Talk:Sex differences in intelligence

Adult WAIS and Raven evidence warrants less categorical wording

The article’s categorical presentation of no sex difference in average intelligence appears stronger than the adult evidence supports.

Three related but distinct outcomes need to be separated:

1. observed Full Scale IQ scores;
2. scores on particular broad cognitive abilities; and
3. latent general intelligence, or g, estimated using factor analysis.

Several analyses of nationally standardized adult WAIS samples have reported a small male advantage in observed Full Scale IQ. For example, Daseking, Petermann and Waldmann’s analysis of the German WAIS-IV standardization sample reported a statistically significant male advantage of approximately 3.2 Full Scale IQ points. This is a small effect, but it is not equivalent to no difference.

The wider WAIS literature also shows why the distinction between observed IQ and latent g matters. Colom et al.’s analysis of the Spanish WAIS-III found that observed score differences did not necessarily imply a difference in the latent general factor. Pezzuti et al.’s analysis of the Italian WAIS-IV and WAIS-R similarly found that conclusions varied according to the test edition, cognitive index, psychometric model and possible measurement bias. Men showed higher working-memory ability in their factor analysis, whereas no difference emerged for verbal comprehension or processing speed.

These studies therefore do not all support the same theoretical interpretation. Nevertheless, they do show that the adult WAIS evidence cannot accurately be summarized simply as demonstrating an invariant zero difference. A recurring pattern of small male-favouring differences in observed Full Scale IQ exists across several adult standardization samples, even though the extent to which this represents a difference in latent g remains disputed.

Raven’s Progressive Matrices provide a separate line of evidence. Lynn and Irwing’s meta-analysis included 57 studies of Standard and Advanced Progressive Matrices in general-population samples. It reported no difference between ages 6 and 14, followed by a male advantage from approximately age 15 onward, with an estimated adult effect of d = 0.33. Irwing and Lynn subsequently published a separate meta-analysis of 22 university-student samples.

These Raven findings have been criticized and should not be presented as uncontested. However, they are directly relevant to the question of average adult reasoning ability and should not simply disappear behind categorical wording that there is no adult difference.

I therefore suggest wording along the following lines:

“Research on average adult intelligence has produced findings ranging from no difference to a small male advantage. Analyses of several adult WAIS standardization samples have reported small male advantages in observed Full Scale IQ, while some factor-analytic studies have found negligible or no sex difference in latent general intelligence. Meta-analyses of Raven’s Progressive Matrices have also reported a male advantage emerging in later adolescence or adulthood, although the magnitude and interpretation of these findings remain disputed.”

This formulation would not declare that men categorically possess greater general intelligence. It would distinguish observed IQ composites from latent g, acknowledge the repeated male-favouring adult WAIS and Raven results, and also represent studies finding negligible latent differences.

Relevant sources:

• Daseking, M., Petermann, F., & Waldmann, H.-C. (2017). “Sex differences in cognitive abilities: Analyses for the German WAIS-IV.” Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 145–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.003
• Pezzuti, L., Tommasi, M., Saggino, A., Dawe, J., & Lauriola, M. (2020). “Gender differences and measurement bias in the assessment of adult intelligence: Evidence from the Italian WAIS-IV and WAIS-R standardizations.” Intelligence, 79, 101436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101436
• Colom, R., García, L. F., Juan-Espinosa, M., & Abad, F. J. (2002). “Null sex differences in general intelligence: Evidence from the WAIS-III.” The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 5(1), 29–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600005801
• Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2004). “Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices: A meta-analysis.” Intelligence, 32(5), 481–498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.008
• Irwing, P., & Lynn, R. (2005). “Sex differences in means and variability on the Progressive Matrices in university students: A meta-analysis.” British Journal of Psychology, 96(4), 505–524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X53542

Would editors support replacing the current categorical wording with a formulation along these lines? Mill-John (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Disputed edits

Temp user ~2026-42889-51 / ~2026-43152-03 is invited to discuss their disputed edits here rather than edit warring. These edits violate a number of guidelines, including MOS:LEAD (failing to properly summarize the article) and WP:PROFRINGE (relying heavily and uncritically on Richard Lynn). Per WP:ONUS, it is up to you to gain consensus for disputed content before reinstating. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

WAIS and Raven's male advantage

I am concerned that the current wording does not adequately represent studies reporting a small male advantage in adult WAIS Full Scale IQ and Raven’s matrices.... Could editors explain which high-quality secondary sources support the categorical statement of no average adult difference, and how the German WAIS-IV and Raven meta-analytic findings should be covered?

I recognize that observed Full Scale IQ is not identical to latent g, but I think both findings should be represented clearly.

Sources :

Daseking, M., Petermann, F., & Waldmann, H.-C. (2017). “Sex differences in cognitive abilities: Analyses for the German WAIS-IV.” Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 145–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.003

Pezzuti, L., Tommasi, M., Saggino, A., Dawe, J., & Lauriola, M. (2020). “Gender differences and measurement bias in the assessment of adult intelligence: Evidence from the Italian WAIS-IV and WAIS-R standardizations.” Intelligence, 79, 101436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101436

Colom, R., García, L. F., Juan-Espinosa, M., & Abad, F. J. (2002). “Null sex differences in general intelligence: Evidence from the WAIS-III.” The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 5(1), 29–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600005801

Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2004). “Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices: A meta-analysis.” Intelligence, 32(5), 481–498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.008

Irwing, P., & Lynn, R. (2005). “Sex differences in means and variability on the Progressive Matrices in university students: A meta-analysis.” British Journal of Psychology, 96(4), 505–524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X53542 |} Mill-John (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

See the extensive discussion above, and in the talk page archive, and also on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard about this topic. Any reference to the work of Richard Lynn would need to conform to WP:MSS. Generalrelative (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I will not restore my edit while this is being discussed. Leaving Lynn and Irwing aside, my concern is specifically the categorical wording in the lead. The adult IQ/WAIS and latent-g literature does not appear to support presenting the absence of a sex difference as completely unequivocal. Could we therefore discuss whether a more qualified formulation would better reflect the secondary literature? If the existing categorical wording is preferred, could you identify the high-quality secondary sources that specifically support that formulation?

Mill-John (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Possible imbalance in the presentation of WAIS, Raven, and g findings

gurkubondinn 17:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC) Hi,

After trying to add some studies showing male advantages on WAIS and Raven across dozens of recent peer-reviewed studies (in fact, 47 studies out of 47 available find a male advantage on WAIS, and 32 studies out of 33 find a male advantage on Raven), I have been asked to discuss the topic on the talk page before making any update to the article.

I shared on the talk page the view that the wording used in the current article seems really biased, and I shared the studies, but it was immediately collapsed by Generalrelative as LLM generated even if I only refined my english and had read all the studies I shared. I tried to discuss politely with him on his personal page, but he immediately removed it, saying "not interested."

After trying in good faith to discuss the topic, it seems evident to me that the current wording of this article does not adequately reflect the literature showing other results. There is a large amount of litterature that is ignored while the egalitarian results are highlighted.

There is a very substantial amount of recent peer-reviewed research showing clear male advantages on WAIS, Raven, and g. The article as it is now seems to highlight only the results in line with equality, while ignoring totally the rest.

Mill-John (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

First off, I flatly disbelieve that you only used LLMs to refine your language since your comments betrayed a complete unfamiliarity with the article you seek to alter. For instance, you asked us to provide sources to support the current consensus language. I count 10 such sources clearly presented in the article, including high-quality secondary sources like Hunt and Mackintosh which are discussed extensively in the above threads. I recognize that you may have good-faith questions about our coverage of this topic but we don't relitigate the matter each time a new person comes along with questions. And the way you have engaged so far –– both as a named account and, before registering, as a temp account –– have been disruptive. Please understand that the onus is on you to familiarize yourself with the route we took to establish the current consensus and then, if you have new information or policy-based arguments to offer, presenting them. Generalrelative (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

gurkubondinn 17:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have now read the previous discussions. The problem is not that it has not been discussed, the problem is that the article has not be updated accordingly. WAIS, Raven, g and Lynn have been discussed before but answering “we don't relitigate the matter each time a new person comes along” don't resolve the problem.

The previous discussions themselves do not show the issue as clearly settled as you suggest. One editor explicitly wrote “Consensus not established”. Later, an editor defending the parity position acknowledged that the existing IQ wording was not supported by the citations and that statements about general intelligence should not be used to support statements about IQ. In March 2026 Ornilnas stated that they believed they had introduced the “average IQ” wording without a careful review of the sources.

My point is also not simply “Lynn says males are more intelligent”. There are independent adult WAIS studies reporting small male FSIQ advantages, and there are analyses reporting male advantages in psychometric g as well as other analyses reporting negligible or null differences. Lynn's review itself summarizes a heterogeneous g literature rather than a uniform one, including positive, negative and null results, and concludes from the adult latent-variable studies that there is a small male advantage in g.

The evidence is clearly not uniform enough to justify presenting one side as an uncontested categorical fact. I am asking that the wording reflect the actual uncertainty and distinction between observed IQ/FSIQ, Raven's matrices performance and g.

If the present wording is really the product of a settled consensus based on the relevant literature, then please point me to the discussion where the more recent adult WAIS evidence and the relevant g literature were actually reviewed and where this specific wording on average IQ was justified. I am happy to read it.

Otherwise I think the appropriate thing is to discuss the sources now rather than treating the existence of earlier discussions as a reason that the question can no longer be raised.

Mill-John (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I see this discussion at FTN in particular as conclusive. That's 8 experienced editors explaining why your POV is wrong versus one brand-new account just like you arguing for your position. If you disagree or would like broader input, I suggest revisiting the matter at that noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I have raised the matter at FTN and will wait for broader input there. Mill-John (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Was this comment generated using a LLM? Katzrockso (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Total article rewritting request.

Hi,

I strongly believe that the article, as it is now is extremely biaised to support egalitarianism/the null hypothesis by selecting and inflating the egalitarian scientific litterature, while ignoring and trying to demonize or make fringe the authors and more abondant litterature pointing a non-nul hypothesis. Let me develop futher.

1. Adult WAIS

Nearly all WAIS samples examining differences between males and females found a male advantage.

Daseking, Petermann and Waldmann (2017) analyse German WAIS-IV and found sex effects that favored males on various measures, including FSIQ. Pezzuti et al. (2020) looked at the Italian WAIS-IV and WAIS-R standardization samples and reported male advantages.

In Lynn's 2021 book (Sex Defferences in Intelligence, the developmental theory), he compiled data from 42 adult WAIS samples and found a median FSIQ difference of about "d" = .24 in favor of males, 4 IQ points. All 42 of the 42 samples on WAIS found a male advantage (!). Not a single sample found no difference or a female advantage. I am not talking of Lynn. We are talking about 42 different peer reviewed published studies on male-female differences on WAIS. References and results are here https://human-intelligence.org/sex-differences/#WAIS Asserting no difference in IQ in adults is not a consensus, it's in itself a fringe assertion supported by a small number of scholars that have not taken the time to focus on the WAIS samples. People considering the egalitarian hypothesis are urged to provide some meta analyses on WAIS (not on WISC as the gap widens with age and is not present among children! Men mature more slowly but reach a final higher ceiling, like for physical height). Spoiler alert : there are none.

2. Raven's Progressive Matrices

Meta analyses on Raven's Progressive Matrices show exactly the same result. A 2021 compilation of studies on sex differences on Raven show a 4.5 IQ points mean advantage for men. On the 33 samples, 32 found a male advantage. One study found no sex differences. Is it a correct way to highlight the only one study pointing no differences while ignoring the 32 founding one? Is it what wikipedia consider consensus? Like for WAIS, we are not talking of Lynn here, we are talking of 33 independant studies on raven and sex differences all over the world. All references and results here.

https://human-intelligence.org/sex-differences/#RAVEN

People supporting the null hypothesis can share their meta analyses on sex differences in Raven showing no differences. New spoiler alert: there are none.

3. g factor

The wikipedia article asserts again the egalitarian hypothesis as it is an absolute truth, highlighting some studies showing no differences (they at least exist, not like WAIS or Raven...) while totally ignoring other studies :

• Irwing, P. (2012). Sex differences in g: An analysis of the US standardization sample of the WAIS-III. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 126–131. US WAIS-III standardization sample, N=2,450, ages 16–89; latent g about d=.19–.22, ≈ 3 IQ points higher in males.
• Flores-Mendoza, C. et al. (2013). Cognitive sex differences in reasoning tasks: Evidence from Brazilian samples of educational settings. Intelligence, 41, 70–84. Large Brazilian sample, N=4,771; CFA estimate d=.23, ≈ 3.5 IQ points higher in males.
• van der Linden, D., Dunkel, C. S., & Madison, G. (2017). Sex differences in brain size and general intelligence (g). Intelligence, 63, 78–88. Human Connectome Project adults, N=896, ages 22–37; d≈.25, ≈ 3.8 IQ points higher in males.
• Malanchini, M. et al. (2021). Pathfinder: A gamified measure to integrate general cognitive ability into the biological, medical, and behavioural sciences. Molecular Psychiatry, 26, 7823–7837. Large British young-adult sample, N=4,751; g difference about d=.31, ≈ 4.7 IQ points higher in males.
• Jackson, D. N., & Rushton, J. P. (2006). Males have greater g: Sex differences in general mental ability from 100,000 17–18 year olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test. Intelligence, 34, 479–486. Very large US sample, N=102,516; d=.24, ≈ 3.6 IQ points higher in males.
• Meisenberg, G. (2009). Intellectual Growth during Late Adolescence: Effects of Sex and Race. Mankind Quarterly, 50, 138–184. NLSY79/ASVAB; at ages 21–23, white sample N=2,512: d=.41 ≈6.1 IQ points higher in males; Black sample N=771: d=.10 ≈1.5 points.
• Jensen, A. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (1983). WISC-R US standardization analysis. N=1,868; male g advantage d=.161, ≈ 2.4 IQ points. Jensen's later correlated-vectors reanalysis gave d=.189, ≈ 2.8 points.
• Nyborg, H. (2005). Hierarchical factor analysis of a Danish sample. Small sample, N=52; at age 16, male g advantage d=.27, ≈ 4.1 IQ points.

The conclusion should be that the conclusion is disputed between the null hypothesis and a slighly higher g for males. Again, the article assert... equality.

4. Brain structure

The biological section of the article is also very confuse. No mention of the bigger male brain at birth for exemple, while a recent large neonatal MRI study by Khan et al. (2024), titled "Sex Differences in Human Brain Structure at Birth," found that males have a significantly larger total brain volume at birth, even when accounting for variations in birth weight. It corroborate many previous findings. Of course, for the egalitarian hypothesis that the article endorse to be maintain, these kind of biological findings are somewhat inconvenient as there is a clear IQ-brain size correlation of 0.2 to 0.4.

Similarely, no mentions are made regarding female HIGHER IQ found from 0 to 4 years old. Males have slower physical and brain maturation speed, as a consequence higher IQ among female is expected, and found, between 0 to 4 years old. It is important because for exemple East Asian people also mature more slowly than Europeans, and reach higher terminal IQ scores.

Somewhat similar results are fond amond children for IQ, and male reach higher IQ scores only in adulthood because their brain continue to mature later in up-teenagehood as shown in :

Lenroot, R. K., Gogtay, N., Greenstein, D. K., et al. (2007). “Sexual dimorphism of brain developmental trajectories during childhood and adolescence.” NeuroImage, 36, 1065–1073. Longitudinal MRI study, N=387, ages 3–27. Cerebral volume peaked at about age 10.5 in females versus 14.5 in males

Simmonds, D. J., Hallquist, M. N., Asato, M., & Luna, B. (2014). “Developmental stages and sex differences of white matter and behavioral development through adolescence: A longitudinal diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) study.” NeuroImage, 92, 356–368. Longitudinal DTI study. White-matter development continues more strongly/later in males during adolescence.

The article as it is now is a consensus of people reaching an ideological conclusion and having conveniently selected studies supporting their conclusions while shutting down a majority of the data. It is quite opposite of what the scientific data show for WAIS, Ravens and brain structure. I am strongly aware that this subject, like other article discussing variations in intelligence, is highly sensitive but at the end of the day, truth must prevail. Of course some scholars are targetted as racist or sexist, per definition if they found differences in intelligence between sexes or races, they will fall into these categories, genius. There is not a single WAIS sample supporting the egalitarian hypothesis yet this article somehow take the liberty to assert equality of IQ. Again, I am afraid this article is a testimony of what Musk would highlight as wikipedia deepest political biaises, and it is extremely difficult to implement any modifications as a set of specific safeguard are in place to lock this article into this ideological position, in contradiction with the majority of the evidence. I am confident General Relative will find a way to simply collapse this new post as well, for one reason or another, as the underlying data and evidence I pointed are not tolerable for the egalitarian clergy.

Mill-John (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I simply can't stand by and watch. I'll set aside for now whether the website you cited is strongly biased regarding race or gender.

If you've ever read any literature review, you should understand that when selecting papers for your sample, they clearly state the process to demonstrate that "I didn't specifically choose papers that matched my expected results to support my conclusions."

In what way does this website meet these criteria? Has it done so? Has it publicly disclosed and explained the sources of the papers it analyzed and the process of selecting its sample? ~2026-45082-58 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

So please provide us with one meta showing null hypothesis or female advantage in WAIS, genius. Provide it! Insulting people and saying they are fringe and bad simply because they reach a conclusion that you don't support is not an argument per se. I provided the site only for the LIST of independant WAIS and Raven studies on sex differences. Mill-John (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

【Variations in Raven's Progressive Matrices scores among Chinese children

and adolescents】

This article is a 2020 study of the Raven's Progressive Matrices test in China. The results showed that girls aged 15-16 had higher IQs than boys. However, why didn't this test result appear in the analysis on the website you provided? Why wasn't it cited by Lynn et al.?

Frankly, Lynn keeps patching up her own arguments with questionable evidence, trying to cover up her own problems.

For example, Lynn believes that "the IQ development curves for boys and girls are different in different countries," but then there's no follow-up, no specific analysis, and he simply insists on concluding that "boys mature later and have later intellectual development." ~2026-45082-58 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

This article is a 2020 study of the Raven's Progressive Matrices test in China. The results showed that girls aged 15-16 had higher IQs than boys. However, why didn't this test result appear in the analysis on the website you provided?

BECAUSE WE ARE FOCUS ON ADULT SAMPLES, GENIUS. Mill-John (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Not to mention, most of these so-called "gender intelligence difference studies" exclude male samples with lower intelligence.

A typical example is selecting adult samples from university students—various factors lead to more women attending university than men, thus excluding more men with lower intelligence, leading to these conclusions.

Many other similar studies do the same; they fail to consider that many congenital IQ disorders have a higher incidence in men, and that prisons house a large number of male prisoners who may have lower intelligence. Whether the samples in these papers are representative is a mystery. ~2026-45082-58 (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok so now we have to exclude all the scientific studies showing higher male IQ because... you decide so. Perfect. Not even a scientific studies showing problem in samples selection is required right? Just saying so is enough you know. Mill-John (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

your url:

【Table 2.1. Sex differences in intelligence at ages 12 through 21 (ds; positive signs denote males score higher). AR: abstract reasoning.】

So why doesn't it cite this article? ~2026-45082-58 (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The table Sex differences in intelligence at ages 12 through 21 is provided pertinently to show the differential maturational pattern in brain size and IQ! This table is not included in the WAIS or Raven's meta analyse... ! Mill-John (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

your article:

【Boys and girls have about the same IQ up to 15 years old. From the age of 16, the average IQ of males becomes higher, with an advantage increasing to approximately 4 IQ points in adulthood.】

So do you think the way this website selects its literature review samples is reasonable? ~2026-45082-58 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Now you find a bone to pick right... this website... I am not playing your sick game of ignoring the forest because of the three. My original message is clear, with abondant studies. The article as it is only a political stance in frontal denial of the majority of the litterature. Not a single meta is showing equality or female advantage among WAIS ADULT. Not one. Mill-John (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

And how have articles for this article been selected? :D Why are only minority studies showing equality highlighted while ignoring the overwhelming data showing slightly male IQ? Ooooh... I suppose it's not cherry picking when it allows to support the narrative, right? In fact the 42 and 33 samples, all over the world, are all the available litterature. All 47 WAIS sample, all over the world, found a male advantage. Make total sense than this article conclude no difference right? Wonderful scientific insight. Mill-John (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Why does it sometimes use this standard to statistically analyze gender differences caused by age changes, and sometimes not?

Furthermore, it doesn't provide a methodology, explaining how its literature was selected, whether randomization and reliability were considered, instead of intentionally selecting papers that conform to its expectation that "men have higher IQs." ~2026-45082-58 (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Scientific evidence is absolutely clear and overwhelming. WAIS studies show clear male higher IQ. Mooding the waters will not change it. We are still waiting for you to proving a meta showing no difference in WAIS adult, while I provide dozens of studies that you label 'not good' because not reaching your egalitarian conclusion, you are unable to provide a single one showing equality or female advantage on WAIS adult. Not a single one. Pathetic! And I suppose you see yourself as scientific and unbiaised, right? Mill-John (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You can get WAIS researches that meets these criteria by going directly to feminist subs on Reddit.

Unfortunately, these studies are generally not included in the analysis of the website you provided.It doesn't disclose how it selected its sample of papers.It's highly likely that they simply selected papers that met their expected results. ~2026-45082-58 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

So basically you don't have any published, peer reviewed studies showing equality of female advantage on WAIS adults, thanks for the confirmation. Mill-John (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not just the "egalitarians" and "feminists" you're referring to who have their own stances. But clearly, people like Lynn are more heavily influenced by their stances.

I can't imagine how he managed to become an "expert" in different fields like race, gender, and neuroscience. ~2026-45082-58 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

He even won the Passingham prize as the best student in Cambridge. We all know why you hate him : blasphemy of your egalitarian litturgy. Mill-John (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Talk page abuse

I'm seeing several abuses on this talk page.

User:Acroterion recently archived a number of discussion topics that have been active in the last month. This clearly goes against the guidelines at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Archiving. There are likely other archived threads that should not have been archived.

User:Generalrelative has been adding collapse templates to comments () because of a belief that they're AI generated, through the use of GPTZero. However, it seems quite clear to me that they are not in fact AI generated and have at minimum substantial non-ai components to them. As such collapsing them does not follow from the guidelines at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments which say "Comments, nominations, and opening statements that are obviously generated (not merely refined) by a large language model or similar AI technology can be struck or collapsed". Even Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing says "Do not solely rely on artificial intelligence content detection tools (such as GPTZero and Pangram)."

These seem like clear abuse and uncalled for censorship. I'm asking for Acroterion, Generalrelative, and other editors using these tactics on this talk page to please use restraint and refrain from censoring comments that only might be using AI. As always, please Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith rather than jumping to conclusions and harassing other users in this way without clear and convincing evidence of unacceptable behavior, which I have not seen in the censored comments. Fresheneesz (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

User "mill john" has repeatedly posted papers by Lynn—an author whose research methods are highly controversial—and has attempted to incorporate content from the pseudoscience website *Human Intelligence* into the main text. After one of his accounts was banned, he continued to create new accounts to vandalize the page. This matter certainly warrants serious attention. ~2026-45082-58 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Could you point to somewhere I could see evidence of your claims about that? His behavior here does not seem to be particularly disruptive. He hasn't edit warred with his account, the talk page comments aren't excessively long, and this is just the talk page. Blanking the talk page preemptively doesn't seem like appropriate action to me. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

wtf. These were obvious AI slop edit requests. And the user ended up blocked anyways. Please consider undoing the removal of such templates User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to “uncensor” such voices, and assume good faith, feel free to message ai editors that they cannot use AI. But obvious ai generated comments currently can be collapsed per WP:AITALK, and attempting to engage with bot slop is a waste of community time User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit requests? Are you talking about Mill John's talk page comments? They were clearly not entirely AI generated. Using AI to produce talk page comments doesn't warrant being censored.

I do not agree that his comments can be considered to be mostly ai generated, and its certainly not obvious. If you don't want to engage with it, don't engage. But the collapse templates are not called for according to guidelines around that as I mentioned above.

Fresheneesz (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)