Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338

Facts.Org.cn (Truth on Falun Gong)

 * Source: Facts.org.cn, specifically in this article:
 * Article: Jun Hong Lu
 * Content: "The Guan Yin Citta Dharma Door created by Lu Jun Hong claimed itself as Buddhism, and was criticized by the public and other religious organization for irrelevant teachings and activities towards Buddhism. An example indicated by the religious specialist which is Lu and the Guan Yin Citta Dharma Door teaches the believer to burn the yellow paper, known as 'Little house'. However, the burning of 'Little house' was pointed out that it is irrelevant towards Buddhism because it does not exist in the Buddhist teaching.The religious ideology founded by Lu were also criticized for intending to profiting the organization and Lu himself."

Notes: Is this quialifed as a reliable source to be used in BLP?
 * The purpose of this website seems to be used by some authorities in China to crack down on religious groups and other specific groups
 * There is no way to verify the story covered by the website articles.

Thank you for your time and comments. AutoPrime (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be wary of using any official Chinese source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no indication that its a reliable source, it seems to be the sort of explicit government propaganda that is a big no no BLP wise. I would never use a Chinese government source for a BLP statement that in any way involves religious freedom. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable and possible blacklist. Propaganda website that does not disclose its government affiliation. See below:


 * According to the Routledge article, other state-affiliated propaganda sites (that do not disclose their state affiliation) include:
 * 2 Xinjiang-related sites: chinaxinjiang.cn, ts.cn
 * 2 Tibet-related sites: showchina.org, tibet.cn
 * These sites should also be considered generally unreliable . —  Newslinger  talk   16:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Fix wording —  Newslinger  talk   16:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say they are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I've proposed facts.org.cn to be added to blacklist. And thanks for the information regarding the state agency links AutoPrime (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Unreliable Obvious propaganda is obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate and possible blacklist. These sites seem to be state-sponsored propaganda sites that publish false and/or fabricated information. Might be worth it to investigate some of the sites listed on this page to see if there are more sites akin to this one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for that website. all this is part of a propaganda campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_China).
 * i've proposed facts.org.cn to be added to blacklist. AutoPrime (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Request - My initial impression is probably unreliable as only an activism website, but this is an invitation to post sources. Can other sources about this website be found than from a HK university?  I admit not having visited the website yet but the cited quote above is not so surprising, that a cult leader would profit from his business.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The quoted source above was authored by Dani Madrid-Morales, who is an assistant professor of journalism at the University of Houston, and that chapter was published by Routledge in London. There's also a brief mention in another academic source by Benjamin Penny, an Australian expert on Chinese religious movements:


 * This is a website setup to oppose Falun Gong, it can't be reliable.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable and I support blacklisting. Thanks Newslinger for another source, — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Blacklist: We don't accept Falun Gong as a source on the Chinese government, so we should not We don't accept the Chinese government as a source on Falun Gong. Both topics have plenty of reliable sources that we can use. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends Reliability depends on what the source is used for. In this case, the website has republished an article previously published in Kaiwind (September 27, 2006). In fact most of the website appears to be republication of articles from other sources. Whether or not any of these articles is reliable depends on whether the original article was reliable. When citing the website, we should follow Say where you read it. Credit the original source and mention that it was found in the Facts.org.cn website.
 * Original articles should be evaluated as self-published. Their reliability depends on whether or not the author is an expert.
 * The essay Interviews provides helpful information about using interviews as sources.
 * TFD (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Facts.org.cn article in question was not republished from Kaiwind. The Facts.org.cn article link in the original comment is not the right one, but I can see from the page history of the Jun Hong Lu article that the disputed article ("The Beijing News: Guan Yin Citta is an illegal organization with the cult characteristics", now removed in Special:Diff/1020173540) is http://www.facts.org.cn/Recommendations/201711/13/t20171113_5829162.htm – which has been moved. It is now available in three locations:
 * Facts.org.cn (new location): http://www.facts.org.cn/c/2017-11-10/1034773.shtml
 * 2020 archive of Facts.org.cn (old location): https://web.archive.org/web/20200226151659/http://www.facts.org.cn/Recommendations/201711/13/t20171113_5829162.htm
 * Kaiwind: http://en.kaiwind.com/c/2017-11-10/1034773.shtml
 * The Kaiwind page (#3) is an exact replica of the Facts.org.cn page (#1), including the Facts.org.cn site logo. Note the text "Source:facts.org.cn" on the top-right, which indicates that Kaiwind is the site that republished the Facts.org.cn article, not the other way around. If you go to en.kaiwind.com, you can see that the Kaiwind subdomain is a mirror site of Facts.org.cn. Finally, at the bottom of the 2020 archive (#2), the text "Email: facts@kaiwind.com" indicates that Facts.org.cn is affiliated with Kaiwind. In fact, the 2020 archive of the Facts.org.cn home page has the same "Email: facts@kaiwind.com" text in the footer, confirming that Kaiwind and Facts.org.cn are operated by the same entity. This disclosure was removed from the current version of Facts.org.cn.
 * Additionally, I have done some more research on Kaiwind, and was able to confirm that Kaiwind is another anti–Falun Gong propaganda website operated by the 610 Office. See the section below for details. Both Facts.org.cn and Kaiwind should be added to the spam blacklist.
 * WP:BLP is the policy governing biographies of living persons, and WP:BLPRS calls for a strict reading of the verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline for claims related to living persons (including Jun Hong Lu). Websites operated by the 610 Office, including Facts.org.cn and Kaiwind, do not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by these policies and guidelines to be considered a reliable source. —  Newslinger  talk   07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Kaiwind (凯风, Kaifeng; kaiwind.com)
After doing some more research, I can confirm that Kaiwind (凯风, Kaifeng; ) is an anti–Falun Gong propaganda website operated by the 610 Office (also known as the Office of Prevention and Handling of Cults), a government agency responsible for the persecution of Falun Gong in China. A search engine query led me to a document published by the Human Rights Law Foundation (HRLF) which confirms this: "HRLF FARA Report with appendices 1-4" (.docx file, 2018). I'm not familiar with the HRLF, so instead of quoting the report directly, I will examine the primary sources cited in the report.

The above evidence, which features statements from government agencies, conclusively establishes that Kaiwind (Kaifeng) is a propaganda website operated by the 610 Office. While the primary source documents have since been taken offline, the archived pages are still available for verification.Also, note that Kaiwind hosts a mirror site of Facts.org.cn, another anti–Falun Gong propaganda website operated by the 610 Office, on the subdomain en.kaiwind.com. See the previous section on Facts.org.cn for more information.Based on this evidence, I propose that Kaiwind (Kaifeng) be added to the spam blacklist. —  Newslinger  talk   07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable Indeed, Kaiwing and facts.org.cn are the same thing.Thanks for your valuable input.--Ba7manG0tham86 (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable and blacklist, surprised we haven’t done this sooner. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Beebom.com
As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources, I found this website while searching for ways to improve tower defense articles. said that there is no editorial staff there and merely just "staff".


 * I can't find a staff listing or editorial policy. A great deal of the content on the front page right now has no Author byline, simply "Staff". It's not a video game focused site, so WP:RSN may serve you better.

So can we safely say that Beebom.com is unreliable? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I looks borderline to me, they seem to be decently old and say many of the right things and they have an active hiring section with a posting for an "Assistant Editor/Editor” so they do seem to have some sort of editorial process but I can’t find a listing of editors and I’ve never heard about them before. It might be a group blog but we really need more information. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this Bellingcat article reliable for this specific BLP claim?
This question relates to contested claims about a BLP subject in the Andy Ngo article. The edit in question is here []. The Bellingcat article claims Andy Ngo put out a deceptive series of tweets during the unrests in 2020 []. At the end of the article BC tries to claim that Ngo did the same thing in 2019 during a confrontation between members of Patriot Prayer and Cider Riot patrons. This content is at the bottom of the BC article and includes the following claim, " In 2019 Ngo reported in-person on a mass brawl at a Portland area bar named Cider Riot. His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists.". To support their claim BC includes a photo of the offending tweets []. My concern is the tweets are only Ngo stating that he was personally assaulted and asking for help to identify the assailant. The tweets do not say anything about who started the larger melee. Since the tweets do not support the specific claim I think the source is not reliable for this claim especially since it is making a negative claim about a BLP subject. Looking for additional input. Springee (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "The tweets do not say anything about who started the larger melee." The tweet: "Was assaulted... by masked Antifa thugs", with no comment on Patriot Prayer. I'm not seeing what's wrong in their reporting here. Saying he "framed" the brawl as such is pretty clear: he portrayed himself as the victim of an attack by antifascists, and didn't discuss Patriot Prayer, who per the Bellingcat source were the true aggressors of the conflict. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You quoted the retweet. The original tweet was a request for help to identify the person who assaulted Ngo.  "I was sprayed in the face point blank with pepper spray outside CiderRiot, where Antifa had massed. They cheered as I was blinded.  Before that, they threatened me & brought up my mother's name.  A woman helped me across the street.  Please help me identity this person [video embedded in tweet]".  This is clearly Ngo asking for help to identify his assalent.  Classifying this as something about the larger PP-CiderRoit patron fight is simply false and should not pass RS standards needed to claim, even with attribution that a BLP subject framed the PP-CR fight as an unprovoked attack by one side vs the other.  Springee (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, reliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please justify this statement. Your claim of "reliable" carries no merit if you can't explain why a tweet where Ngo states that he was personally attacked is actually framing Patriot Prayer as attacked by antifacists.  Springee (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To me, the article seems reliable. First, the tweets are not used to claim "Patriot Prayer was attacked without provocation"; the article contains the more neutrally worded "Bellingcat stated that Ngo's tweets framed the brawl as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists." The tweets are preceded by this sentence His tweets framed it as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists. "It" refers to the fight as a whole. The fact that Ngo wrote his tweets to describe no action on anyone other than antifa's part supports that claim. Second, as for how this relates to Patriot Prayer, the article includes other sources to make that link: Video recorded before the fight at Cider Riot clearly shows members of Patriot Prayer checking their weapons and discussing their plans to assault the bar. One person standing near Ngo says clearly: “There’s going to be a huge fight,”. He did not report on what he had heard while marching to Cider Riot. and Based on the strength of those leaked videos, six members of Patriot Prayer were charged with felony riot incitement. So BC is using both the video itself and the fact that it lead to a felony riot incitement charge to say that Ngo's framing is misleading. Since that kind of intentional misdirection has been established as a key part of Ngo's journalistic practice, I don't think it's an extraordinary claim. — Wingedserif (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But the tweets don't talk about the fight as a whole, only about the assault on Ngo. How can that be taken to suggest Ngo's claims regarding the larger picture?  We can take for granted that PP started the fight and still find the claim that Ngo said otherwise to be false because the tweets presented as evidence don't support the claim.  Springee (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My point was that your presentation of the claim did not mention other information contained in the article, specifically that Patriot Prayer expected a fight and "[discussed] plans to assault the bar." BC then mentions that those details are entirely absent from Ngo's reporting on the event. With that additional supporting information, I don't think the claim is unreliable. I'm with below in thinking that we'd need sources that contradict BC to say more. — Wingedserif (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick summary of the dispute (not exact quotes). Ngo tweets, I was personally attacked, please help me identify the attacker. BC claims that actually means, Patriot Prayer was attacked without provocation. Is that interpretation truthful enough include as a negative statement about Ngo's reporting in his BLP? Springee (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's reliable. This isn't math class and we don't require reliable sources to show their work. Bellingcat is likely basing their statement on the tweet thread as a whole: after the screenshotted tweets, Ngo goes on to say that anti-fascists were "using business as base to prep attack" and then referred to the event as the "#antifa May Day riot". That Ngo was referring to the event as a whole and not only his assault seems like a reasonable conclusion to me. And for all I know, there could have been other tweets as well. But it doesn't really matter because reliable sources don't have to say how they arrived at a conclusion or provide any evidence at all. Woodroar (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * BC showed those specific tweets, nothing else. Even looking at the thread as a whole you would have to arguing to a conclusion vs arguing from evidence to make BC's claim.  Also, no source is universally reliable and BC has a very limited history on which to base any reliability claim.  A comment that cast such negative light on the motives of a BLP subject really needs clear evidence, not circumstantial evidence combined with an argument to a conclusion.  Springee (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable, both in general and in this specific case. Bellingcat does insanely in-depth research... Most of which is not detailed in their reports. Unless another WP:RS directly contradicts them I’m not seeing your point Springee. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable. Bellingcat show that Ngo was with a group of Patriot Prayer who attacked a bar in an incident he misleadingly described as if it was him who was personally attacked (he uses first person singular) by anti-fascists without mentioning they were defending themselves from the people he was with. As Bellingcat is a trusted reliable source, quibbling over interpretations and saying we know better than they do consitutes original research. As says, Bellingcat may be basing their statements on evidence additional to the tweet they chose to embed. In any event, 's edit attributes to Bellingcat so challenging it on this basis is even less worthwhile. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ngo was personally attacked. The video shows Ngo being attacked and does not show Ngo attacking or taunting others first.  Conflating what is happening to Ngo himself vs the bigger story is misleading on the part of BC.  Bob, I think its worth noting your user page includes an Antifa support banner. Springee (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable. Agree with above on Bellingcat in general. For the author Robert Evans in particular, a wide variety of RS have used him as an expert to interpret right-wing groups and right-wing internet phenomena. A recent example is his 2020 coverage of the boogaloo movement, which was used in sources ranging from the SPLC to the Middlebury Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism to Reason.com. Jlevi (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable, per a lot of the above. While I understand the concern here, the small inferential leap we're talking about is one that an RS is entitled to take, in my opinion; Bellingcat is not restrained to simply reporting things verbatim.  While it is negative in the larger picture, the context of this actual claim is less dangerous to me (i.e., he certainly claimed they attacked him unprovoked).  All that said, I think it is appropriate to use it with attribution, as was done here.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable I think the above comments to that effect pretty much summarize where I come down. Journalistic reporting doesn't always include every data point that backs up a given statement within the text itself; this can be a weird mode of writing when one is accustomed to scientific papers or even literary analysis, and not appreciating it can lead to a lot of missing the forest for the trees. Play it safe with in-text attribution. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable This is a valid interpretation by a reliable source. It's fair to say that the tweets were describing the overall brawl, even though Ngo misleadingly framed it as an unprovoked attack on himself. As others have mentioned, sources aren't expected to "show their work" as an academic paper (or a Wikipedia article, for that matter) would be, and analysis by a reliable source takes precedence over analysis by Wikipedia editors. –dlthewave ☎ 01:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable in this case. Doubly so in falling short of the higher bar for BLP The particular statement logically looks like a baseless derivation/creation. It's not even reliable enough for wp:ver much less the higher standard for BLP.  A negative claim about the person with no basis shown. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A question (and this would apply broadly) is if Bellingcat is the only source that is reporting on the incident in depth that Ngo is talking about, or if Bellingcat is one of several RSes that have discussed the event with Bellingcat's coverage being the broadest or most in-depth? (This would be excluding RSes that are re-iterating Bellingcat's point). If it is the latter case, where there is corroborated sourcing to give the version of events as Bellingcat gives, then there's no question to reliability here per the above. But if it is basically Bellingcat's coverage (or any other quality RS) against what Ngo himself said what happened, with no other sources able to independently explain events around Ngo that night, this should be presented as attributed he-said-she-said rather than putting Bellingcat's statements in WP-voice. That said, at least the current version  appears to support that only Bellingcat is discussing the event that Ngo was involved with, and appropriately their statement is attributed, so this is perfectly fine. If there were more corroboration from independent RSes, the attribution would become unnecessary. --M asem  (t) 15:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge BC is the only source that has made this specific claim about Ngo's tweets with respect to this specific event. The content in question appears at the very end of BC's article.  The majority of the article is BC arguing Ngo falsely portrayed a different instance.  In that case BC shows a long series of tweets and events that support their subjective POV.  The mention of the 2019 incident was at teh very bottom of the article as a way to say, "this wasn't a one off thing".  However, a significant difference is in most of the article Ngo is tweeting about something where he was not physically involved or assaulted.  In the 2019 case Ngo was personally assaulted.  The video does not show Ngo engaging anyone prior to being pepper sprayed and at least one of the sources in the Ngo article specifically said Ngo does not engage in any physical altercations.  That Ngo would fixate on the attack against himself seems understandable to me.  It is not clear if the larger melee had started before or after Ngo was sprayed.  If after that could also explain why he didn't tweet much about the actual fight as he was likely recovering from being sprayed.  Regardless, I agree that this is attributed and if BC is wrong then we aren't saying it in Wiki voice.  However, that could raise a question of DUE.  If this is a claim made by a little known source and who's presented evidence for the claim is weak they is the material DUE?  When this content was first proposed in February there was not consensus that it was due.  Given the flaky nature of the claim I still don't think it is but this isn't the place for that debate.  Also, at this point DUE is often a !vote count and the outcome would depend on how many of the currently active editors are on which side of the debate this week.  I won't raise it at NPOVN since I think it would be seen as forum shopping (though both the question of RS and DUE have been raised on the talk page).  Springee (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the incident (specifically Ngo's involvement) is only sourced to Ngo's account and Bellingcat, that is a fair question of UNDUE; we are not here to list out every incident a person may be involved in just because it can be documented. The sourcing is fine if this meets UNDUE, but the UNDUE factor is a separate question. And as to the differences between what Ngo said happened and Bellingcat reported, unless the differences are clearly obvious (eg if Ngo said he was hit by a guy in a green shirt, and Bellingcat said he was hit by a guy in a red sweater), we at WP really can't be there to judge the differences in the video and Bellingcat's take, per OR/SYNTH. We simply can attribute them to Bellingcat. --M asem  (t) 16:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is like "Ngo said red, BC said white" rather "Ngo said red, BC said wet". Instead we might think of it as scope.  In the cited tweets Ngo said he was personally attacked/sprayed with pepper spray.  So he is talking about his little part of the bigger picture.  BC says the bigger picture is PP attacked Cider Riot patrons and Ngo's tweets suggested PP was the attacked without provocation.  Ngo's cited tweets didn't say anything about PP or who started the larger melee, only that he personally was attacked.  This is why I feel the gab between what is being reported ("Ngo portraying the fight between PP and the patron as unprovoked") is too much a subjective stretch from the evidence provided (or even the tweet string provided by an editor above).  Perhaps in some other reporting on the subject BC's claims would have merit but as presented I can't see how we could say BC, a source with limited reputation and weight, has supported their claim.  Since the claim is something negative about a BLP subject I think the standards for reliability should be strict hence why I see this as an unreliable source for this specific claim.  My view would be different if we were talking about the tweet stream that was the primary focus of the BC article.  Springee (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , also anything Ngo says about the incident should be treated with caution. His agenda is firmly pro-Fa. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee is IMO omitting an important piece of information. While Bellingcat is so far as I can tell the only source that has brought in Ngo's tweets, many many sources have covered Ngo's involvement with Patriot Prayer's attack on Cider Riot. The relevant section of our article is here; as you can see it's quite well sourced. Loki (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, there's more coverage to the May Day events - though only Bellingcat is apparently the only one talking about the tweets. But that said, reading though and given the subsequent and ongoing lawsuit Ngo filed, associating how Ngo discussed the attacks (and Bellingcat's characterization of them) would fit better there to explain why he filed the lawsuit. But untangling that is not straight forward, and beyond the question of Bellingcat's reliability here. --M asem (t) 04:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable. Bellingcat has gained an impressive reputaiton in a short time. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable Providing context for primary sources is exatly why we encorage the use of secondary ones like BC (WP:RSPRIMARY)—blindlynx (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Bellingcat has, as Guy says, gained an impressive reputation for investigative journalism, and in a short time. But, this smacks of the gossip pages. Springee's reasoning gives a good argument for not using it in a BLP and per Masem there are UNDUE issues. We could use it attributed but I don't think we should. Encyclopedia articles are not for "he-said-she-said" rumors. Spudlace (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More importantly, if Bellingcat is the only RS that has talked about this particular incident (in depth or as part of a larger picture around Ngo), its a problem to call it out that was, regardless of how reliable Bellingcat is. Even if it was the NYTimes reporting that way with its impeccable reliability, we shouldn't include it as we should not be a laundry list of every news article that mentions a person. --M asem (t) 23:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable: Bellingcat is a generally reliable source and we generally aren't in the business of second-guessing reliable secondary sources unless they are blatantly incorrect. That defeats the point of relying on reliable secondary sources: we don't analyze primary sources like Ngo's tweets ourselves but rely on secondary sources like Bellingcat to do it for us. If we're analyzing the tweets themselves to say Bellingcat is wrong, we may as well analyze the tweets and directly put that analysis in the article. Loki (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable for such claims, but one must properly summarize what it say. According to the diff, "Bellingcat stated that Ngo's tweets framed the brawl as an unprovoked assault by anti-fascists". Yes, this is true, but the main claim by the article (if one reads it) is that Ngo misinterpreded and misused the video. That must be crystal clear from citation. Right now it is not. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the BC article discusses two events. The majority of the article talks about a Ngo's twitter commentary related to someone else's video from Nov 2020 protests in Washington DC.  BC lays out a good case for while the presentation was misleading.  At the very end of the article BC says, in effect, "Ngo did this before" and then shows Ngo's tweets related to the 2019 fight at the Cider Riot bar.  Ngo was present at the bar and based on video evidence was sprayed with mace without provocation (beyond trying to film the conflict). Ngo's tweets only said he was personally attacked without provocation and asked others to help him identify the attacker.  Springee (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Unreliable Bellingcat prides itself for using user-generated content and research. Ngo is a frequent target of online citizen activists. It is highly likely that there is a direct line of information being passed between these activists and Bellingcat on this subject, and as such should not be relied upon for Wikipedia. The heavy slant is obvious from reading the content. Nweil (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Byline Times (bylinetimes.com, NOT byline.com)
Is Byline Times [ https://bylinetimes.com/ ], [ https://bylinetimes.com/about/ ] reliable?

This Byline Times is not to be confused with The Byline Times at [ https://byline.com/ ]:
 * "In 2016 we inherited a site from the founders of Byline.com which – by this point – was the only major surviving crowdfunded news site left."

Also see and [ https://byline.com/2015/04/14/welcome-to-byline/ ] From 2015.

The Byline Times I am referring to was started in 2019:

Some material is "Written by Byline Times and the Citizens".

Previous discussion that started off confusing the two: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * New, left wing, subscription model, reliable for something in particular? I'm sure the usual suspects will show up claiming it is just like the Canary :) 22:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 April (UTC)


 * Used to trash various (mostly British) conservatives in multiple articles, and in a few random nonpolitical articles:
 * used in Simon Dolan
 * used in Killings of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman
 * used in Political activities of the Koch brothers
 * used in Dominic Cummings
 * used in Chris Law
 * used in American Institute for Economic Research
 * We have an article at Byline Times.
 * I think it is unreliable tabloid editorializing. They sometimes get the facts right, but we should rely on better sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. To me, it seems like hard-left agitation of the worst kind. I think they’ve got in trouble for what they’ve written before, but I could be wrong. Quote this source in context, as editorial opinion, but it’s hugely biased for anything factual.—TrottieTrue (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of uncorrected errors? I note they're not on IPSO register (2019) and of course, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".  Bias notwithstanding is there evidence of libel cases or extensive revisionism without stated rationale? Chumpih. (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't consider a source to be reliable just because we don't know of any uncorrected errors. per WP:RS the source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Lack of people suing them might just be because they are new or because they are careful to only make stuff up that won't get them sued. Who does the fact checking for bylinetimes.com? Have they ever printed a retraction? Also, look at the website. Do you see factual reporting in the "fact" and "reportage" sections or do you see editorializing? And who the hell are "Byline Times and the Citizens"? Crowdsourcing? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "We stand by the Impress code on corrections. Byline Times have made three corrections in 1,200 articles written by 120 writers over a year. For any news organisation, that's pretty good." 21 April 2021 Peter Jukes, Executive editor. Keep fishing, tho, might dredge up some actual muck somewhere.Selfstudier (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Selfstudier neglected to source the above claim, here it is: It was a twitter post by Peter Jukes. (A later post changes that 120 to 220). The post was in response to "Is this like when you 'discovered' the hedge funds that 'paid for no deal brexit' by misreading some charts, Peter?" by Willard Foxton Todd. (I believe this is the same story that was referenced by Dr. Swag Lord below.)


 * Byline.com is regulated by IMPRESS. bylinetimes.com is not.


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I just read that tweet again. Is Peter Jukes actually bragging about bylinetimes not making any corrections? [ https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ] has him beat. They have never posted a correction. That makes them super reliable, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Do other reliable sources import material and facts from the bylinetimes? Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable Byline Times ran a fake (or, at the very least, highly misleading) story regarding Boris Johnson and Brexit (here, here, and here). And, recently, they ran a fake story on Priti Patel, the current Home Secretary of the UK (as shown here, and here). Reliable sources seem to almost never reference Byline Times for facts or reporting, so they fail WP:USEBYOTHERS, too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like bylinetimes has not printed any retraction or correction on any of those stories. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. For the first story, Full Fact stated that: "We have asked Byline Times for more information on which firms they consider to have been direct or indirect Vote Leave donors; they told us they would not release this information for “legal reasons” because they had not contacted those firms. Their follow-up article does not detail the methodology they used to identify these firms as direct or indirect donors." For the second story, Byline Times added an "Update" which was just a Tweet from the British Government--not a correction. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Biased and reliability unclear. The site appears to label its articles into four categories: "fact", "argument", "reportage", and "culture". The main way to tell if an article is in a particular category is to look at the background color, which does clearly delineate the sections but also might be confusing to editors, who have to take the odd step of noting the background color of an article to figure out which section it is in. That being said, some of seem to be very speculation-heavy and might very well be described as news-pinion rather than news. I don't see any plain fabrication of information by the source, since its descriptions are often framed in subjunctive mood or alongside expressions indicating that the source is engaging in speculation but it's clear that opinion gets fused heavily into the articles filed under its "reportage" title. Its "arguments" section is obviously opinion, while its "culture" section seems to contain both possibly news and opinion pieces that aren't clearly marked as either, so I'm hesitant to use its culture pieces as a source for facts. Regarding its pieces put in its "facts" section, I can't really speak to its reliability in particular, though I believe previous users have shown that these two stories in particular. Obviously we shouldn't jump to a conclusion on a source's reliability based upon two incidents (newspapers get things wrong at times), but the lack of a correction on the still-live web articles makes me worry a bit. I would certainly not use them for extraordinary claims, though I think they're probably reliable enough to source quotes.
 * The reason that I don't have outright certainty on if it's WP:GUNREL is that I do see some WP:USEBYOTHERS that would indicate trust of the sources. I do see use of articles listed in its "reportage", "fact", and even "argument" categories in publications that include a few peer-reviewed journal articles (and a passing mention in another), BMJ editorials and perspective pieces, and a few references to its reporting in a journal that focuses on the Labour party. It also has the obvious issues discussed by previous editors of having published misleading information and having very few news sources that cite it except to note that it published misleading news, which absent the use of the Byline Times for facts by some peer-reviewed journals would lead me to think of it as a clear WP:GUNREL. I think it is probably fair to assess the source as no better that WP:MREL and biased, though I really am having a tough time in determining if the source is better classified as marginally reliable or generally unreliable. I certainly would not use the source if it is the only source of an extraordinary claim or to support a negative claim in a BLP. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable assessment for now, I'm glad you noted the use by others. For myself, I would put it as marginally unreliable, see where it is a year from now, of course it should be attributed in all cases.Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this assessment too. They're almost never referenced by traditional media sources, but it seems that a couple of journals have cited them for facts related to COVID. I would also show caution for matters relating to the Israeli- Palestine Conflict, due to articles like this and this. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliability unclear. I broadly agree with . Per, I would not class it as "just like the Canary" because, as I said the last time it came up here, the editorial team and senior reporters are all extremely experianced journalists with excellent reputations and a history of working in mainstream legacy media, so I would expect high standards. Having said that, some of the contributors are more controversial, so when attributing it would probably be sensible to attribute to both the author and publisher (e.g. Duncan Campbell (journalist) or Jonathan Portes have strong reputations for accuracy; CJ Werleman and perhaps Nafeez Ahmed do not). The four categories that include "fact" and "reportage" versus "opinion" and "culture" should be helpful, but because individual articles aren't clearly flagged by category (except via colour-coding) it's not immediately obvious. There's definitely an air of sensationalism. I think the best thing would be to class as WP:MREL for now and monitor over time. If the number of misleading (especially if uncorrected) articles (like the Home Office expenses and short positions one) build up we can move to generally unreliable but for now we need caution and attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally reliable - proper journalists, doing proper journalism. Strongly opinionated. But not liars, and they cover noteworthy news - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Proper journalists, doing proper journalism" print retractions and corrections. Bylinetimes.com brags about not printing corrections, implying that they are so good that they don't make mistakes the way lesser sources like The New York Times do. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your statement appears factually incorrect, per above: "Byline Times have made three corrections in 1,200 articles written by 120 writers over a year." - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a suspiciously low percentage (compare with ), and I can't find any of those corrections (the claim was sourced to a twitter comment that contained another error and thus it is fair to ask for evidence that they really made those corrections) by searching their site for terms such as "correction" "retract", "update" and "edited to". I didn't read all 12,00 articles, though, so maybe the corrections are there and I couldn't find them. What we do know is that that the bylinetimes.com errors identified in this discussion -- including the one that resulted in the "3 corrections" tweet -- have no corrections or retractions. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * "Cover noteworthy news" is something I would have to disagree with. Per their own website: "Byline Times...produce fearless journalism not found in the mainstream media...Byline Times does not intend to report the daily news cycle. That’s for others. Our aim is to concentrate on ‘what the papers don’t say’." So, in essence, the kind of news they do report is not noteworthy. There are serious WP:UNDUE concerns if your only source is Byline Times. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think its choice to focus on topics not covered more broadly in the MSM, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily imply that the organization doesn't produce noteworthy reporting. After all, Bellingcat also doesn't really do the same sort of reporting as the MSM, but its reporting is often noteworthy due to its quality and investigative rigor. It of course should be noted, however, that The Byline Times is no Bellingcat in terms of quality or rigor, so I agree that there should be strong caution in using it as the sole source for a fact. I agree that we should almost never use this particular paper for exceptional facts (or negative facts in a BLP) if it is the only source reporting it, though I caution against writing off news outlets that intentionally focus on topics that the MSM does not cover in as much depth. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable have run into their stories before and the quality was very poor. Nweil (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC on sourcing in relation to race and intelligence

 * consensus below is that this is not a valid RfC as if fails to make any brief and neutral statement of the issue.

Last year, a consensus was reached in a RFC that the hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory. This is the hypothesis that there is a non-zero genetic contribution to variation in average IQ scores between racial or ethnic groups, as opposed to it being caused 100% by environmental factors. Last year's decision is generally understood to require about 45 otherwise reliable sources to be removed or excluded from Wikipedia articles, and also to require the inclusion of material that several editors consider to misrepresent the sources that it cites. As explained in this edit summary, these conclusions about required or prohibited material are based on the authority of the sources that were the basis for the previous RFC decision (8 sources).

The question that needs to be answered is: Do the 8 sources that are the basis for last year's RFC supersede the other ~45 sources listed below, sufficiently to justify the decision that the other sources must be removed, excluded, and possibly misrepresented? The decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory needs to be re-examined with respect to whether these consequences of the classification are compatible with Wikipedia's sourcing policies, particularly WP:RS and WP:V.


 * Option 1: The hereditarian hypothesis is mainstream.
 * Option 2: The hereditarian hypothesis is controversial but not fringe, as is it was classified from 2010 until a year ago (see this discussion). WP:WEIGHT describes this type of theory as a "significant minority" view.
 * Option 3: The hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory (i.e. how it has been classified for the past year).

See below for further details regarding the specific sources at issue, as well as the material whose verifiability is disputed. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Issue 1: Source removal/exclusion
The decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory has required most books and papers that give credence to this hypothesis to be removed or excluded from Wikipedia articles, amounting to about 45 sources. In this RFC I'm using the term "excluded" for cases where someone tried or proposed to add a source to an article, and was prevented from doing so. It should be emphasized that classifying the hereditarian viewpoint as a fringe theory has rendered these sources are inadmissible per WP:PROFRINGE, that is, "The issue of the admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligence was settled at the Fringe theories RfC last year."

The following are sources that last year's decision has required to be removed or excluded from articles. This list leaves out some removals of low-quality or outdated sources, as those removals can be justified independently of the RFC. Many diffs appear in this list more than once, as most of these edits removed more than one source at a time.


 * Papers published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences by Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan (2010), Rushton (2012), Becker and Rindermann (2016),  Woodley et al. (2016),  and Rindermann, Becker and Coyle (2017).  The last source is about the Flynn effect and does not mention race, but it was removed because of its similarity to other papers that support the hereditarian view.
 * Most (but not all) of the material cited to the review by Hunt and Carlson (2007) published in Perspectives on Psychological Science.
 * Other papers published in Perspectives on Psychological Science by Gottfredson (2007) and Pietschnig and Voracek (2015).  The Pietschnig and Voracek paper is another paper that does not discuss race, but was removed because of its indirect association with hereditarian research.
 * Papers published in the journal Intelligence by te Nijenhuis and van der Flier (2013),  Murray (2006),  Murray (2007),  Rindermann and Thompson (2013),  Gottfredson (1997),  Lubke et al. (2003),  Kanazawa (2008),  Teasdale and Owen (2008),  and Christainsen (2013).
 * A paper published in PLOS One by Rindermann and Pichelmann (2015).
 * A paper published in Psychological Assessment by Campbell (1996).
 * A paper published in Frontiers in Psychology by Rindermann, Becker and Coyle (2016).
 * A paper published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience by Wicherts at al. (2012).
 * A paper published in Psychological Review by Dickens and Flynn (2001). A year later, a citation to this source was added in a different part of the article,  but the originally removed material from this source has never been restored.
 * A paper published in Nature Neuroscience by Posthuma et al. (2002). A clear reason was not given for removing this source, but its removal appears to be a follow-up to this removal of material cited to Hunt and Wicherts, as the Nature Neuroscience paper is about the same topic as the paragraph that was removed in the earlier edit.
 * A paper published in Scientific Reports by Kang et al. (2020). This source is about ethnic group differences in brain structure and how they relate to differences in visual processing, so the attempt to add this source did not correctly summarize its findings. However, this is one of the newest and highest quality sources to be prohibited by last year’s RFC, having been published last December in a Nature journal.
 * A paper published in Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki by Ko (2016).
 * A paper published in Human Genetics by Shi et al. (2017).
 * A paper published in International Journal of Neuroscience by Rushton and Ankney (2009).
 * A paper published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience by Cairo (2011).
 * James Flynn's book Are We Getting Smarter? (Cambridge University Press, 2012). Flynn was not a hereditarian; this source was removed as part of an edit that blanked five paragraphs of text, eliminating the discussion of a concept by both hereditarians and their opponents.


 * Most (but not all) of the material cited to Earl B. Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence (Cambridge University Press, 2010).       The removal in the second diff is especially significant, because this eliminated the article's only explanation of how race's status as a social construct does not make it impossible for racial IQ gaps to have a partially genetic component (because despite being socially constructed, racial categories also correlate with genetic variation).
 * The chapter by Niu and Brass on international variation in IQ scores in The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, edited by Robert Sternberg (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
 * All material that had been cited to Heiner Rindermann's book Cognitive Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 2018).
 * The Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence article has been deleted entirely, so it is not possible to provide diffs of the removals from that article. But prior to its deletion the most important prohibited source was Cochran, Hardy and Harpending (2006) published in the Journal of Biosocial Science, along with the various secondary sources that gave credence to this paper, including The New York Times and The Economist. It was explained in this discussion that the result of last year's RFC specifically prohibits citing sources that support this paper's hypothesis.
 * The following is an incomplete list of other sources related to the JBS paper's hypothesis that have been removed or excluded, based on diffs that can be collected from non-deleted articles and talk pages:
 * A paper published in Mens Sana Monographs by Gilman (2008).
 * A paper published in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences by Dunkel et al. (2019).
 * A paper published in Human Nature by Cofnas (2018).
 * A 2010 article in the New York Times by David Brooks.  This is a separate article from the (also excluded) 2006 New York Times article about the JBS paper.
 * An 2007 article in Commentary magazine by Charles Murray.
 * A 2006 article in The New Republic by Steven Pinker.
 * Cochran and Harpending's book The 10,000 Year Explosion (Basic Books, 2009).
 * Jon Entine's book Abram's Children (Hachette Digital, 2007).


 * In this discussion it was mentioned that the prohibited sources also include In the Know by Russell Warne (Cambridge University Press, 2020), and the chapter about international IQ differences in The Nature of Human Intelligence edited by Robert Sternberg (Cambridge University Press, 2018).
 * In this edit summary and this one, it was stated by that writings by Charles Murray are no longer considered a reliable source about any topic, and it was stated here that all work by Heiner Rindermann is now "seen as unreliable for any content on Wikipedia related to race and intelligence". The Google scholar profiles of Charles Murray and Heiner Rindermann list several hundred works with mostly mainstream publishers, so these judgments potentially apply to hundreds of sources that would otherwise satisfy WP:RS.
 * There is a tension between these decisions and an existing decision made last year at the reliable sources noticeboard, which found books published by Cambridge University Press to be reliable sources with respect to the R&I topic, and specifically mentioned Hunt and Rindermann as appropriate experts in this area.

These ~45 sources are not a complete list of the sources prohibited by last year's RFC, because this list does not include source removals for which no diffs can be provided, due to the removals having occurred on an article that was subsequently deleted (Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence). I also have not attempted to list every publication by Murray and Rindermann affected by the judgment that all of these authors' works are unreliable sources, or any other sources sympathetic to the hereditarian view—and presumably prohibited for that reason—beyond those that have been directly removed or blocked from inclusion.

The sources that the previous RFC outcome was based on—and consequently, the sources that are the basis for removing or excluding the other 45 sources—were listed here. The following is a complete list of the sources the previous RFC outcome is based on that discuss race and intelligence. (Note this qualifier: this list does not include two sources that were misleadingly presented as supporting the RFC outcome but that argued only against racial discrimination or racial essentialism, without mentioning intelligence or IQ.)


 * Superior: The Return of Race Science by Angela Saini (Beacon Press, 2019).
 * The Trouble with Twin Studies by Jay Joseph (Routledge, 2015).
 * The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould (W. W. Norton & Co., 1981, republished 1996).
 * The Science and Politics of I.Q. by Leon J. Kamin (Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, 1974).
 * A paper published in American Psychologist by Smedley and Smedley (2005).
 * A 1994 statement published by the American Anthropological Association.


 * A second, 1998 statement from the American Anthropological Association. The 1998 statement itself does not mention intelligence or IQ, but the AAA's background information about this statement says that it was a follow-up to their 1994 statement (the previous item on this list), which does discuss the topic.
 * The sixth edition of Psychology: Themes and Variations by Wayne Weiten (Wadsworth, 2004). I have examined later editions of this book, and in every subsequent edition published from 2007 to the present, the wording that was quoted in last year's RFC has been modified to make it less strong. In the RFC this source was quoted as saying, "However, heritability explanations for ethnic differences in IQ have a variety of flaws and weaknesses", but later editions instead say, "Critics argue that heritability explanations for ethnic differences in IQ have a variety of flaws and weaknesses". The current (2017) edition of this book presents the views of both hereditarians and their critics, without arguing for one side over the other.

Issue 2: WP:Verifiability concerns
The outcome of last year's RFC is generally understood to require the inclusion of content that several editors consider to misrepresent the sources it cites. The disputed sentence (which is present in multiple Wikipedia articles) states: "The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups." The most-discussed source for this sentence is Earl B. Hunt's widely used 2010 textbook Human Intelligence. The most relevant passage from this source (on pages 434–435) is as follows:

This part of Hunt's textbook is available at Google books. I strongly encourage everyone voting in this RFC to examine the full context of the excerpt quoted above, including Hunt's preceding summary of the hereditarian arguments he is reviewing here, and evaluate for themselves whether "The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component" is an accurate summary of this book's position.

This issue was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_45#Race_and_IQ:_%22no_evidence%22_for_genetic_component? recently discussed] at the No Original Research noticeboard. The consensus in that discussion, as I understand it, is that the disputed sentence is required by the outcome of last year's RFC regardless of whether it is supported by its sources or not. Some recent examples this argument being used to shut down WP:Verifiability based objections to the material can be found here, here, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG/Archive_203#Clarify_WP:NORN_close? here]. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey (race and intelligence)

 * Option 2: controversial but not fringe.

The race and intelligence article is under a sourcing restriction that allows only "peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers", and prohibits misrepresentation of sources. Of the eight sources that the "fringe" classification is based on, there are only three that satisfy this requirement and were published in the past twenty years: the Joseph, Smedley & Smedley, and Weiten sources. As noted in the second collapsed section above, in the case of Weiten's book the previous RFC quoted an outdated (2004) edition of this book, and every subsequent edition of Weiten’s book does not support the argument that was cited to it. The sourcing restriction technically only applies to the article itself, not to talk pages and RFCs, but it is going against the spirit of the restriction to use these sources as a basis for removing or excluding material published in eighteen peer-reviewed journals (Personality and Individual Differences, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Intelligence, PLOS One, Psychological Review, Psychological Assessment, Frontiers in Psychology, Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, Nature Neuroscience, Scientific Reports, Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki, Human Genetics, International Journal of Neuroscience, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Journal of Biosocial Science, Mens Sana Monographs, Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Human Nature), as well as from six books published by Cambridge University Press (Hunt 2010, Sternberg 2011, Flynn 2012, Rindermann 2018, Sternberg 2018, and Warne 2020).

Sources presented in more recent discussions to justify the removals have mostly followed a similar pattern: older sources, newspaper opinion articles and blog posts, and passing mentions of one or two sentences in sources that are mostly about something else (such as a single sentence in this 2017 editorial). This is roughly equivalent to classifying a physics theory as "fringe" based primarily on decades-old sources, blog posts, and books and articles from popular publishers, and then using that decision as a basis for removing all support for the theory that had been cited to recent physics journal papers and textbooks. I think that the standard of sourcing applied to other Wikipedia articles about science topics, which are based primarily on the most up-to-date and high-quality sources by professionals in the relevant fields, should be applied to the R&I topic as well.

With respect to the WP:Verifiability issue, I agree with the summaries given by by Literaturegeek, Gardenofaleph and Stonkaments that the contested sentence misrepresents the sources it cites, and that the argument made by Hunt's textbook in particular (quoted above) is very close to the opposite of what Wikipedia is citing this source to say. I also think the editors who are preventing this sentence from being changed have tacitly acknowledged that the wording "there is no evidence for a genetic component" does not represent this book's actual position, because when the same editors removed most of the material cited to this book, they justified some of those removals on the grounds that Hunt’s book is in favor of the hereditarian viewpoint.

Past discussions have repeatedly concluded that this sentence cannot be changed or removed as long as the hereditarian hypothesis is classified as a fringe theory, so if this sentence in fact violates the verifiability policy, these violations cannot be corrected unless the outcome of last year’s RFC is overturned. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Per Ferahgo the Assassin. I hadn't previously been aware of the comment in which NightHeron argued (with the support of many other editors) that the material from Hunt's book had to be removed because this book was a pro-hereditarian source. That comment is quite damning, in light of the subsequent arguments that "there is no evidence for a genetic component" is an accurate summary of this book's position. Removing citations to a book on the grounds that it is a pro-hereditarian source, and subsequently claiming the same book supports the statement that there is no evidence for the hereditarian viewpoint, is an example of trying to have your cake and eat it.


 * Over the past year, whenever I or other editors have complained that this sentence is not supported by its sources, one common aspect of the response has been to add more sources, which usually are also misrepresented. My comment here explained how the sentence is not supported by any of its original four sources (Hunt, Mackintosh, Nisbett and Kaplan), and I pointed out here that one of the more recently added source does not use the phrase "no evidence" or any similar phrase. (It also is a paper that was published 51 years ago.) The statement now cites nine sources, the most recently added being a Vox blog post which fails the article's sourcing restriction.


 * If this approach continues at its current pace, eventually no Wikipedia editor will have time to sift through every one of the sources that have been added for this sentence, and point out how each one is either misrepresented, unreliable, or far too be old to indicate anything about the present consensus (or some combination of the three). The editors defending this material will be able to simply say, "your objections aren't valid unless you can explain how all twenty of the sources are misrepresented or unreliable." This brute-force approach should not be an acceptable way to win a sourcing dispute.


 * I may add more to this comment later. There is something I know about last year's RFC and its results that seems like it ought to be mentioned here, and I need to decide whether I should mention it or not. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It is Hunt, not me or other WP editors, who is "trying to have his cake and eat it". On the one hand, Hunt makes several statements that there is no scientific evidence showing a genetic component in the Black/white IQ difference. On the other hand, he says (without evidence) that the view that 0% of that difference is genetic "has virtually no chance of being true". He gives his personal opinion that a small amount, perhaps as little as 3% (a value he claims that opponents of racial hereditarianism would not object to), of the 15-point advantage of whites over Blacks is due to genetics. Despite Hunt's acknowledgment about the lack of evidence, for ideological reasons he seems intent on positing a white-over-Black genetic advantage (although not a large one) in intelligence. He also says that Jensen and Rushton are not completely wrong. So, despite what Hunt says about the lack of evidence, he's normally classified with the scientists who support hereditarian positions. Hunt's somewhat contradictory views were discussed at great length at last year's RfC, on the R&I talk-page, and elsewhere.
 * Hunt's speculation about 3% genetic influence would mean that, if it weren't for a genetic racial difference in intelligence, the Black/white IQ difference would be only 14 1/2 points rather than 15 points. What I find strange is Hunt's tacit assumption that a small, not-yet-detected racial genetic difference would necessarily favor whites. Why isn't it equally likely that, if it weren't for a slight genetic superiority of Blacks, the racial IQ difference would be 15 1/2 points rather than just 15 points? How does he know that the tiny, undetected difference doesn't favor Blacks? In other words, if whites rather than Blacks had been subjected to 350 years of brutality, slavery, whippings, rape, lynchings, segregation, police brutality, inferior schools, and so on, perhaps the average white IQ would be less than the Black IQ by more than 15 points. NightHeron (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There is something I know about last year's RFC and its results that seems like it ought to be mentioned here, and I need to decide whether I should mention it or not. It's probably worth calling out how profoundly inappropriate it is to throw around vague insinuations like this. Generalrelative (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 2 makes the most sense of them all. Yes, it is controversial, but that does not mean it has no evidence whatsoever. Nerd271 (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 1: Mainstream. All respect to Ferahgo the Assassin for her efforts to address the problem of excluded and misrepresented sources, but she is under-selling her point. Ultimately, judgments about what is mainstream or not mainstream can only be based on the balance of viewpoints that exist in reliable sources. Looking at reliable academic sources published on this topic over the past few years, option 1 is the only defensible position. (By "on this topic" I mean reliable academic sources that discuss the topic in some depth, not in only a few sentences.)


 * Here I'll focus on books published by Cambridge University Press as an example, because even though other academic publishers have also covered the topic, CUP is the only such publisher where a clear consensus has been established that its books on this topic satisfy WP:RS. In the past four years CUP has published five books that discuss race and intelligence:


 * The Neuroscience of Intelligence (2017) by Richard Haier
 * The Nature of Human Intelligence (2018) edited by Robert J. Sternberg
 * Cognitive Capitalism (2018) by Heiner Rindermann
 * Human Intelligence: An introduction (2019) edited by Robert J. Sternberg
 * In the Know (2020) By Russell Warne


 * The Sternberg 2018, Rindermann 2018, and Warne 2020 sources all are currently disallowed as sources due to their including of material in favor of the hereditarian view. The Haier 2017 source has not been discussed in that context, but it is mildly in favor of the hereditarian view as well. Of the five books related to this topic published by Cambridge in the past four years, only the Sternberg 2019 source is critical of the hereditarian view, arguing that the available evidence supports environmental causes over genetic ones, but that "the 'perfect data' that would definitively prove either conclusion do not exist." In summary: looking at sources published on this topic in the past four years from this reliable and high-quality academic publisher, three of the five sources are currently classified at Wikipedia as pro-hereditarian, one is mildly in favor of the hypothesis, and only one is against it.


 * The same pattern exists in all academic journals that cover this topic with some amount of regularity and technical detail, such as Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences (both published by Elsevier) and Psych (published by MDPI). In every journal that regularly covers this topic in depth, scholarship in favor of the hereditarian view outnumbers scholarship against it. The response by Wikipedia editors has typically been to try to declare these journals unreliable sources, although the only sources to support this classification are a few popular magazine articles in the case of Intelligence, and no sources at all in the case of Personality and Individual Differences and Psych. (Not to be confused with OpenPsych, which has an entirely different publisher and editorial board. Numerous sources have called the reliability of Openpsych into question, so that journal apparently does not satisfy WP:RS, but as far as I'm aware no published sources have claimed that Psych is similarly unreliable.)


 * SCHOLARSHIP says, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Last year's RFC has resulted in an explicit rejection of that policy in this particular topic area, but perhaps that problem can be addressed now. --AndewNguyen (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just spot checked those books, and at least two of them explicitly argue against the genetic explanation. Both include passaged explaining why it's a meaningless hypoethesis, not founded in real science. The ones that don't are written by walled gardeners, so I didn't bother, as I already know what they say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume the researchers you are calling "Walled gardeners" are Haier, Rindermann and Warne, so that the two books you checked are the two Sternberg books. If that's correct, see the discussion here. The Sternberg 2018 book contains chapters by Richard Lynn and Linda Gottfredson, who have been explicitly disallowed as sources due to being hereditarians. You can verify this for yourself here; Gottfredson is the author of chapter 9 and Lynn is the author of chapter 16. I have no idea what part of the book you're referring to by "passaged explaining why it's a meaningless hypoethesis", but at any rate whether you think the material from this book deserves to be disallowed as pro-hereditarian is beside the point. In the case of this source, that's the decision that has already been made. --AndewNguyen (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is incorrect. The Rinderman book deconstructs the underlying assumptions behind your position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if you think it does, that source (along with all of Rindermann's other work related to this topic) has also been classified as pro-hereditarian and declared therefore unreliable sources. See here: "My understanding of these discussions is that Rindermann's work is seen as unreliable for any content on Wikipedia related to race and intelligence." --AndewNguyen (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not ready to cast a vote myself as I don't know enough about the topic, but a cursory glance at the previous RfC shows it was quite controversial and definitely not a WP:SNOWBALL. Therefore it appears that a new RfC to gauge the community's consensus is legitimate, considering the significant effect the old RfC has had. Alaexis¿question? 11:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The Nature of Human Intelligence (2018), edited by Robert J. Sternberg is a collection of essays from the most cited researchers in the field of human intelligence. Sternberg invited all these scholars to contribute, even if they disagree with one another on certain points, which is inevitable given that human intelligence remains an active research topic. These people are professionals and they acted professionally. It would be nice if we were to include information on both environmental and genetic effects. It does not make sense to categorically or religiously reject expert opinions just because we happen to disagree with it. This is understandably a controversial subject, but that does not mean it should be censored on Wikipedia. We just need to attribute the sources properly. People are not sheep and we are not their shepherds. We have no business telling people what to think; we should only expose people to information and let them think for themselves. Nerd271 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose I fundamentally disagree that the community can say that publications that advocate for a link between race and intelligence are unreliable because they advocate for a link between race and intelligence. Arguments for fringe positions can be reliable, the community simply must expect a stronger burden of proof.  On the other hand, the suggestion that because there are "45 sources", some must be reliable is hokum and bunk.  Some of the authors (Rindermann is the one I am most familiar with) in those sources are not people I would consider reliable. One of the papers mentioned,  is not research, it is Rindermann saying that many of his friends agree with him.  Regarding the question: I've never heard the exact phrase hereditarian hypothesis (which is a redlink) but it seems to refer to the claim that there are measurable differences in intelligence between populations caused by hereditary factors.  There certainly isn't convincing evidence for the theory.  There is some evidence against it, but not so much that I am convinced there is "consensus" that the hereditarian hypothesis is false.  My view based on sources I have read is that we are unable to measure intelligence well enough to make a truly definitive statement on the topic, though there is certainly no obvious difference in intelligence (by comparison, there is an obvious difference in the average skin color of various populations).  As a result, I oppose everything in the RFC. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 04:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Invalid RFC. There is a clear consensus for this below but it may as well be stated here as well.  This RFC is patiently non-neutrally-worded (nor is it brief, but the fact that it laboriously makes the argument for a clear position - to the point of essentially presenting key points of the dispute as fact - is more pertinent.)  To be clear, a neutrally-worded question would be something like Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?, as in the previous RFC - it may require some slight tweaks to its wording, but it should not be substantially longer than that and should not make any arguments or present any evidence whatsover in favor of either position; that is what our !votes and comments are for. Furthermore, while this RFC is framed as an WP:RS question by placing it here, it actually requests that we decide a WP:FRINGE question (in fact, it is directly asking us to overturn a consensus reached at WP:FRINGEN); holding it here smacks of WP:FORUMSHOP, since outside of very obvious cases WP:RS generally doesn't do such in-depth examinations of how a source is oriented in the larger landscape of its field and how much weight ought to be accorded to it as a result. WP:FRINGEN is generally far more cautious about accepting sources that may be fringe, and is frequented by people who are more likely to recognize fringe journals or authors on sight - as Ferahgo is, I suspect, well-aware, having participated in a previous RFC there where her position was rejected.  Holding the discussion a second time in a different (and plainly far more unsuitable) venue is textbook WP:FORUMSHOPping. --Aquillion (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is incorrectly framed and posted. It seems to be framed as a content dispute (wrong place). However, if this is really about sources (and therefore posted here), then I can only suggest to follow WP:Verifiability. This is clearly not a medical claim, and therefore WP:MEDRS would not be applicable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Invalid RFC / Oppose. Per Aquillion and 力 above (and numerous comments below, including my own). Generalrelative (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I just requested that an uninvolved admin close this RfC, preparatory to someone opening a new RfC at the R&I talk-page. Hopefully the formulation of the new RfC will be very clear, neutral, and simple, for example, yes or no on the following statement in the close of last year's RfC: 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. NightHeron (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (race and intelligence)
Please use this section for all threaded discussion and/or comments on the !votes. Also, please remember that this RFC is not about our personal opinions on the scientific merits of the hereditarian hypothesis - it is about whether the consequences of classifying this hypothesis as a fringe theory are compatible with WP:RS and WP:V.

There is a recently published paper that addresses the quality of some of these sources: "Cognitive Creationism compared to Young-Earth creationism".

This paper does not take a position on the cause of group differences in average IQ scores, except to say there is no consensus about their cause, but it brings up several of the sources that the "fringe" classification was based on. It mentions the Saini, Kamin, and Gould books, as well as the Sussman and Gillborn sources that were cited later in the discussion to discredit one particular hereditarian author. It points out that these sources all reject basic concepts in the fields of differential psychology and behavioral genetics; they argue that major figures of the fields such as Robert Plomin and Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. are racists even though none of their writings discuss race (in some cases going so far as to compare these researchers to Josef Mengele); and some of them argue that the scientific method itself cannot be trusted.

This recent paper discusses the overall pattern of the arguments made by these types of books, but many of the same issues have been previously pointed by authors such as Bernard Davis, Eric Turkheimer,  and Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate (which discusses the Gould and Kamin sources, along with another one of Kamin's books). Turkheimer's review of the Jay Joseph book is particularly significant, because Turkheimer is quite opposed to race research, so one might have expected him to approve of these books; the harshness of his criticism is a good demonstration of how far removed these sources are from the psychology and genetics mainstream.

It remains to be discussed whether the older sources—including the Kamin and Gould sources, as well as contemporaneous writings by hereditarians such as Richard Herrnstein, Hans Eysenck and Arthur Jensen—should be considered reliable sources for more than just historical perspectives. Whatever is eventually decided about that question, it is important that any standards of recency be applied consistently to all sources across the board. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in half a mind to close this thread outright. This is a blatant attempt to relitigate a well attended RfC from March last year Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_70 that found the hereditarian position to be fringe. What does opening this thread accomplish? Hans Eysenck is not a credible authority on anything, given the recent retractions. User:Hemiauchenia 22:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Eysenck isn't one of the sources whose removal is at issue here; I only mentioned him as an example of my point about applying a consistent standard about whether sources from the 1970s and 1980s should still be considered reliable.


 * If you'd been following the history of the articles over the past year, you might understand why this RFC is necessary. Classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory has resulted in some sourcing problems that couldn't have been anticipated a year ago. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, THIS looks like the thing that I've been waiting for over the past year. Depending on the outcome of this RFC, perhaps it's time for me to become active again. --AndewNguyen (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure more forum shopping after you've already gotten a definitive answer, had that answer confirmed by the community, and then had objections to that answer rejected, will finally accomplish your goal of making Wikipedia make statements that are directly and explicitly contradicted by reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * (ec) This RfC is improper for several reasons. Instead of a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue per WP:RFC, we get a wall of text giving a lengthy, highly partisan presentation of the issue before listing the choices. The OP was an active participant not only in last year's RfC, but also, when the outcome didn't go their way, in arguing at WP:AN to overturn the close, and right afterwards participating in a complaint to ArbCom (initiated by another no-voter on the RfC) about the conduct of the RfC's yes-voters. This improper RfC is the latest example of refusal to accept consensus, forum-shopping, and civil POV-pushing by opponents of last year's RfC who want to give credence to racialist hereditarian views. NightHeron (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To the above highly pertinent reasons why this RfC shouldn't exist mentioned by Hemiauchenia, MPants and NightHeron, I'll just add that it seems quite improper for Ferahgo to have started it without informing any stakeholders (other than a single sympathetic one ) or the community at e.g. FTN or R&I. Generalrelative (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The actual situation is fairly straightfoward, and I'm going to say what I think is being a little too tactful to say in so many words: Wikipedia has it wrong. Science is not subject to voting. Scientific cnclusions are reached by scientists, and we have to follow current science. The consensus that Wikipedia  has adopted is either completely besides the point or absolutely upside down.  what we have adopted as the scientific consensus is the consensus from 1950 or 1960. It's what I was taught, it's what everyone was taught. That was 70 years ago. The sciences of anthropology, and especially of genetics have found out a good deal in the last 70 years, and it is that there are significant difference between human groups due to heredity. (It would in fact have been rather impossible ift here were not--everything humans do is fundamentally controlled by their evolution, by their biology, and this includes the way they organize society. We are just the same as all other animals that way. if genetics weren't true, we wouldn't be here. If genetics was as we imagined it to be rather than what it is, we wouldn't be the humans we are.)   The view of the 1950s that some WP ignorantly thinks is still correct, that there is no significant heritary factors, is old science, now superseded. It was superseded by the hypothesis that looking at overall h is not relevant, and one must look at individual genes. That's what I thought twenty years ago; its what most biologists probably thought.  That was pretty much the scientific consensus at the end of the 20th century.
 * This is not the twentieth century. Much to the surprise of many biologists, we can now already look at number of individual genes and know what they do in terms of neurochemistry. . We can look at their effect individually, we can look at the overall genomes. The consensus of the 1990s is also old science. If we claim to be scientists, we must follow the scientific resutls as they are, not thee results we had been taught in the past, or the way we would like them to be.
 * I'm not going to explain the science. Ferahgo knows it better than I, and knows how to explain it. She's done a start above, and her references will lead you further. That is, they will lead you further, if you look at them., have you looked at them? If you have, what do you think is wrong with them? If you have not, why do you think you are qualified to make a judgment? You , and others who will be making the same argument, are arguing we should continued to say what we have previously agreed to say, because we have previously agreed to say it. It doesn't seem to matter that it might be wrong. WP can decide what scientific truth is, not scientists. WP can decide which scientists are still correct, even though their results have been superseded. WP can teach people who come here for verifiable science, what used to in the past be the state of  science, even though it is no longer.
 * There are those who deny the validity and relevance of science. I think Ferahgo has discussed one analogy. There are many others, going back centuries and continuing today, who think that what ought to be true is true, and that this can be decided by their own opinions, or by general opinions, or by looking at a sacred text, or treating one source, however old, as if it were a sacred text. They think that the world is determinedby their internal feelings, and that those feelings are a better guide for human life than the objective world of science. I suppose people have the right to believe that, but an encyclopedia does not.
 * I assume that the peoplee here at WP do want to try to write a true encyclopedia . Then why do they think that what used to be true remains true, without looking at the evidence and without seriously trying to determine what the present consensus of actual scientists is? There are 3 possibilities: For one, they might think that they personally know more than the experts. For another, they have the reluctance to change that is sometimes a feature of moribund academic science, and stay with what they learned in college, and see no needto think about in again (see Thomas Kuhn for further analysis along this line.   For a third, they might be choosing what scientific results they believe by what they want to believe for social reasons (and that might have been true even in the 50s, when it may have seemed that the need to combat Naziism and racism was so important,  that one could choose the science to meet the social need, just like Stalin and Khrushchev adopted Lysenkoism ). If I weren't a scientist, I too might prefer to select results to match my politics.  But if I thought that way, I'd have no business trying to write an encyclopedia  to teach people science.  DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Science is not subject to voting. Science has consensuses. The consensus on this subject was the subject of 1995 report by the APA, in which it stated in very clear terms that the "hereditarian" position is the one least supported by evidence. That same consensus (that genetics does not explain it) had been referred to directly as early as 1970, and as recently as 2017, by widely acknowledged experts in the field. The question of the scientific consensus is, as you say, not subject to voting by Wikipedians. But, (and this is, contrary to what some here insist, good news about Wikipedia) when we put it to a vote, we agreed with the consensus. Not one source has been presented from a widely acknowledged expert in the field claiming that the scientific consensus is that the difference is predominantly genetic, or even that there's convincing evidence that the difference is partially genetic. In fact, no such expert has ever even proposed a mechanism by which such a genetic component might operate (rather unsurprisingly, given how little we know about genetics and intelligence).
 * Moreover, one thing almost all (approaching 100% of those outside the walled garden of scientific racism, that is) experts agree on is that race is a biologically meaningless convention. The total genetic difference between two typical individuals of the same race is greater than the mean genetic difference between two races. The "races" as we know them are defined by collections of traits, none of which are exclusive to any particular ethnicity.
 * The likelihood of ever finding some genetic, or even an epigenetic component that's not related to environmental factors is highly unlikely, and grows more unlikely every time we learn something new about genetics.
 * And that's a serious problem with this suggestion. Because the arguments presented aren't actually arguments that we've misinterpreted the scientific consensus. They're arguing that the scientific consensus is wrong, and that is absolutely not something that has any business being litigated here. We follow the sources, and not only are the best sources quite clear on the question of what the scientific consensus is, those few which are actually used to argue that it's somehow different are all the products of a relatively small group of scientists who've shown time and time again their unwillingness to admit their mistakes, and their willingness to engage in dishonesty to win the debate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the argumentum ad Kuhniam is essentially nihilistic. The issue here is that those who purport to study racial determinance of intelligence have never come up with a racially neutral measure of intelligence. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This comment is to respond to the edit that conflicted with my last comment.
 * MjolnirPants, have you looked at them? Yes, multiple times is some cases.
 * If you have, what do you think is wrong with them? It varies from source to source.
 * Hunt 2010 It's being misinterpreted. Hunt cites 3% as an example that would not alarm anyone: 3% of the difference between black and white IQs is smaller than the expected difference between two almost-identical IQ tests taken by the same person at the same time. It's nothing more than an artifact of the normal heritability of IQ.
 * Sternberg 2011, Flynn 2012, Rindermann 2018, Sternberg 2018, and Warne 2020 No claims about what they say are given, so I can't comment on them. As for the general claim that they support the genetic hypothesis: Flynn has been one of the more vocal opponents of it. Whatever quote is being cited is thus almost certainly either cherry-picked or misinterpreted, a la Hunt 2010.
 * Tezuka 2020 Completely off topic. This argument is pure WP:SYNTH. As if that weren't bad enough, it's not even clearly an RS, as this is a brand-new journal made specifically for publishing fringe views with no reputation to speak of. In fact, I can't even say for certain that Tezuka exists, as the journal permits pseudonymous and anonymous publication.
 * Davis 1981 No claim is made here, but this source explicitly refutes numerous axioms of the genetic hypothesis.
 * Turkheimer 2015 This is a non-sequitur. It's entirely possible to critique work that purports to support one's own view of the science.
 * Pinker 2003 No claims are made about what this says, so I can't evaluate them, but Pinker has stated "My own view, incidentally, is that in the case of the most discussed racial difference – the black-white IQ gap in the US – the current evidence does not call for a genetic explanation."
 * general references to Herrnstein, Eysenck and Jensen This rather undermines the rest of their argument, given what we know about those figures.
 * I would note that all of those sources have one thing in common:
 * None of them argue that the scientific consensus is anything but the environmental view. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You might take a look at "Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a 1.1-million-person GWAS of educational attainment" from Nature Genetics. That's what really convinced me. -- (& as a (former) biochemist, I found especially interesting but not directly relevant,  the supplementary material section 5, Biological mechanisms. )
 * I agree with you that the material on traditional races is extremely surprising--very different from when I last taught this material in 1975. It's so unexpected that  it certainly needs to be confirmed by other approaches, though it does not contradict the current views on human migrations and gene flow. (But that's not the central point here. )
 * But Ferahgo can explain most of this much better than I. She's the next scientific generation.  DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The source from Nature Genetics convinced you of what? The R&I article agrees with it. The section "Heritability within and between groups" states that "Psychometricians have found that intelligence is substantially heritable within populations." Within-group heritability is not what last year's RfC or the current RfC is about. The same section of the R&I article also explains why within-group heritability does not imply any genetic cause of inter-group differences at all. The source that convinced you has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence between races. NightHeron (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You might take a look at "Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a 1.1-million-person GWAS of educational attainment" from Nature Genetics. Let's ignore analysis of this source for now and assume this is, in fact, evidence for a genetic cause. The fact that a fringe claim is not 100% devoid of evidence does not answer the question "what is the scientific consensus." It doesn't even address that question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants, I think you got the number of negations wrong here. Didn't you want to say "None of them argue that the scientific consensus is the hereditarian view"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't get the wrong number of negations, but I absolutely got the wrong word (a critical mistake, no less, and one corrected now). My point was that none of these sources argue that the scientific consensus is anything but the environmental view. Most "hereditarian" sources which have been presented in these countless discussions argue for the hereditarian view, while occasionally acknowledging that the environmentalist view is the current consensus. This question about the scientific consensus is a red herring. The pattern of argumentation (and a large number of direct statements) establishes quite clearly that editors supporting relitigating this are actually pushing to make the article agree with the hereditarian view, and it's my opinion that we should always reject any motivated reasoning in discussions on how to run this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Last year's RfC lasted 5 weeks and about 50 editors participated. Sources, including numerous ones proposed by opponents of a yes-vote on the fringe question, were discussed at length. Before the RfC, the R&I article was heavily reliant on sources that promote racial hereditarianism. In the version at the beginning of 2020 Jensen's name appeared in the text or reference list 61 times, and Rushton's name appeared 36 times.


 * The OP's explanation for "why this RFC is necessary" is the claim that "Classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory has resulted in some sourcing problems that couldn't have been anticipated a year ago." This makes no sense. Participants in the RfC obviously knew, or should have known, that a consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe viewpoint would have a major effect on the sourcing of the R&I article and related ones. Per WP:FRINGE, sources that promote homeopathy, creationism, or climate change denialism are not RS for most purposes related to those topics, and the same is true for sources that promote the view that some races are genetically superior to others in intelligence. NightHeron (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The RfC statement is not "neutral and brief", as required by WP:RFCBRIEF. Could you please revise the RfC statement to meet this requirement? Also, could you please explain why this RfC is on the reliable sources noticeboard, when the question in the "Summary" section asks editors whether this topic is a fringe theory, and not whether one or more sources are reliable? —  Newslinger  talk   09:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * further to that, saying that the RfC statement is "not brief" is a serious understatement - it is ridiculously long. From the tag to the next timestamp there are almost 26,500 bytes, and  simply cannot cope with it and has given up trying; indeed, this is by far the longest RfC statement that I have ever seen. It needs either to be cut right back to about 5% of its present size, or a suitably short timestamped (or signed and timestamped) statement inserted between the  tag and the existing overlong statement. Otherwise, it will not be shown correctly at Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Fringe theories/Noticeboard. — Newslinger  talk   08:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , should notice of this RfC be added to Centralized discussion and VPP, or has it already been added?  Atsme 💬 📧 12:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so, although it would be best if the RfC statement were amended to meet WP:RFCBRIEF before adding this to WP:CENT. This RfC might also need to be moved to a different venue. Since this RfC is asking a question that is similar to the one in the previous high-participation RfC at, I believe the best venue would be the fringe theories noticeboard. —  Newslinger  talk   12:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  Atsme 💬 📧 12:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I opened this discussion at the RS noticeboard because the details of the RFC are entirely about sourcing. As I said in the initial RFC question, there is a consensus that classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory has a specific meaning with respect to what sources may or may not be used, and also with respect to the necessity of including material that appears to misrepresent the sources it cites. For example, as mentioned here, here and here, one result of last year's RFC is that all work by Charles Murray and Heiner Rindermann related to this topic is now considered unreliable regardless of where it's published. The question that needs to be answered by the current RFC is whether these decisions are compatible with WP:RS and WP:V, and the RS noticeboard seems the most appropriate place to ask about that.
 * I recognize that since this RFC relates to multiple issues, it was a subjective decision whether the most appropriate venue was this noticeboard, WP:NOR/N, or WP:FTN, but I consider the issue of otherwise high-quality sources being declared unreliable to be the central underlying issue. So my preference would be to keep the RFC where it currently is, with notifications posted at the other two noticeboards, as you've posted at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard already.
 * With respect to the length issue, I can try to reduce the length of my summaries, but I don't think I can remove either the lists of sources or the quote from Hunt's textbook, because both of those are completely central to what this RFC is asking about. It isn't unprecedented for a RFC question about a complex issue to be this long; see the initial RFC question here: WikiProject_Medicine/RFC_on_medical_disclaimer Would it be a workable solution for me to split the initial two paragraphs into its own statement, and turn the subsequent detailed explanation into a separate statement, as Redrose64 suggested? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The medical disclaimer RFC that you link did have a brief statement (although I'm not keen on the big boldface styling of the question, it's kinda WP:SHOUTy) - at the time that the tag was placed it was only 805 bytes, including timestamp. It did not change throughout the RfC's 30-day period that it was listed, and it displayed just fine in the listings until it was . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RfCs are only different from normal discussions because they are advertised in the category listings and through the feedback request service, so it is essential for the RfC statement to be compatible with . One way to address the length issue would be to move the "Summary" part directly under the rfc tag (without the "Summary" heading) and keep your signature at the end of the summary – this shortens the RfC statement, which is defined as the text between the rfc tag and the first timestamp. The remainder can be placed into a new "Background" subsection, with a new signature at the end. You may also want to move the "During last year's RFC [...] a decision about sourcing." and "I'm deliberately not notifying [...] article's talk page." parts to the "Background" section. —  Newslinger  talk   15:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I restructured the RFC question in the way you suggested. Thanks for the advice, and sorry about the length. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The OP's claim that the revised formulation of the RfC now conforms to WP policy (brief and neutral) is absurd. It's not brief. Moreover, the OP states the central question in bold type as follows: "Do the 8 sources that are the basis for last year's RFC supersede the other ~45 sources listed below, sufficiently to justify the decision that the other sources must be removed, excluded, and possibly misrepresented?" That's about as far from neutral as you can get. Then the OP gives editors three choices for voting that are related to the fringe question, not to the question in bold type. NightHeron (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutrality aside, the statement is now down to 3,157 bytes - which is still too big. Try halving it - or better still, get it right down to 50 characters. was a wizard at writing a neutrally-worded RfC statement in no more than six or seven words. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Really sorry about this—I pared back the intro the best I can. Hope it's readable now, as I will be afk tomorrow. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now 2,307 bytes - still way too big. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely you must realize not everything can or should be reduced to the level of consumer plastics or soundbites. This is a big and controversial topic, so of course she is going to need a lot of words to explain herself properly. Nerd271 (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't make the rules: I am trying to explain why this RfC was not being processed by Legobot, and so was not described at WP:RFC/POLICY and similar pages. WP:RFCBRIEF is not something that you can say "oh, it doesn't apply to me" about. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia states there are no firm rules. It therefore follows that we can relax certain restrictions if doing so helps us improve or maintain Wikipedia. Our ultimate purpose here is to inform the general public, not to follow rules. She is working on improving her case. That's good to see. Nerd271 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But those rules are in place for very specific reasons; ignoring them here has nothing to do with improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Specifically, you are not supposted to present an argument for any one position in the RFC statement.  For example, a simple, neutrally-worded summary of the question here would be Is the position that there is a genetic component to racial differences in scores on intelligence tests WP:FRINGE or not? - or words to that effect.  Everything else that Ferahgo added is an attempt to - as you conceded yourself! - make her case in the RFC statement, which taints the RFC and renders it invalid from the start.  Given that it has already attracted significant discussions it is certainly no longer salvageable. --Aquillion (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The existing consensus on the weight that should be given to these sources has indeed made it harder for advocates of racial determinance of intelligence, to reflect their views as fact in the article. This is a feature, not a bug. Theere is no agreed objective racially neutral measure of intelligence, and at that pointt he scientific discussion more or less ends, apart from a handful of activists who we decided to minimise as fringe, and who the OP now wants to ask the other parent if they can include again. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The existing consensus on the weight that should be given to these sources has indeed made it harder for advocates of racial determinance of intelligence, to reflect their views as fact in the article. This is a feature, not a bug. I want to second this. This is both a deliberate and a damn good thing, and these attempts to relitigate it are disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In case anyone needs a source for this, see this 2020 statement by a group of prominent scholars including biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes of Princeton and Jonathan M. Marks of the University of North Carolina, which discusses the question of why we see so few actual geneticists publishing research on the topic of race and IQ: It is worth quoting at length: [W]hile it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed. For this reason, the raw quantity of published studies is an extremely misleading metric; serious scientists have pretty much all moved on. This view is summed up by a 2019 Nature editorial titled "Intelligence research should not be held back by its past" (coordinated to comment upon a meta-analysis in Nature Genetics published on the same day): Historical measurements of skull volume and brain weight were done to advance claims of the racial superiority of white people. More recently, the (genuine but closing) gap between the average IQ scores of groups of black and white people in the United States has been falsely attributed to genetic differences between the races.  The idea that the observed gap in average IQ between black and white people can be attributed to genetic differences is false. Full stop. Let's all now drop the stick and walk away from this stinky, stinky corpse. Generalrelative (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The OP's reason for "deliberately not notifying the dispute's major parties (on either side) of this RFC" ("this RFC" means last year's RfC on R&I that the OP wishes to overturn) is: "because as much as possible I would like the outcome to be decided by uninvolved editors". This is highly irregular. In the first place, WP policy is to encourage widespread notification so as to have as broad participation as possible. In the second place, the OP's notion of "uninvolved" is strange. The OP was involved in last year's RfC and in other discussions of the topic and seems to have a strong vested interest in it.
 * In some of the past discussions of this topic (for example, at FTN and AfD) there's been a problem of on-wiki and off-wiki canvassing by civil POV-pushers. If that occurs here, that tactic will be much more effective if few legitimate editors have been notified.
 * Unless this ill-conceived RfC is withdrawn or closed on procedural grounds, I propose that the OP be asked to notify all participants in last year's RfC (except IPs, blocked users, and those who are already here). Anyone could do this, but it's really the job of the OP. NightHeron (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * She did inform at least one editor sympathetic to her cause . I am also curious how AndewNguyen heard about this after almost a year away from the project . Generalrelative (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but the RfC from last year consisted of a large number of the "yes it's fringe" !votes being based solely on personal opinion, and didn't even consider the plethora of sources provided by people arguing it was not fringe. The closer of that RfC then carefully crafted a "self-review" (archived here) that focused heavily on a misleading claim that he was involved (which I can't see how he was simply for writing an essay). The close review should've focused on the fact that those !voting yes in a significant number of the !votes actually never even commented based on the sources provided against - because Tony did not, in closing that RfC, make any comment on the strengths of the arguments on either side. I think the best thing at this point is for this to be closed as not at the right place and for a new RfC to be opened and carefully controlled so that the SPA/non-established editor problem doesn't happen, and for any !votes which are not substantially based on the sources and do not clearly articulate a sources-based argument to be discounted. I think it was unhelpful to start this RfC before crafting it in such a way that it not only can be discussed adequately, but can be controlled and useful. I don't think it's useful to rehash the past usually - but while consensus can change, I don't see how anyone can read last year's RfC as being a change in consensus rather than simply shoving something through that at its core allowed some editors to put their personal vendetta against anything potential racism above science and sourcing - which is really a failure of the closer to adequately view !votes in light of that obvious purpose. As an example, some comments from people who !voted that it was fringe include: Race is a sociological construct; It is well known that racial categories don't have genetic basis. To claim otherwise is fringe; race (whatever that is supposed to mean); Race is a social construct; the concept of "race" is a failed hypothesis; Away with the apologetics - these 6 comments make clear that those !votes were not primarily based on analysis of sourcing, but based on those people's personal opinions as to the topic - which means they should've been discounted and at best a no consensus result found. And unfortunately, we are seeing the same type of comments in this discussion - which are derailing it again. I think DGG puts it well in his comments here, and on last year's RfC having read it - it is not encyclopedic to put our personal opinions on a topic ahead of actually looking at the sources and evaluating them on their own merits - and not from the eye of "this source disagrees with me personally so I must find a reason it's not acceptable". I won't comment in this RfC because I think it's crafted very poorly and should be worked on by a number of editors before it's "published" - compiling sources, forming arguments, etc. But I do think that the result of last year's RfC is not a "consensus", but a failure to "weed out" activism and actually evaluate the merits of an argument - and as such I don't see it disruptive at all to attempt to revisit the topic now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is, in fact, not a single "yes" !vote that references personal opinion, directly or indirectly. Every single one either makes new arguments, repeats previous arguments or reference previous arguments.
 * However, here's an actual true claim: The vast majority of "yes" !votes came from a broad swathe of mostly experienced Wikipedians. The vast majority of "no" !votes came from sockpuppets, SPA accounts and accounts which have (before or after) sanctioned for their editing in this topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add my concern about the format of this RfC. It is shorter now, but the framing still emphasizes Option 2, which is supported in the description of the option itself by a WP citation and an exhortation to an overturned consensus, unlike the other two options. I also agree that this noticeboard is a confusing placement for this RfC, since RSN usually considers whether a single source of publisher of sources "are reliable in context", not comparing reliability across sources, which the RfC question seems to call for. — Wingedserif (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are some dreadful scientific inaccuracies being peddled above. The widely acknowledged problems with IQ scores and their ilk have been discussed by others, so I want to focus on a specific issue here; the conflation of race with heredity. It is true that the extent of influence heredity has on intelligence is still a matter of debate, and the argument that there's some influence is a mainstream one. The trouble is the leap from there to arguing that racial gaps in IQ scores have a hereditary aspect. That is a completely fringe argument, not because a link between heredity and intelligence has been disproven, but because race is a social construct that frequently has only a tenuous link to heredity, and because racial biases in intelligence testing are widespread. The assumption, repeated above and in previous RfCs on this subject, that hereditary differences may be used to argue for racial differences, is utter nonsense. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I've been checking sources since this was posted, and there's a rather telling fact that's become clear to me. The majority of the sources presented by those pushing for the acceptance of the genetic explanation don't support their arguments. I just want to make this clear. If you are reading these arguments and finding them convincing, check the sources, so you can understand just how poor and dishonest this argument is. It's also worth pointing out that I haven't seen a single source actually supporting the argument that the genetic hypothesis is the scientific consensus. Just a couple sources arguing in favor of the genetic explanation, and a whole bunch of source which people claim argue for the genetic explanation, but actually don't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to be extra clear about this, since there has been some confusion on this point, by "genetic explanation" we are talking about hypothesized genetic explanations for differences in average IQ test performance between racial groups. Such explanations are rightly considered WP:FRINGE. Genetic explanations for at least some of the difference in IQ test performance between individuals, on the other hand, are considered mainstream science. Anyone unsure as to why this isn't a contradiction should read Heritability of IQ (and, if skepticism persists, the articles it cites). Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a RS question
This is not a RS question, it's an UNDUE question. These sources are reliable descriptions of the hereditarian view, but the hereditarian view is, by consensus, fringe, and thus including reliable-for-hereditarianism sources violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to a fringe view. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thediscussion here is challenging whether it is actually a fringe view or whether that position is obsolete. The reason there are so any sources for it is exactly the evidence  that it is in fact mainstream.  DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Blink*... Ideas can be both WP:FRINGE and obsolete, but more troublingly, counting sources from white supremacists is not generally the way we determine what is or is not WP:MAINSTREAM at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , which has nothing to do with the reliability of the sources. Source reliability, here, is a wholly pretextual argument. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * comment Excuse my ignorance, but I have not been very wiki-active ately, but I'd like to know how and when did Ferahgo the Assassin end up being allowed to edit these topics again, so that she can proxy-edit for Captain Occam - meaning we now all have to take aother round in this R&I circus? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See this request. I think this RfC is pretty convincing evidence that the ban should be re-instated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * this is basically saying, give a topic ban to the peopley ou disagree with. I agree it has a certain convenience, because you then no longer have to bother even opposingtheir views, you can just ignore them.  DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No it is not. I believe the idea is that this RfC is improper for all the reasons mentioned above. Whether it calls into question the veracity of claims Ferahgo made about her views and intentions during the unban discussion cited by MPants I will leave to others to determine. Generalrelative (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Or, alternatively, it's saying, "Give a topic ban to people who insist on beating the dead horse." YMMV. jps (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you believe on this matter, I find it hard to believe that you can't see how this behavior is disruptive, especially given that Ferahgo has previously been subjected to a topic ban for exactly this behavior, which they have (falsely, it seems) since promised to stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not about "people you disagree with". It's about people who Never. Ever. Give. Up. An RfC forms a consensus, and, as we see here, one of the losing parties continues the argument elsewhere, ad infinitum. This ends up one of three ways: everyone gets bored and the POV-pusher succeeds, everyone gets angry until they are banned and the POV-pusher succeeds, or the POV-pusher gets topic banned. Which they did in this case, for some time.
 * Steadfast refusal to accept a consensus that goes against you is antithetical to a collegial approach. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Steadfast refusal to accept that consensus can change is not an objective approach. Unless one is a believer in infallible revelation, nothing is ever final, in the world or in wikipedia..   There is, however, no point in repeating an argument too frequently.  This question needs to be revisited, but perhaps this was too soon. If it had been up to me, I would have waited a while longer.   DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If consensus changes it should not be because a tiny group of dogged editors using all sorts of methods licit and illict eventually manage to get everybody else to give up arguing...·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Highly irregular and problematic RfC
Despite repeated reminders that WP requires the statement of an RfC to be brief and neutral, the OP has refused to revise her formulation of the RfC to make it neutral. In the preamble to the 3 choices given editors, she states that voting to uphold last year's RfC means giving a yes-answer to the following question written in bold type: "Do the 8 sources that are the basis for last year's RFC supersede the other ~45 sources listed below, sufficiently to justify the decision that the other sources must be removed, excluded, and possibly misrepresented?" In other words, voting for option 3 means that you're in favor of cherry-picking 8 out of 53 sources and misrepresenting sources. That's an absurd mischaracterization of what happened in last year's RfC and the subsequent edits of R&I and related articles that implemented the RfC.

The OP's long presentation of the RfC is full of partisan distortions, especially in the claims concerning sources and other issues in the collapsed portions. She presents editors with a straw man to knock down.

Until MPants gave a link to the OP's tban removal appeal in 2019, I had been unaware of the OP's editing history before the 2020 RfC on R&I. The discussion of her appeal is relevant to the problems we're having now. Her tban from topics related to R&I was caused by her inability to separate her strong personal opinions on the issue from her editing work. The tban was lifted, but some editors expressed skepticism about her promise not to resume POV-pushing in disregard of WP policies. Their doubts were caused by her editing history and by her membership in ISIR (an echo-chamber led and dominated by promoters of the theory of white genetic superiority in intelligence). I agree with MPants that this RfC shows that the skeptics were right.

Where do we go from here? NightHeron (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, a cursory glance at the previous RfC shows it was definitely not a WP:SNOWBALL. Therefore it appears that a new RfC to gauge the community's consensus is legitimate, considering the significant effect the old RfC has had. Alaexis¿question? 11:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that all non-snowball RfCs should be repeated again and again... until the result is different? Or until they become snowballs? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If one discounts !votes from SPAs and socks, it's damn near snowball status. There were maybe 3-4 experienced Wikipedians who haven't been topic banned !voting against the consensus there; compared to well over a dozen !voting with the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC has apparently had a significant impact on the sources in use in the article in question. One year is a long enough period to assess it and make sure that the changes due to this RfC reflect the community consensus. I don't like the alternative of not being able to challenge a past RfC. Alaexis¿question? 14:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The sourcing has been discussed at length on talk-pages, and that's the normal way to determine what decisions on sourcing agree with consensus. Of course sourcing was greatly affected by the RfC, since sources promoting a fringe POV are handled very differently from sources that are accepted by scientific consensus. As in other cases, fringe sources are reliable for describing what the fringe promoters say, but should not be used to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with a new RfC, as long as it's presented neutrally, all participants in last year's RfC are notified, and it's held at the R&I talk-page, where there's EC protection that prevents most socks and prevents SPAs and IPs from being recruited off-wiki. I just hope that such an RfC can be wrapped up more quickly than last year, when the whole process was "expensive" as measured by editors' time. NightHeron (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , A second RfC, and then, if Feragho refuses to accept consensus there, ArbCom. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , How about a second RfC that's held at the R&I talk-page, which is now EC-protected against socks and new arrivals from off-wiki canvassing? If we do that, I should obviously not be the OP again, nor should Feragho. There should also be very broad notification, including all participants in last year's RfC (except IPs & banned users). Perhaps the fairest way for a new RfC to be a review of last year's is for it to consist of a single sentence asking for a yes-or-no vote on the statement from Tony Ballioni's closing of last year's RfC that "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". NightHeron (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, that is the correct venue in my view. And conducted on a strict "no hectoring" rule. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By the time I had read to the end of the RfC, I was wanting to say pretty much what NightHeron has said here. I feel like I should be quoting a folksy proverb about how one cannot trust the fruit of the tree grown in toxic soil. The phrasing is wrong, the venue is wrong ... No good can come of it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For anyone not yet familiar, we do have an essay about precisely this: Fruit of the poisonous tree. Generalrelative (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem lies in convention, since Wikipedia has an issue neither fringe, controversial, nor mainstream. Consider Frankenstein's experiments. If those experiments violate ethics or seek outcomes predicating on a specific ethical bias, the sources scientific or not will carry biased grammar. If few sufficiently deep ethics apply, then so too will few balancing sources. While reliably scientific, such sources pose an ethical information hazard. Fruit of a poisonous tree, indeed. Unfortunately copy law makes exorcising information hazards illegal in many cases. So what will you do Wikipedia ?
 * For example, one might want to rewrite my post according to the grammatical perspective of a Wikipedian, for less hazard to Wikipedian agency.
 * 2600:1700:8B85:110:B6D7:E829:397A:CED6 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The OP's approach is flawed, so is "the hereditarian hypothesis" as it's not a black and white thing. If "the hereditarian hypothesis" is that individual or family or group genes, absent a condition, affect intelligence more than environmental context, it's falsified. If "the hereditarian hypothesis" means that a small influence is possible in individual or family variation, understanding that the environment has more influence, less so. What is fringe: 1) IQ reliably assesses latent intelligence, 2) human genetic variation has a significant effect, 3) that group/population as used here is "race". What's not fringe: 1) IQ can be a useful metric even if understood not to be an ideal evaluation of intelligence, 2) IQ scores can vary between groups, 3) environmental context and population health are understood to have a significant effect on IQ scores, 4) more individual variation exists, 5) IQ scores will vary for the same people or groups over time especially if general health varies, 6) it's not impossible that family heredity could play a minor role.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What's so confusing (or misleading) about the term "hereditarian hypothesis" is illustrated by the above comment. In fact, none of these is what the OP is referring to. In this context, the "hereditarian hypothesis" means something very specific. It refers to the hypothesis that genetics explains a significant portion of the observed gap in average IQ test performance between racial groups. This conversation is not about difference in IQ test performance between individuals or families. See the very pertinent comments by jps below on the inherent racism of this whole argument. Generalrelative (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If so, that particular hypothesis was falsified by experiments that have demonstrated that environmental factors explained group variation significantly... — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This RfC is the definition of WP:IDHT and refusal to drop the WP:STICK. In addition to the massively overwrought formulation of its question and the fact that the OP failed to notify stakeholders, that's why many of us are questioning the validity of the process here. Generalrelative (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Where we go from here is simple: ignore the improperly-formatted, clearly-slanted RfC. Policy and guidelines, not to mention tradition and practice, make clear that an improperly-formatted RfC can have no validity for determining consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with just about everyone in this section that this RfC was ill-posed and misplaced, and that this is not repairable after the fact. --JBL (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The crux of the problem is racism
What people don't seem willing to engage with is the weirdness that is the racism undergirding the OP's wall-o-text. There is this fear on this website that actually calling out racism where it is will lead to a form of personal attack, but it is not a "personal attack" to point out when an argument is racist. That is what is happening here. To see this for what it plainly is, just ask yourself why the circumlocution to a "hereditarian hypothesis" is being referred to here. If the point of discussion was about the inheritability of intelligence, the topic at issue would not be race and intelligence.

The WP:MAINSTREAM definition of racism is defined, like it or not, through the social sciences that study it. Like it or not, critical race theory is ascendent and has successfully shown that racist and white supremacist thought has permeated the Western academy to the extent that entire disciplines were invented to prop it up whether by means of scientific racism, eugenics, phrenology, or their relatives. The sources which discuss this topic in context that engage with the scholarly work on race and racism all recognize that the extent to which brain functioning is correlated with specific genes is no more related to the other swath of genes that we associate with racial phenotypes than it is with genes associated with any of the other grab-bag of phenotypes you might choose. For all you white people out there, you might consider how Jane Elliott might ask you to think carefully about Eye color and intelligence. WHAT? A REDLINK?! How BIZARRE?!

And that's the point here. If this were all about "the scholarship of psychometrics and intelligence" or "considering the best scholarly sources", the topic of academic attempts to connect race and intelligence would be of historical interest only. The extent to which various pseudoscientists try to use race correlates to argue for something innate about racism is, well, a racist enterprise, and it is laudable that Wikipedia treats the subject this way since that it was what the relevant epistemic community does. Don't like it? Go out and change the discourse among those who are academic experts in race, but your fight is not supposed to be at this website.

jps (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , well of course it is. The root of the race and intelligence debate has always been racism. And the problem has always been trying to tease out what genuine science there is on the side of the racists (because we can't know that every advocate for racial differences in intelligence is doing so to advance a racist cause, only that this is plainly the case for many historical examples).
 * In as much as Feragho has a legitimate point, it is how much weight should we give to literature promoting a cause beloved of racists and not taken terribly seriously by science generally, which is nonetheless diligently promoted by a handful of individuals with a very prolific output.
 * In as much as Feragho should be excluded from this topic, it's because he wants to not just increase the weight given to these people, but entirely reverse the weight of the article to represent their views as the mainstream and the dominant view as the minority. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If it all came down to weighing sources on "inheritability of intelligence", the question would not be asked in the context of race and intelligence since those with a "prolific output" are promoting a cause that is not related to race unless you also make the leap that all inheritable characteristics can be tied to race. This canard has been thoroughly debunked, but it may be worth re-emphasizing. I note that racist arguments propose that, for example, because race is used to make risk determinations in medicine, it should be legitimate to entertain racist hypotheses. This is basically a fallacy of the undistributed middle. jps (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguing that hereditarianism is mainstream based on individual papers is pointless. You cannot assess what is mainstream by cherry picking several dozen papers out of the many hundreds, probably thousands that have been published on the topic, and declaring them to be representative. This is not how science works. A lot of the pro-hereditarianism people aren't arguing for what the actual concensus of psychologists is, but for what they personally believe is true, which is irrelevant. Feragho has a COI as she is on the board of the society that runs the journal Intelligence, a notable promoter of hereditarian views. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "a notable promoter of scientific racism" - fixed that for you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , fuck, really? I had no idea. That's repugnant. Intelligence is a racist rag. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, see https://isironline.org/our-board/, 3rd from left on 2nd row. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

A hypothesis that East Asians have a heritable tendency towards IQs substantially higher than those of white people, cannot be a function of 'white supremacy'. Quite the opposite. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:9031:E137:F227:B905 (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That depends if your goal is to a)claim there are inherant differences in intelligence between races or b)continue the ongoing primary goal of scientific racism - attempting to say black people are less intelligent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the dumbest argument ever. I know out-and-out white supremacists in real life because I am, unfortunately, related to some. You can speak to any neo-nazi, "great replacement" believer or any other variety of white supremacist about this subject and they will readily admit that Jewish and Asian people might be "slightly" more intelligent than white people right before the launch into a rant about "inherent morality" and "physical prowess" "cultural ascendancy" and other such nonsense that has no basis in reality. Every time someone say that "saying Jews and Asians being smarter than white people proves it's not white supremacy," they're either announcing that they have no idea what white supremacist beliefs are, but aren't afraid to defend them, or that they know damn well what white supremacists believe and are lying to support that cause. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No, the crux of the problem is that many people falsely equate human intelligence with human worth when in reality, life outcomes also depend on other factors, such as nutrition, education, motivation, and other things. It should further be noted that different groups of humans are different because their ancestors evolved in different environments after humanity migrated out from Africa. There is nothing wrong with humans being different, no more than Darwin's finches being different. Put another way, people are differently talented. Let's not forget that over on the page on the heritability of IQ, the score for the heritability of intelligence as measured by IQ (among adults but not children) is rather high, about 0.80. It is therefore not too surprising that the environment does not entirely shape differences in human intelligence. It of course does not mean that it is 100% genetic. The question should not be 'nature or nurture' but rather 'how much of each'. Nerd271 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As discussed in our article Heritability of IQ, Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ have a genetic basis. For an easy-to-understand explainer on this issue, I recommend "Why genetic IQ differences between 'races' are unlikely" by the geneticist Kevin Mitchell: . Generalrelative (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the crux of the problem is that many people falsely equate human intelligence with human worth when in reality, This is the very first mention of human worth, or anything that could be reasonably interpreted as referring to human worth in this entire discussion. This fact literally only makes sense if you are completely and utterly wrong. I'll tell you right now that I have no trouble grokking that a person with a severe mental handicap is worth the same amount as a genuis, and someone describing the former as "less intelligent" than the latter doesn't bother me in the slightest. Again, this only makes any sense if you are completely and utterly wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Bzzzt! You mentioned IQ. Go to the back of the class. IQ is heavily culturally biased. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it absolutely can, if IQ is a metric where people from majority-whit cultures score higher. Spoiler: it is.
 * In the absence of a proven, objective, racially neutral measure of intelligence, this is all in the world of Rick Santorum dismissing Native American culture as insignificant because white Christians all but wiped it out. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It never ceases to amaze me that those who are partial to white supremacist arguments think the myth of the model minority is somehow an ace in the hole -- as if their opponents have never heard of the trope before. jps (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal anecdotes about the beliefs of individual white supremacists are not relevant here. The race and intelligence debate is global and not limited to racial dynamics within, for example, the United States. A scientist who claims that 'white' people have innately inferior average intelligence to another race or other races (I am not supporting the idea that race is a valid way to categorise humans) is not necessarily promoting a white supremacist narrative. A scientist who claims that as a group sub-Saharan Africans have better motor skills or more fast-twitch muscle fibres than other races, is not necessarily pushing a black supremacist narrative. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:280B:2978:F34F:22F1 (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What this person said. Different peoples are different. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. The politics of a certain country is irrelevant. Human intelligence is a general and cross-cultural topic. Nerd271 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Different people are different" is not the same thing as bringing out the canard about fast-twitch muscle fibres and then ignorantly attributing these well-worn racialist theories to "black supremacists" when they function perfectly well within the white supremacist narrative. jps (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a review in Nature linking these two perennial racist canards: "Sports and IQ: the persistence of race ‘science’ in competition" Generalrelative (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your inability to distinguish real world experiences from "personal anecdotes" is your problem, not mine. You could confirm what I said just by reading our article on white supremacy, though I know that's too much to ask. As I said, anyone making this argument is either ignorant of what white supremacists believe, but willing to defend them, or being disingenuous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how a post saying "I am right and anyone who disagrees is racist" has anything to do with Reliable Sources. If you're suggesting that we assess whether sources are reliable based on their political content, I'm afraid I cannot and will not agree with you. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 03:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To whom is this addressed? jps (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To you. Why is this discussion on this board?  It seems to have a lot to do with what you think is "racist", and very little about reliable sourcing. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 03:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When one reads the opinions of people like Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton who are cited as authorities by the opener of this RfC, and the role of the Pioneer Fund in bankrolling these people, it's hard to argue racism isn't involved in this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is this discussion on this board? The entire RfC doesn't belong on this board, and is also very clearly improperly written. Both of these points have been discussed at length above. As far as I understand we're just waiting for someone uninvolved to take it upon themselves to close it. Generalrelative (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is what I thought. I saw how Ferahgo phrased their question to be on-its-face about reliable sources, but agree with the crowd above that it was improperly done.  I'm not sure why so many people insist on continuing the conversation here, though.  other than the obvious detail that the topic is so controversial that it induces comment User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 04:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, this shouldn't be closed, it should just be moved, probably to Talk:Race and intelligence. So: "Race and intelligence" is difficult because everything to do with race is politically charged, and everything to do with intelligence is difficult because we are barely able to measure intelligence. Perhaps, instead of race and intelligence, we should first discuss race and height. Will anyone object to me suggesting that genetic factors may explain why Europeans are taller than African Pygmies? User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 04:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol, perhaps that will be a less contentious debate. But if anyone here is genuinely curious as to why the genetics that contribute to determining height are so unlike the genetics that contribute to determining intelligence, see "Why genetic IQ differences between 'races' are unlikely" by the geneticist Kevin Mitchel (I've cited it above too): . He contrasts the two explicitly and in a way that is very informative for understanding this entire issue. Generalrelative (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that given the other problems (especially the non-neutral statement), a new RFC would be needed, rather than just moving this one... assuming people want to move forward at all.  I'd suggest WP:FRINGEN instead of Talk:Race and intelligence, since that's where the most recent RFC took place and this one is asking for that one to be directly overturned, and since the core question is whether an aspect of a topic is fringe or not; additionally, it does have some relevance outside of just that article. --Aquillion (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I suggested the R&I talk-page rather than FTN is that the former is now EC-protected, and the latter is not. Given past problems caused by SPAs, socks, IPs, and off-wiki canvassing, I'm hoping that, if we decide to go through another RfC, having it EC-protected would prevent most of the distortions and waste of time caused by the tactics that are sometimes used by civil POV-pushers. I agree with you that a new RfC would make more sense than moving this one. NightHeron (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Arguing that I am causing the issue here when I didn't bring up the white supremacist argumentation is rather rich. If you wanted to close this entire discussion, that would be one thing, but it is clear that the OP is forum shopping to avoid having to discuss the racism inherent in their position, and it seems that pointing this out makes you uncomfortable perhaps because you are afraid that some of your approaches to this subject may be identified as having racist tinges? (N.b. If you think race has anything to do with a comparison between the heights of people, I presume you also have an explanation as to whether and how the same thing applies to blue eyes versus brown eyes.) I dunno, I think my argument is clear and the relevance to sources is unmistakeable to me. jps (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@jps. You either misread or are deliberately misrepresenting what I have written. I specifically pointed out that 'fast-twitch muscle' claims CAN NOT be naturally attributed to black supremacism.

I agree with the above. This is about sources, the rejection of sources, and misuse of sources. This 'racism' section needs shifting.2407:7000:9BC3:C800:280B:2978:F34F:22F1 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the one not understanding. This idea is also WP:FRINGE in the sense that the sources which make it are used to prop up the racism of white supremacism. The problem here is that people advocating for the white supremacist position, like whoever this New Zealand account is, either wittingly or unwittingly argue in favor of accommodating sources that are explicitly supporting white supremacy. To me, the irony is the brazenness with which this is done. jps (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Any sources we label racist and white supremacist are simply unacceptable. Races are the same because anything else is racist. QED. Furthermore any sources which can be used to support racism and white supremacy must be removed. In fact after this I will be deleting mathematics and engineering articles since these disciplines were used to construct Hitler's panzer divisions. Maximum Justice (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an example of why, if we hold a new RfC, it should be at the EC-protected R&I talk-page, where SPAs and probable socks such as this one (Maximum Justice has no edits other than the above) can't disrupt the discussion and waste the time of legitimate editors. NightHeron (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 to this. The longer we keep this open the more SPA disruption and meatpuppetry we can expect. Generalrelative (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to start a new RFC
I'd like to follow up on the suggestion made by several editors above (as well as by the closing admin) that a new, better structured RFC is needed. I agree with this suggestion. A properly structured RFC about the issues raised here will need to address three questions:


 * 1) Is it correct to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory?
 * 2) If the answer to (1) is yes, does this require the various sources that give credence to this hypothesis to be removed, excluded and/or declared unreliable?
 * 3) If the answer to (1) is yes, does this require the inclusion of the sentence that various editors have argued is not supported by its sources?

Any of these questions may be re-worded. My main proposal is that a properly structured RFC should separate these three issues into three questions, instead of combining them all into a single question as Ferahgo's RFC tried to do.

Second, I suggest that the correct venue for such a RFC is the NPOV Noticeboard. Question (1) above relates to fringe theories, question (2) relates to RS policy, and question (3) relates to Verifiability policy, but all three questions relate to NPOV policy.

I disagree with the suggestion that the RFC should occur on the talk page of any individual article, because these questions are not specific to any one article. The articles affected by last year's RFC decision include Race and intelligence, Nations and IQ, Heritability of IQ, Flynn effect, Ashkenazi Jews, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and the deleted Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence article. The most appropriate venue to discuss questions that span multiple articles is at a noticeboard.

I am not sure about the details of exactly how a properly formatted RFC on these questions should be structured, so I'm open to advice from other editors about that, especially from, whose comment above suggests that he has some ideas about how to prevent the discussion in such a RFC from being derailed. --AndewNguyen (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What happened to the discussion above? Most of it suddenly disappeared. --AndewNguyen (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone tried to archive the discussion and messed it up. I would HIGHLY suggest you hold this discussion on the article talk page rather than here, which is what I stated in the closure I made above, or at NPOVN as you noted.  Please do not hold it here, immediately after the above discussion.  It will not be successful.  -- Jayron 32 17:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By "Please do not hold it here", do you mean please don't hold another RFC about these questions here? Is it acceptable to discuss here about how such a RFC should be structured, if the RFC itself will occur elsewhere? --AndewNguyen (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Forget I said anything.  Vaya con dios.  -- Jayron 32 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure everyone would understand what is meant by "hereditarian hypothesis" in the same way, but overall I support the proposal. Alaexis¿question? 18:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No, we don't need another confusing and badly formulated RfC. There will be plenty of opportunity for those opposed to last year's RfC to talk about sources in the course of the discussion. Among the many problems with this new complicated formulation, let me mention one. Many sources are reliable for restricted purposes, including sources that promote fringe theories. Thus, a citation of Jensen or Rushton or Herrnstein/Murray might be appropriate in a section on the history of racial hereditarianism as part of an explanation of what those people wrote. But, per []WP:FRINGE]], such sources must not be used to provide a WP:FALSEBALANCE.
 * Secondly, the RfC should not take place at WP:NPOV. The predominant opinion expressed above was that it should be held on the article talk-page. This is indisputably an appropriate place for it. In addition, in view of the EC-protection on that talk-page, it will be less likely that the RfC would be disrupted or corrupted by off-wiki canvassing, SPAs, and socks, as has been a problem in the past with this topic. NightHeron (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument against holding an RfC on the talk-page makes no sense. The RfC will be just as easily accessible to editors, no matter what page they're editing, as last year's RfC is from the FTN archive. Assuming that none of us here are planning to engage in off-wiki canvassing or to comment and vote from multiple accounts, it seems that all of us, no matter what our view of the topic may be, should be able to agree on the usefulness of EC-protection during the RfC. NightHeron (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree on the usefulness of EC-protection during the RfC. EC-protection only allows users to participate who have 500 or more edits, and I don't have that many. Among the legitimate users on these articles who have under 500 edits, most are in the "not fringe" camp, so excluding all of those users from the RFC would tend to skew the result.


 * Regarding your concern about sockpuppetry, even if sockpuppets do show up during the RFC, they're very unlikely to affect the eventual outcome. Any competent closing admin would disregard comments from sockpuppets when evaluating what the consensus is. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The EC-protection for both the article and talk-page was discussed at WP:AE, where the decision was to protect both, in view of the persistent problems caused by SPAs and sockpuppets. The EC-protection of a talk-page is quite unusual, but was deemed to be necessary in this case. The difficulties are not just for the closing admin. Legitimate editors waste a lot of time responding to ill-informed and often hostile and disruptive comments by IPs and SPAs, because letting comments go unanswered can have the effect of legitimizing them. We can remove a comment only for a very good reason. Of course, everyone realizes that EC-protection does bar newbies, good-faith IP-editors, and a few others. But the history of R&I gives overwhelming evidence of the need for this level of protection. NightHeron (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, another RfC is sorely needed. Especially to address questions 2 and 3, which have been points of frequent contention and disruption recently. I also agree that the RfC shouldn't take place on an individual article's talk page, as this determination affects numerous articles, as mentioned. Stonkaments (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , well, up to a point. It turns out that a lot of the "frequent contention" was from vested interests and sockpuppets. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would word the first question as "Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?" or words to the effect of the previous RFC, since the plain intent is to overturn that one and nobody has raised any concerns about its wording. I would word the second as Should the lead contain the sentence "Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups, and that observed differences are therefore environmental in origin"?  It is a straightforward yes / no question; there is no need to say anything else in the RFC statement.  And the second question is invalid - it contains a lot of assumptions that I'm not sure reflect the actual practice on that page, but in any case an RFC at Race and Intelligence cannot change the way we treat fringe topics.  If the first question has a "yes" then nothing in the second question can allow inclusion of that theory; and if it is a "no" than the point is moot.  Beyond that it feels vaguely like a push-poll question in the sense that it tries to discourage people from giving a yes answer to the first question by hammering them with what the results would be under policy and by insinuating that usable sources disputing the first question exist - arguments like that shouldn't be in the RFC statement, at the very least. I would repeat the question from the past RFC verbatim, and see how clear the result is; then decide if additional followup questions are necessary or make sense after that. But the crux of the matter is always going to be "is this fringe?"; if some people are unwilling to accept that based on the results of the previous RFC, then we need a clear-cut RFC asking only that question in as neutral a manner as possible, before proceeding with anything else.  --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , The second formulation is a good question for the lede, but in the end if we don't address the fringe nature of the idea that (a) IQ is a valid, objective, and culturally neutral measure of intelligence and (b) differences in IQ are influenced by race, then we will never actually end this relentless drive by race/intelligence advocates. The original ArbCom case was over ten years ago, and nothing has changed. Given Ferahgo's involvement I foresee another ArbCom in the future. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You went ahead and opened the RFC on the article's talk page, with that formulation, despite the discussion above? --AndewNguyen (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The formulation is neutral and straightforward. The majority of editors who commented above (including in the course of Ferahgo's RfC above) support this. Also, EC-protection is crucial. NightHeron (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The entire point of starting a new RFC was to address the issues of WP:RS and WP:V that have arisen over the past year. Your RFC question ignores those issues, and just rehashes the question from last year's RFC. An RFC that ignores those issues won't be able to resolve anything useful, no matter which way the outcome goes. After the RFC is finished everything will be back to where it was a month ago, with editors objecting that sources are being misrepresented and that high-quality sources are being declared unreliable, with no clear answer as to whether those outcomes are allowed by policy. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire point of starting a new RFC was to address the issues of WP:RS and WP:V that have arisen over the past year. Would those be the "issues" that nobody has bothered to enumerate or give examples of? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the hereditarian perspective is not fringe (and therefore should not be presented as such in the article), and you think that you have sources that pass WP:RS and WP:V establishing that fact, then you are entirely capable of presenting them in the new RFC and using them in an effort to convince people. But you cannot start an RFC from the presumption that you have valid sources that are being ignored, since that would obviously be a non-neutral RFC; and since the core question is "is this topic fringe?", asking that automatically invites scrutiny of all sources available on that topic. In other words, you have your chance to present those sources now; the purpose of an RFC like this one is to invite a final scrutiny of all such sources so we don't constantly have to relitigate the discussion every time some new editor wanders into the page.  If you fail to convince people with the sources you believe to be so strong, then that means they were not as strong or convincing as you thought, which means you can't expect to turn around and use them to make the same argument again a month from now - no matter how strongly you believe that WP:V and WP:RS are on your side, and no matter how fiercely you believe that the sources support your position, at a certain point you have to stop beating a dead horse. --Aquillion (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I cannot present sources in the new RFC, because the new RFC is occurring on an EC-protected page that's only editable by people with 500 edits or more, and I have fewer than 500 edits. The decision to hold the RFC on an EC-protected page, instead of at a noticeboard where everyone can participate, excludes several users with under 500 edits who probably would have argued against the "fringe" classification, and  being other other obvious examples. --AndewNguyen (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't even be bothered to do ~175 edits to get EC status, are you really here to build an encyclopedia? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is fringe. It has been established several times in Wikipedia articles that IQ is largely heritable and can be largely explained genetically. Given this, how does it make sense that racial differences in IQ have NO genetic explanation? That seems to be contradictory. Dashoopa (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override the consensus of the wider community of editors. Last year's RfC clearly states that theories of a genetic link between race and intelligence are fringe. Why should we ignore that conversation now? — Wingedserif (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is fringe. It has been established several times in Wikipedia articles that IQ is largely heritable and can be largely explained genetically. This is pretty much proof that you don't understand the fundamentals of the concept well enough to edit our articles on it. If you want to know why this line of reasoning is so wrong, see here, where I reproduced a comment I made at the RfC. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing this example, though you could have done so with less rudeness and self-entitlement. You provide a confusing example which is a complete hypothetical, and then randomly assert without any evidence or warrant that genetic research is: "just like that." What? Later, you make a completely false claim by saying that there is no evidence that there is a genetic component to racial IQ differences when study after study has provided evidence that there might be a genetic component to it. (https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/17/htm, https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/4, https://abc102.wordpress.com/2008/08/09/admixture-studies-discussed-in-shuey-1966/, http://www.ulsterinstitute.org/intellofnations.html, https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/5, https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/34/htm, https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/34/htm) You could argue that these studies are flawed, incorrect, or insufficent, but there are undoubtedly studies and good research to back up this claim along with experts and scientists, who certainly have more credibility than armchair Wikipedia scientists. Arrogantly going around claiming that I don't have enough knowledge to edit on this topic, while making claims that there is "no evidence" to back up a claim that many have researched for decades and would disagree with is probably better evidence that you don't have enough knowledge on this topic to edit than I do, but hey that might just be me. Dashoopa (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Two of your links are blog entries, written by "Chuck", whoever the hell that is. It fails WP:RS by such an incredible margin that I'm actually surprised anyone would be naive enough to link it here. Have you ever even read WP:RS? It doesn't show, if you have. Literally every other link you provided is written by out-and-out White supremacists, most of whom don't even have related degrees, and the one who actually does have a related degree is widely considered to be the poster child for bad research, and has been reviled by the scientific community for his shoddy data and racism to the point where his status as a retired professor was revoked. One of those guys is widely suspected to be the person giving the nazi salute in this image and another is... well... the visible guy in that image. You should read his Rationalwiki page. For real. It's a dumpster fire.
 * Not one of those sources comes anywhere close to being reliable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that Psych an international, peer-reviewed journal is totally not reliable and neither is MDPI which publishes studies from international, peer-reviewed journals. All their peer-reviewed, statistical analyses must be white supremacist, right? Also, I find it hilarious that you cite Rationalwiki and then say I'm the one not citing reliable sources. LOL. The blog entries were not written as reliable sources, but they linked to reliable sources which is why I cited them. 2 of my blog posts, were, yes, not sources we would use on Wikipedia. However, the rest of them were reliable, peer-reviewed studies and fall in line with WP:RS whether you like it or not. Whether or not they are suspected to be secret, boogeyman white supremacists because Rationalwiki said so!! is not relevant to serious, scientific discussion and all of these studies still come out to be reliable. Dashoopa (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, don't edit other people's comments. Second off: everything I said is a demonstrable fact. Deal with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's such a demonstrable fact, then at least provide an argument for it instead of just telling me to "deal with" a non-argument you have been making. Dashoopa (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I literally already did that. Stop pinging me. I don't want to talk to someone who thinks random blogs and white supremacists are reliable sources on the confluence of race and genetics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're a clown, it was good talking to you though. Dashoopa (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop. Pinging. Me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But if you want to know what argument I'd have presented in the current RFC, if it were possible for me to participate there, see my vote in the closed RFC above, along with my subsequent replies.  As explained in those comments, my argument would have been based not on any one or two sources, but on the overall balance of viewpoints that exists in publications from every reputable journal and academic publisher that regularly covers this topic. Not that it does much good for me to explain this here. --AndewNguyen (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with AndewNguyen. For the past several months, I and a few other editors have been objecting that the article contains material that misrepresents its sources (Hunt's book in particular),    and that dispute is part of what the RFC at this noticeboard was intended to resolve. A new RFC that just repeats the same question from last year's RFC won't do anything to help resolve this. The dispute over this material will continue churning indefinitely. Gardenofaleph (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You know that the dispute over this material will continue churning indefinitely regardless of whether the RfC is held or not, or if any other possible RfC was proposed. People bitter about last years RfC will keep relitigating the result until they get a result that they are happy with. There will always be people coming out of the woodwork to support this view for the forseeable future, so I don't see how it could ever be "resolved". Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a foregone conclusion. If the RFC proposed above had been allowed to occur, with three separate questions, the conclusion might have been that the hereditarian hypothesis is a fringe theory but also that Hunt's book, etc. are being misrepresented, and that the material cited to those sources should be modified or removed. That balance of outcomes would have resolved the main source of dispute on these articles over the past few months, which seem to have been mostly about misrepresented sources (see the links posted by Gardenofaleph above). But the way things are going, which will do nothing to address that source of dispute - yes, your prediction is accurate. --AndewNguyen (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC above was improperly formatted based on WP:RFCBRIEF (and for non-neutrality), which was not corrected after multiple editors requested it. It could have proposed specific changes to the use of the Hunt source, but it did not. Instead, the RfC was framed over-broadly in a way that contradicted the previous FTN RfC (see the wording of Option 2) but also a discussion at NPOVN. Each proposed option would have established the fringe or not-fringe status of the hereditarian hypothesis and completely avoided the question of the use of Hunt as a reliable source—this RSN RfC would not have resolved the dispute either, by failing to propose any relevant answers to the question it posed. — Wingedserif (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Vzglyad (newspaper)
Can Vzglyad (newspaper) be considered a reliable source? I would appreciate wiki community assessment of this source. Grand master  17:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It's another Russian State propaganda source, founded by Konstantin Rykov.  The article itself states "the work of the site was supervised at monthly intervals by Rykov and then deputy head of the internal policy department of the Russian President"  That's a big no.  -- Jayron 32 17:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My own research also suggests that it is problematic:  Grand  master  19:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's referenced an awful lot here. Might be a candidate for deprecation. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Last time I checked, they certainly had pro-government and nationalist bias. The ru wiki article says it's controlled by an NGO which is financed by various state-owned companies. I'm not aware of specific issues but generally I would not use such a source. Can you provide some context for your request? Is it related to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war by any chance? Alaexis¿question? 20:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was used in that article too to make some claims about living persons. Such claims require strong sourcing, and I would like to know how reliable this source is, considering that Russia is directly involved in the developments in the region and has its own stakes in the game. Grand  master  08:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally unreliable. Since 2013, Vzglyad was owned by the organisation headed by the former deputy head of the internal policy department of the Presidential Administration of Russia (Dmitry Badovsky). Former editor in chief of Vzglyad Alexander Shmelev said that the newspaper was the "forefront of the [authorities] campaign" during 2007-2008 elections: "the toughest propaganda materials passed through us, as a result of which the very word Vzglyad has become a household name in blogs and social networks." The Atlantic, Andrei Soldatov,, Meduza and The Guardian call Vzglyad "pro-Kremlin". Transitions Online call it "pro-United Russia Party". Pulitzer Prize laureate investigative journalist Olesya Shmagun, who worked in Vzglyad, called it an example of "Surkov's propaganda". She said: "I was invited there by my former editor, he convinced me that I should not believe the reviews on the Internet. But it quickly became clear that all the stereotypes about Vzglyad turned out to be true." According to the newspaper Realnoe Vremya, Vzglyad is known for its closeness to the authorities. On August 17, 2017, Vzglyad came under the control of another organisation, associated with the presidential administration headed by Anton Vaino. Vzglyad is unofficially funded by the Russian government to promote the Russian interests. Vzglyad pushes anti-Ukrainian propaganda, and spreads COVID-19 misinformation. Omits important information: and pushes anti-EU propaganda: . Eurotopics says, that Vzglyad has a pro-governmental political orientation: "The website ... is published by a sociology institute with close ties to the Kremlin." -- Renat  20:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. This is a propaganda outlet by Russian state. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not reliable, this is a state propaganda outlet.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable, they do not appear to have a reputation for fact checking nor do they appear to be independent. In fact we have WP:RS clearly calling what they publish disinformation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because a source is pro-government doesn't necessarily mean it is unreliable. Almost every newspaper has some kind of bias. Is there any evidence of Vzglyad having a history of publishing false or fabricated information? --Steverci (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable per other contributers. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  15:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Geeksforgeeks.org


I noticed this added by an account which was primarily a spam account. They did add one or two legit links in the mix, and I can't tell if this is one of them. When I do a source search I see we have 51 articles that use it. It seems like it's primarily intended to sell its services, but figured I'd check here in case it's better than it seems. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I searched for http://geeksforgeeks.com/ and it says the domain is for sale. —El Millo (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * oops. fixed. .org &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Their About page shows no sign of editorial oversight. —El Millo (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Billions of Users, Millions of Articles Published"? Yeah, right. Pull the other one.
 * I don't know who is violating who's copyright, but do a google search on "Like Binary Search, Jump Search is a searching algorithm for sorted arrays. The basic idea is to check fewer elements" (with the quotes). You will get similar results on just about any phrase you pick randomly. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I came across this site when reverting edits by a spam account. There were a couple links to Britannica and one to this, but all of their other edits were to garbage content farms (now blacklisted). If this is likewise a garbage content farm, it at least looks a little better than the others, but it would not be a shock... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Techcabal
Hello, I want to know if Techcabal can be regarded as a reliable source or not. Thank you. The Sokks💕 (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on their aboutpage it's not obvious, and of course context matters. I wouldn't use it for very controversial stuff. It has some on-WP presence, see . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the response. The Sokks💕 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup, context... reliability depends on the specific information you are trying to verify when you cite it. It may be reliable in one situation and not reliable in another. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . In conclusion, it should be used with caution. Thank you! The Sokks💕 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ogledalo pravde translated as Mirror of Justice
Questioning the reliability of the source. (1) Ogledalo pravde translated as Mirror of Justice. In Croation. Here is the pdf which is available online [] (2) About the people involved in the apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje (3) Dražen Kutleša prepared/compiled the book for the Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar (translated as Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar) and Bishop Ratko Peric - Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar published it.
 * (a) Title page translated: "MIRROR JUSTICE -Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar -about alleged apparitions and messages in Medjugorje - Prepared by Don Drazen - Mostar, 2001."
 * (b) Drazen Kuktlesa wrote WORD OF THE EDITOR on page 9 of the document and the beginning paragraph translated: "'By order of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić tried I collect and computer-prepare various statements, announcements, comments and studies related to the Medjugorje phenomena, which is signed by any officer of the Ordinariate in the past period.'"

(4) Bishop Peric (Bishop Zanic before him) oversaw Medjugorje and the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar
 * (a) Link to the current Bishop of Mostar that took over from Ratko Peric []. The Bishop oversees :Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar []

(5) Bishop Peric wrote the forward (page 11) and conclusion (page 313-314). (6) It is a compilation of interviews and statements of people involved in the Medjugorje apparitions including the previous Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric. (7) Not independent from the apparitions but directly involved. (8) It is on six other pages that are related to Our Lady of Medjugorje: Our Lady of Medjugorje Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić. (9) Reliability on Wikipedia is important. Sorry I forgot to sign.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC) (Discussion)

Explanation
The above request was posted by User:Red Rose 13 (who forgot to sign it), and is a referral concerning a dispute at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The source in question is a book in Croatian, published by a Catholic diocesan publisher, under the supervision of Bishop Ratko Peric, concerning the veracity and nature of the visions of Our Lady of Medjugorje (OLM). The book is being cited as a source in various articles, including Pavol Hnilica, a biography of a (deceased) bishop who was extensively involved with OLM. The question is whether the book can be considered a reliable secondary source, or whether it is a primary source.

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It clearly would be a biased source, so whether it is a secondary source or a primary source, it should be attributed - with the usual "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" - if there are conflicting reports or uninvolved analysis which contradict this it should all of course be reported. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fyi Govenor Sheng is the other person involved in this DRN.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a note. Kutleša was a professor at the University of Sarajevo, and the book was published by the Bishop's Ordinariate. The reputation of the Ordinariate as publisher was never questioned by anyone, as far as I know. On the contrary, the Episcopal Ordinariate is known for publishing many scientific works (Example:, , , ). It also published numerous books from reputable authors such as: Neven Jurica, Božidar Petrač , Marijan Sivrić , Domagoj Tomas. The Ordinariate also organised scientific symposiums and owns a publishing house, which published books by reliable authors from academia such as: Vjeko Božo Jarak, Marina Beus , Božo Goluža , Ivica Šarac etc. As we can see, the Ordinariate cooperated with reputable institutions (the Dubrovnik Archive , the University of Osijek ), and publishes the works of credible authors from academia, not only the theologians but also from other academic departments, mostly social sciences. In conclusion, the Ordinariate can be considered a reliable publisher and especially so because of its cooperation with academia, other reputable institutions and because nobody ever disputed its reputation as a publisher.

Kutleša as an author was never directly involved in the issue, he is a third-person observer of the Medjugorje phenomenon, a reputable author (as a University Professor), thus his writing in this particular book (Ogledalo pravde) can be considered reliable.

Now, regarding Perić. Perić is "an established subject-matter expert" and his "works in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, independent publications". Proof:, , , ,. He is a regular contributor to Crkva u svijetu and Bogoslovska smotra, theological and scholarly magazines published by the University of Split and the University of Zagreb respectively and Hercegovina, a scholarly magazine published by the University of Mostar. Not only that, but Perić's other books received positive peer reviews. Example:. He also served as the rector of the Pontifical Croatian College of St. Jerome in Rome and was a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, the University of Zagreb, and the Theological Institute of Mostar, which functions as part of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Sarajevo. Thus he is a credible, reputable author.

What this rule states is that Perić, as an expert in his field (theology), whose work was published by reliable, independent publications (Crkva u svijetu, University of Split; Bogoslovska Smotra, University of Zagreb; Hercegovina, University of Mostar), can be used as a source even when he is self-published. The peer reviews do not need to be related to the books or other articles about Perić, but must be related to him as an author in general. Not only that, but the peer reviews are just an additional plus since the publication of his articles in "reliable, independent publications" will suffice to meet this Wikipedia criterion, which is that we can quote Perić and use him as a reliable reference even when he is a self-published author. That being said, Wikipedia allows usage of primary sources - when they're considered WP:RS. 

We can see from the above paragraphs that Perić is a reliable source, and as such, can be also used when his work is a primary source. In conclusion, Perić can be used as a reference when he is 1) a primary source and 2) a self-published source because as a reliable source he is exempted from Wikipedia's general rules on primary and self-published sources.

Note. Ogledalo pravde is not a compilation of interviews and statements, though it includes them. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Deepestsighs.com
Hi all. I'm here because I'm developing a draft article for the next Gang of Youths album, and I've com across this site – Deepest Sighs (named so for the song "The Deepest Sighs, the Frankest Shadows"). I'm wondering if it could be considered reliable, in which case I will obviously use it, or not, in which case I will include it in an external links section. Thanks, Sean Stephens (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it looks like a self published blog-type site. WP:SPS would indicate that it wouldn't be considered reliable. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking also. Thank you for expressing your point of view. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)