new statements cited to Ferguson, and not with adding criticism in general. Andre🚐 04:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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 that insofar 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)

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.

In generally against any unpeer reviewed works in general unless its clear its adding something and the author truly is an expert in the topic. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yeah had to reread the aji article. It seems to include due coverage of cochran. This captures my thoughts well. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

"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 be WP: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)

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 it passed peer review after the changes. Might the WP: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)

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)

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)

One already present in the Wikipedia article, if one scrolls down to Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence#Sociological explanations, and not some novel theory that Ferguson is proposing, but one based on prior 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)

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)

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)

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 into WP:SYNTH. Katzrockso (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 [19], 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)

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)

That is a legitimate suggestion. Here is the JSTOR version for ease of WP:TWL access[20] 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)

Looks like a great source! Generalrelative (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

If you can propose a version of text citing Chad and Byrm that focuses on scientific criticisms of Cochran without having issues with WP:SYNTH, I would have no problem excluding Ferguson. Katzrockso (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Just to point out that for Wikipedia's purposes the Ferguson source has been WP:PUBLISHED, in this context published only means that it's available to the public. So describing this as "unpublished" could be slightly misleading. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Gerald Schroeder

Gerald Schroeder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 late Antony Flew away from his militant atheism long about the time Flew was suffering from dementia. jps (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The article needs to make it clear that Schroeder is an Old-Earth Creationist.

As predicted in WP: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 of The Science of God in Volume 18 No. 2 of Reports of the National Center for Science Education (December 4, 2008) [21]

According to [22], 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: [23][24]

Judaism in Science had an interesting writeup: [25][26][27]

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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)