Talk:Christian Identity

NPOV in lede

The lede currently presents the beliefs of Christian Identity without any comment at all. This is inappropriate - it should also inform the reader of the important fact that these beliefs are considered utter, absurd, ahistorical and ideological nonsense by actual experts, historians and Biblical scholars - on par with Flat Earth Theory. It can't be hard to find reliable sources for that.

The only criticism in the lede right now is the note that Christian Identity is considered 'racist, antisemitic, and white supremacist', but these are categorisations of ideological alignment rather than factual claims - many adherents of Christian Identity would probably see them as a badge of honour - and also, the obviously correct categorisations are presented as the peculiar view of only two organisations, when it should be easy to find five or six reliable sources confirming them. Hardly anyone, with the possible exception of some adherents of Chistian Identity itself, would deny that Christian Identity is 'racist, antisemitic, and white supremacist', so the categorisation should probably be presented simply as fact. Finally, one of the cited organisations for Christian Identity's anti-Semitism being the ADL is, if anything, counterproductive. By now the 'Anti-Defamation League' has, ahem, defamed so many people as anti-Semitic merely for criticising Israel that their categorisation of something as anti-Semitic hardly tells you much about its target - in fact, it may have the opposite effect of discrediting the claim. Appealing to their authority to prove the anti-Semitism of something is more or less like saying 'It's just as anti-Semitic as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein'. Readers should not be presented with the false choice between Christian Identity and the ADL. 62.73.72.101 (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:LABEL there are some terms we virtually always attribute. As to the rest, I think that would make the article worse and not substantially improve NPOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Celts

@PARAKANYAA Are Celts part of this movement? It’s mostly comprised of Germanics and Celts are not Germanics. Firekong1 (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The Celtic element is important. See e.g. George Michael (academic)'s explanation . The traditionalist view is only Anglo-Saxons or Germanics, and Celts. Leaving out one gives a misleading impression. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, may I at least rephrase the sentence to state “and also includes non Germanics like Celts”. Firekong1 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

No, because that makes it seem inherently centered on Germanics more than the sources say. It was both. They used a Celtic cross. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, it should at least be rephrased differently. Firekong1 (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Celts are definitely part of CI's view of Christian Israel. What's the objection to the current phrasing? ButlerBlog (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If the question is one of phrasing, I'm open to suggestions. However, phrasing as Germanic peoples (as well as Celtic peoples) such as Anglo-Saxons, Nordic peoples, and related peoples in this version is not an improvement. Parentheticals should be avoided. What, exactly, is unclear about Celtic and Germanic peoples, such as the Anglo-Saxon, Nordic nations, or the Aryan race and kindred peoples? Your (Firekong1) initial issue seems to be that Celtic should not be included, although that has been shown to be an incorrect assumption. So can you explain what you're trying to accomplish? ButlerBlog (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Butlerblog Shall we reach a verdict here? Firekong1 (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Butlerblog in that I don't see what the problem is here. You seemed to want to remove "Celts", when RS show that the Celtic element is key. Being specific about what they believed is important and parentheticals confuse matters. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Firekong1: I asked above if you could explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, so if you could do that, that's the starting point. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to rephrase the sentence this time, not remove Celts from the article. Since the article states that most of the adherents of this ideology are Germanic peoples (Germans, Britons, Danish, Dutch), I think it would be better to rephrase it to include Celts later in the opening paragraph. Firekong1 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see where the article says that? And even if it did, I don't see how it's relevant, when the belief is what we are describing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming this may be coming from the identification given from Jessup (2006) that lists the tribes of Israel and their supposed descendants. But to clarify, the people groups listed/discussed are not what people group adherents belong to ("most of the adherents of this ideology are..."), but rather it's what they believe in terms of "who are God's chosen people". There are two places other than the lead were it is summed up as Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Nordic, and Aryan peoples are the true Israelites or Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Nordic, and kindred peoples which comes from which comes from Balleck (2018) and Kaplan (2000). To directly quote the Balleck source (rather than our article), "'true Israelites' are Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Nordic, and kindred peoples'". This is consistent with other sources used in the article, although not specifically cited for this. For example, Barkun (2014) says "Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples". Burlein (2002) says "Anglo-Saxon-Celtic-Germanic-Scandinavian and kindred peoples". Several other sources offer similar results, so I don't see the need to list them all. I believe the current phrasing in the lead represents this in a logical manner. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I could distill that down to "we're saying what is stated in cited sources" ButlerBlog (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I do feel we should rephrase it given that it developed from British Israelism, and the British are generally Germanics like the English. In addition, Aryan would not be an accurate term since it more so refers to Indo-Iranians. Nordic would be a much better term for this use. Firekong1 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

So regardless of what reliable sources say, we should rephrase based on feeling? I don't mean to sound snarky, but have you looked at any sources - currently cited or otherwise? Go ahead and offer your suggestion here, but you're not likely to move consensus unless it conveys what is in cited reliable sources. Keep in mind that the article is describing a belief system that relies on pseudoscientific and pseudohistorical concepts (like Aryan race, not Aryan the term). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not based on feeling, I’m stating that the article should be rephrased in a less confusing way. Most sources I’ve seen generally focus on the Germanic peoples, but we shouldn’t remove Celts. I think it’s better to rephrase it, but I’ll ensure no references are moved (though I don’t see how they can be moved as there were no numbered citations there). Firekong1 (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

What sources? Most I have seen say their belief is specifically not just Germanic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Please pardon my frustration, but in the time since you've brought this up, you've made four responses and not one has offered an example of what you'd propose. I've asked at least twice directly and several times indirectly for what you think would be better. The only thing we have so far is (you) think we should rephrase it, (you) feel we should rephrase it, and (you) think it's better to rephrase it. We get it. So again, suggest what you think would be more clear so we can make some progress.

And to echo @PARAKANYAA, nearly every source indicates Celts are prominently included in the chosen. I noted several above. The most common is to simply say "Anglo-Saxon-Celtic". Barkun (arguably the most prominent source on this subject as he is referenced by nearly every other expert) notes it exactly that way, as do others. Germanic, Nordic, Scandinavian, and Aryan would be the next most common, with Teutonic being referenced less often. So as I previously noted, you're not likely to move consensus unless it conveys what is in reliable sources. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Very well. I think we should cease the conversation here since you don’t seem to understand what I’m trying to say. I apologize for your frustration. I won’t be editing this article regarding the Germanic and Celtic elements. Firekong1 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

"Identitarian Christianity" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Identitarian Christianity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 8 § Identitarian Christianity until a consensus is reached. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Beam

@PARAKANYAA: Maybe we could prune it a bit but Beam is definitely important CI character who should be mentioned. Read: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-13-mn-65232-story.html . SPLC mentions him in connection with CI too.RKT7789 (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not an article for every single notable person who happened to believe in CI. It is an overview article on the general topic of CI; I fear this would turn into a WP:COATRACK as such articles are wont to do. In any case we should only be using sources that discuss CI, so the LA Times source is justifiable but the others probably not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand the fear, I have no intention of adding anything further to the section. RKT7789 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

In related news I keep forgetting how terrible Beam's article is. I should fix that soon. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree with PARAKANYAA here. There has been a trend towards COATRACKing groups and individuals in the past, which risks losing article focus. He didn't really develop any doctrine and his violent actions don't seem to be specific to CI. What makes Beam a definitely important CI character to you? ButlerBlog (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I empathize with RKT7789's position. The association is worth mentioning, albeit briefly, it is notable among RS. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, WP:COATRACK. Why is it worth mentioning when no sources on CI do? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Didn't RK just offer you one? IE https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-13-mn-65232-story.html DN (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Some of the relevant text...

• Joining him in the lineup of speakers is Louis Beam Jr., a former Ku Klux Klan member from Texas and an Aryan Nations organizer who is also a staff writer for the California-based Jubilee newspaper, which is sponsoring the weekend event.
• Rogers says he does not share the views of white supremacists and plans to speak only on a Senate resolution he authored to reaffirm state and individual rights.
• “My impression of the Jubilee people is that they are a group of patriotic Americans who are working to preserve and restore individual rights and freedoms,” Rogers said, adding that he knows nothing about charges that the group promotes racism.
• According to the Oregon-based watchdog group Coalition for Human Dignity, the Jubilee is the leading national publication of the Christian Identity movement.

DN (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Then we have this one...

• GWU.edu (p. 22) "Beam was one of several prominent Klan leaders during this time to adopt not only elements of Odinism but Christian Identity as well."

DN (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

And this one...

• SPLC "Louis Beam is well known as the former Texas Klan leader who advocated the murder of government officials, a one-time resident of the FBI’s most wanted list and the “ambassador-at-large” for the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations. But the near-legendary leader of the radical right is also an Identity proselytizer who has written for The Jubilee, the nation’s leading Identity publication, and has spoken at several major Identity conferences."

I believe historian Kathleen Belew, has also mentioned the connection. Would you like me to see if I can find it?

Cheers. DN (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought he was worth mentioning, being a prominent anti-government militant and important figure in Aryan Nations. But ultimately I value consensus, if you feel he isn't worth mentioning, I’ll go with the consensus. RKT7789 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

He is important but not really important to this topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why only a brief mention, possibly with attribution to ADL or SPLC, may be DUE. How many reliable sources would this require, what about 3? Cheers. DN (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

How about just one good secondary source, such as a book or journal article, or at least an in depth analytical report in news media that synthesises the basic fact (he is a Christian identity preacher) with some information that shows why he is important to the development of the movement, and thus due in an article that discusses the history and development of the movement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you think of these?

• GWU (p. 22) Beam was one of several prominent Klan leaders during this time to adopt not only elements of Odinism but Christian Identity as well. This ideological evolution led Beam to Richard Butler, leader of Aryan Nations. Beam traveled to Butler’s Idaho compound in 1981, and Butler would attend Beam’s Galveston Klan Rally later that year, announcing Beam’s new role as ambassador at large for Aryan Nations.104 By that summer, Beam had announced his resignation as Texas Grand Dragon, and within a year, Beam and other revolutionary white supremacists, including Thomas Metzger, were leaving the Klan in droves and joining groups like Richard Butler’s Aryan Nations.105 As Beam was disassociating himself from Duke’s Klan in the aftermath of the civil suit in Texas, he moved to Butler’s compound in Hayden Lake, Idaho, beginning a long relationship that would have profound impacts on the white supremacist movement for years to come.
• Scholars archive Albany (p. 3) Kathleen Belew offered the most detailed view of the past forty years of scholarship on the far right by describing the emergence of the Patriot Movement in the 1990s. She and several others placed greater importance on leaderless resistance and the secret meeting between Louis Beam, Robert Jay Matthews, Richard Butler, and James Ellison.[9] The efforts of the Silent Brotherhood, Aryan Nations, and other closely linked groups enabled these white supremacists to successfully build the Aryan Nations “Liberty Net,” which debuted in 1984.[10] This bulletin board platform enabled members to read posts and exchange messages that allowed previously isolated right-wing groups in the U.S to find common ground. (p. 5) Richard Butler’s Church of Jesus Christ Christian bordered the house and was decorated with stained-glass windows with the Aryan Nations white supremacist logo. Attendees could attend paramilitary trainings, networking events, hear from attendees on the platform outside the church, or simply mingle with one another. Though another heavily guarded room lay within this compound where James Ellison of the Covenant, Sword, and Arm of the Lord militia group, Aryan Nations ambassador Louis Beam, Richard Butler, and staunch activist Robert Jay Matthews plotted what Ellison called the, “War in ’84.” 21
• When Hate went Online (p.3) by Chip Berlet "Better known was the Aryan Nations "Aryan Liberty Net," which went online sometime in the Spring of 1984. The network was implemented by Louis Beam, a leader of various Texas Ku Klux Klan (KKK) factions who worked closely with Richard Butler, the leader of the Aryan Nations Christian Identity compound in Idaho"
• Time - Online Extremism Is Decades in the Making - 2024 Louis Beam, the Aryan Nations’ “ambassador at large” and a former Grand Dragon of the Texas Ku Klux Klan, devised the first large-scale use of technology to further far-right extremism...A 1982 conviction on misdemeanor charges of conducting paramilitary exercises on federal land without a permit prompted Beam to resign as Grand Dragon and head to Idaho — where he’d take up residence at the Aryan Nations’ Hayden Lake compound.
• NYT 2021 Mr. Beam and his cohort were looking to foment a race war, which they hoped would lead to the creation of a white ethno-state. With that in mind, he and other movement leaders declared war on the U.S. government at the 1983 Aryan Nations World Congress at the organization’s compound in Hayden Lake, Idaho...Members of the Order, a secretive offshoot of the Aryan Nations of which Mr. Beam was rumored to be a part, robbed a series of armored cars in Washington and California. In Denver, they shot a Jewish radio show host to death in his driveway. As all of this was happening, the online proselytizing ramped up. Mr. Beam began his Liberty Net online bulletin board system in 1984.

DN (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for these. The first, Lewis & Ingram (2023), looks like it is a good source that has information that should definitely be somewhere, but (and at this point I have only skim read) it only seems to be saying that Beam created a syncretic Odinist and CI belief. It doesn't really figure him as steering the CI movement, nor suggest that the syncretic view was mainstreamed, does it? I'll read this an the others more fully, but I think that is good information about Beam and Aryan Nations, but not about this page.

The second one (Szpicek, 2021), appears to be a bachelors degree dissertation. We wouldn't normally use such a source, but would if the information is published and cited. I cannot find any citations to this. Maybe following up the Kathleen Belew reference will be more productive?

The third (Berlet, n.d) is probably a poor reference to a good source, as it mentions it is adapted from a paper and is a draft for a book chapter. Either the paper or the book chapter would be better, and the book chapter (if it exists) may say considerably more. What it say sis that he led the Aryan Nations Christian Identity compound. That doesn't show why he is important to the development of the movement. Perhaps the chapter says more?

I don't really see what the Time and NYT articles are saying w.r.t. his contribution to the development of CI either. So there is some further reading to do. I should read Lewis & Ingram properly. We need to see what Belew is saying, and Berlet may have a chapter in a book that is worth reading. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the clarification needed here is that Beam was not a leader of CI, and wasn't steering the CI movement. That is not what I would put into context here. None of the sources say that either. I did not intend to claim that he was, and I'm not sure who or where that keeps coming from. The sources say he was an ambassador and or associate of CI, if you will, and a notable one as he acted as a connection or bridge to other white supremacist organization leaders at Hayden Lake. See Aryan Nations World Congress. I think just a short and simple mention of him as such is fine at this point, IMO. DN (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

He was also involved with Jubilee, a major CI publication, according to the LAT source that RKT7789 provided earlier. DN (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is the SPLC with a quote from Beam...

• SPLC - The Carnage Takes Off In the last six years, Identity has reached farther than ever before. The faith got a major boost in 1992, when 160 “Christian men” met in Estes Park, Colo., to chart the future of the extreme right. It was here that the strategy of “leaderless resistance” — actions undertaken by hard-to-infiltrate cells answering to no one — was popularized. Here, too, began a new toning down of racist language, with the aim of recruiting into a “patriotic” movement targeting the federal government. And it was here that a new coalition, bringing Klansmen, neo-Nazis and extreme fundamentalists into a movement built on Christian Identity, was born. “For the first time in the 22 years that I have been in the movement, we are all marching to the beat of the same drum,” Louis Beam, a former Klansman and Identity diehard then representing the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations, told the group.

DN (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This appears to support inclusion in Aryan Nations more than Christian Identity. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I was under the impression that aryan nations was instrumental to the CI movement. Are they somehow mutually exclusive? Are we not allowed to even mention any connection? DN (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it is the other way round, isn't it? CI became the instrumental belief system of Aryan Nations when Swift converted Butler to the CI belief in 1962 (see paragraph 3 of section "Emergence as a separate movement"). But the link between CI and Aryan Nations is mediated primarily through Butler. I'm not seeing what we should be saying about Beam that relates to the development of CI. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It would certainly be helpful at the Beam article. DN (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Some good sources above for the Beam article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Cite style

PARAKANYAA - the page cite style is Sfn. This revert: and this one are reverts to fixes where references with the wrong cite style have been added to the article. This happens a lot with pages using Sfn, but per WP:CITEVAR it is correct to fix these to match the page cite style. Also you have inadvertently breached WP:3RR here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy It is acceptable per WP:CITEVAR to have references without pages be long refs and references with pages to be SFNs (or books all be sfns and news articles not be, similarly you can have books be capitalized one way and news articles another). See this FA that ran as TFA just a few days ago Geography and ecology of the Everglades - there are hundreds of other examples. That is the current style of this page, changing it violates CITEVAR. A cite style does not mean "all citations must use 1 template", it means consistency on what is what.

Also, my other reverts were 2 days ago, and unrelated to anything I reverted over today. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Actually, it's tomorrow's scheduled one. Still, same principle, this is an accepted cite style. For more examples from this month's TFAs, Voss (collection), William IV's British coinage Early life and education of Donald Trump, all recent FAs, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, noted about 2 days ago. But where us the text that specifically allows mixed cite style, and what do you mean by "without pages"? You mean without page numbers? The Sfn cite style is based on Harvard referencing. Everything goes in the bibliography, regardless of whether there are page numbers or not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also Wexler et al. (2024) most certainly does have page numbers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Yeah, I meant page numbers.

Where is the text that forbids it? All WP:Citing sources says is required is internal consistency, which doesn't mean every single ref is the same, quote: " Nearly any consistent style can be used, except inline parenthetical referencing, so long as that style is consistently applied within a Wikipedia article". Many styles treat different classes of sources differently, but does so in a consistent way. That a reference is based on something doesn't mean it requires it. CS1 is based on APA and MLA, we are not required to abide by all the APA rules in any articles where we use a CS1 template. There are hundreds of FA quality articles that use this style and this is what the article uses. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

But it is not consistently applied, is it? Several references that should be in the bibliography are instead in the reference list. Pointing to pages that do this is not really good enough as I can find plenty that use consistent cite styles, and WP:CITEVAR is clear that we should follow the page cite style, which is Sfn here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy The consensus over many FA discussions and citevar discussions is that this is a consistent ref style. Or, are we forbidden from using different kinds of CS1 template in an article, like cite web or cite av media, as that is inconsistent between the refs? Must we all use template:citation template, for consistency between the refs? That is not what is meant by "consistent", we can treat different kinds of sources differently in styling. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of what people are doing on some articles, the guidelines are quite clear. We are using shorter footnotes here, based on Harvard referencing, and the references go in a bibliography. You are confounding issues by talking about cite web / cite journal etc. A bibliography in Harvard style will include web links, journals, AV media, even emails etc. get added to the bibliography. That is correct Harvard style. And again, one of the links you reverted is a 37 page document with actual page numbers. These belong in the bibliography, and I have no idea why you want to retain an inconsistent citation style. If you want to change the style, we can discuss that, but there was no good reason to revert those fixes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The guidelines are abundantly clear that what we are doing is fine because all references we are doing are consistent. Where does it say we are using Harvard style? Using sfns does not equal. This is the style we are using, and you do not change it per WP:CITEVAR. You did it for all citations even web pages that have no page numbers.

I will start a discussion on WP:Citing sources/. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

They are not consistent. And if the guidelines were clear we can mix reference styles they would not say the opposite. "Where does it say we are using Harvard style?" Help:Shortened footnotes says: "[Sfn footnotes] are a hybrid of standard footnotes and Harvard-style parenthetical referencing." and when you read that page, you may argue that rationale 1 for using these does not apply where there are no page numbers, but rationales 2, 3 and 4 do still clearly apply, and failure to consistently use the cite style subverts them. In particular it prevents us from having an alphabetically ordered bibliography. It also leaves large chunks of wikitext in the page prose and makes duplicate references more likely. I'd put it to you that your reversion of my attempt to place author date references into the page cite style is just your preference because you have seen that done elsewhere. The guideline specifically states that is not a valid reason to revert the change. And you still haven't addressed that one of those that you reverted does have page numbers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

As several editors mentioned at the Citing sources discussion page, this is considered a consistent style. A "hybrid of" does not mean it works like normal Harvard referencing and also, that is a Help page, not a guideline. Those are some opinions on why someone might or might not want to use sfns, they have no force and the help page doesn't even suggest "you should do this", but that "this is one reason people might want to do this".

It is the style this page is using, and per WP:CITEVAR it is what we use.

I reverted your change of 4 different references to using sfns, because of the 3 other ones, if you want me to change back Wexler (which was not why I reverted), I will. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Just flagging the discussion at Citing sources#Does using any shortened footnotes mean the entire article, even non paginated sources like websites, has to use sfns? to editors reviewing this. Per , you say you won't oppose the putting back of the movement of the sources to Sfn so I'll do that. You suggest splitting the bibliography. I'm not opposed to structuring a bibliography, but neither is there much wrong with it as it is. It is not that long, and it is pretty usual for shorter bibliographies to mix all media types in a single alphabetised bibliography. However, happy to discuss on that point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)