From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is verbose and boring[edit]

Am I the only one who sees this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if it's boring or not because I can't understand much of it after the first sentence. It's written almost entirely in jargon. You have to be an expert on the subject to even know what it's talking about, which sort of defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia article. — Gwalla | Talk 04:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, this is one of the best Wikipedia articles this person has ever read. If you want what you would call "verbose and boring" which you "can't understand much of" I would invite you to read the article Quantum electrodynamics. This is not an article about Justin Bieber or skateboarding. Writtenright (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and there wasn't any talk of the ever increasing interest and use of Tulpas of the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic community. -- (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we should add a section about the ever-increasing number of so-called "tulpamancers" who have created a tulpa as a sort of sentient imaginary friend. A lot of these "tulpamancers" have a pony tulpa and are affiliated with the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic community and 4chan's /mlp/ board. NoLongerDivided (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Not notable. The idea of 'sentience' is not proven regarding imaginary friends and does not belong on the article, in fact the article on imaginary friends seems to say sentience has been disproven regarding them. What are misnomered tulpa are 'imaginary friends' and could be covered by the article on just that: imaginary friends, however there isn't a million pop culture references there, it's brief and to the point and there doesn't need to be here either. !WL2IDashiE (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I concur. The explanations in this article are far more confusing than what they are explaining. This strikes me as complete psychobabble: "accomplished thoughtform of the kye rim mode are sentient beings as they have a consciousness field or mindstream confluence in a dynamic of entrainment-secession and organization-entropy of emergent factors or from the mindstream intentionality of progenitor(s)." There isn't a single use of the term "entrainment-secession" on the entire internet that isn't a quotation of this wikipedia article. We know they are conscious because they have something that was made up in this sentence? A concept that doesn't exist and isn't explained can't be an explanation for how something is known. This page needs serious clean-up. Craig Butz (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Thoughtform be merged into Tulpa. The two articles discuss the interchangability of the terms.

A Google search reveals twice as many listings for Tulpa as for Thoughtform, and Tulpa is probably etymologically prior, although the final article should discuss both terms.

Both articles could do with some tidying, and this would be a good chance.

There was a prior merge discussion which was left unresolved, largely because no editor wanted to perform the merger. I am prepared to do the necessary editing. Andrewaskew (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is such a mess that I think it would be ok to get rid of it and redirect it to thoughtform, which has some credibility as an encyclopedic entry. Craig Butz (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger done. More cleanup and tidying yet to go. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • No merge, notable and distinct from Tulpa. Valoem talk contrib 18:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Valoem, there was consensus (through editing) and there was a merge. If you want to split the article, you need to start a new discussion and establish a new consensus. You can't take a discussion from 2012 and decide that there's no consensus in 2016. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Where? Also Wikipedia not does not recognize consensus through editing only discussion. As per WP:BOLD, I have the precedence to restore, WP:PRESERVE, also the encyclopedia favor bold expansion over bold merges. And yes I can take a discussion from 2012 and restore it in 2016 please see WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not start an edit war, I recommend AfD. Valoem talk contrib 17:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing. There was consensus through editing. If you go through the edit history, you can see tulpa was a very poor article filled with primary-sourced "psychobabble" (as one editor called it) which was cleaned up subsequently. Restoring thoughtform restores the psychobabble that the community (and I personally) worked to clean up, and creates a nearly-duplicate article as tulpa and thoughtform are used almost interchangeably in the United States occult culture. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


There is a cleanup tag on the article at the moment which asserts that there is too much psychobabble within the piece. I disagree, there is an excess of somewhat jargonistic terminology but none of this terminology originates in psychology.

In my opinion the article could do with the following (in no particular order, see also WP:GACR):

  1. One coherent citation style, probably inline citations.
  2. A clear series of headings providing a guide to readers. Currently there is no sense of where the article is going.
  3. Less and shorter quotations, and less offset text in general. Reading down the page, the piece seems to waver back and forth almost at random.
  4. A shorter, more direct introduction. We need to quickly tell readers what the page is about, so that they can decide if they want further information.
  5. An additional, relevant image or two. An on-topic image can quickly convey a broad point.
  6. Greater integration of the material imported from Thoughtform.
  7. Conversely, we also need a clearer division between the use of the two terms in the text. Sometimes we say Tulpa, sometimes we say thoughtform, even if they are equivalent we need to stick with tulpa unless specifically refering to thoughtforms.
  8. Remove or move the external links from the main body. While these translation guides can be useful, in terms of ease of reading they are too jarring to the casual reader, whereas the expert reader will normally check the external links section for themselves.
  9. The explanations in general need to be made clearer, avoiding jargon where possible. The more accessible we can make the article, the more readers we can educate.

I welcome opinions and contributions from other editors, and I hope no-one will take offense my desire to improve the clarity of a very thorough article. I think this piece is very nearly great, but it needs clear direction to move forward. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we want to include a reference to the explanation of tulpas in the "further reading" section of the article? ( , assuming that permission was obtained first of course ) Aristobleus (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC) is not related to Tibetan buddhism and has hijacked the word 'tulpa' (the usage has little to nothing to do with the original concept in Tibetan Buddhism) and redefines it from an individuals POV and is heavily biased. I don't think it's a reliable source. RainbowDashite (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The final reference or 'further reading' on the page is Speculative Fiction. Is it really alright to keep as a source? -- (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What, and the Tibetan Buddhists were unbiased? A passing reference to the burgeoning community of 'tulpamancers' is more than enough to comply with Wikipedia's standard of objectivity. is the most reliable evidence for a growing modern interest in the concept that there currently is. And besides, it doesn't matter if they "hijacked" the term. The etymological meaning of words can and does change over time. (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

RainbowDashite's explanation is misleading and incorrect; the site is not linked because it has a history of spamming Wikipedia. Shot itself in the foot by adding links to itself repeatedly after being removed. Regardless, it's not a reliable source and hardly a useful source of information at all. If the site is significant, you will need reliable third party sources that discuss it. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is biased[edit]

Actually, this article has been biased since I first saw it. Repeatedly other people have tried to add other points of view, and without fail, their points of view have been removed on the next edit.

There needs to be a scientific perspective. Now I know all you magic witchy types get your panties in a bunch about this, but Wikipedia tries to be scientific. Look at all your other precious magic articles. Dowsing not only has an entire section devoted to science, but it says right in the first paragraph "There is no scientific evidence that dowsing is effective." Changeling talks in the "Changelings in the modern world" section about how most children seen as changelings were deformed or developmentally disabled. Even Scrying subtly hints that sensory deprivation is the same damn thing.

Now unless you all are saying that tulpa are absolute proof of magic (in which case go see James Randi and collect your million dollars) you have to allow mention of the fact that some people believe tulpa are hallucinations. Even your precious Alexandra David-Néel admitted this. The exact words of the English translation of her book read: "There is nothing strange in the fact that I may have created my own hallucination." (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the reference to tulpas being hallucinations.

Aristobleus (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has a tulpa (but will not edit this article), i agree this article is terribly biased, but from the perspective of people who don't understand it or accept that it might be possible. Like from my point of view as a practitioner, one of the primary goals is train a tulpa into its own sentience and that perspective is sorely missing from this article. Instead, tulpæ are just 'hallucinations' based off the word of some antique woman who didn't stick with it. That's Alexandra David-Neel trying to dismiss her own tulpamancy because she couldn't muster the skills in the 1920s.

What we're stuck with is the musty ancient history that doesn't have much to do with the modern conception and practice. Sure there's a "Modern Perspective" section but it's dismissive in tone and brief in detail, and even though there's four articles from the last few years talking about the phenomenon nobody bothered to pull any cogent details. Of those References, the article by Dr. Samuel Veissière should practically be the basis of this entire article because it's at least up-to-date and has accurate (enough) information. If you want a scientific explanation, it's a better place to start than Buddhism or the Occult.

The article as it stands today diminishes the unrecognized science we do, doesn't even acknowledge how much more complex the concept has grown over the years. Why isn't Tulpa dot info linked in the references again? Because you didn't believe our community could find better answers for ourselves? It might not be perfect, but it's a lot more accurate to the modern concept than anything currently on this article. Instead it's been blocked as unreliable information? I have the conflict of interest so won't fight that ban, but it absolutely denies the best current facts about tulpæ

Foszae (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The sites is not linked because it has a history of spamming Wikipedia. Other than that, there's WP:NOR, or "no original research", which means you have to find proper peer-reviewed academic sources, or at the very least newspaper articles from reliable sources. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Photographic Archive?[edit]

Is there a photographic archive of tulpas that have been seen by others besides their creators? Just wondering.

Hermanoere (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the photos are posted at the same Web site where photos displaying physical evidence of neurons producing consciousness are posted.Pernoctus (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Farcaller (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, /r/tulpasgonewild, but might that it's showing the "modern" version of tulpas that are frowned upon in the original article.

Tulpas being created with the psychological approach[edit]

The tulpas from, etc. have been banned from this page since it's been referred to as hijacking the term. However, I'm now seeing "tulpa" being used in a publication from the New York Times in this very context. Can we now start giving that definition some credit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

They're banned for spamming, not for "hijacking the term". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexandra David-Néel???[edit]

Why doesn't the article for Alexandra David-Néel mention her tulpa but this page does? It seems like it should be a big deal. Apparently Edmund Hillary saw the tulpa himself when he was 16. --RThompson82 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Split the article[edit]

As this article is creating a lot of conflict and the modern practice is refered by some as "hijacking the term", I propose to create an article devoted to the modern practice. I added it in the requested articles as I do not have the time and don't know enough about wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Bad idea. Though the concept of tulpa may very well have been hijacked from someone, it's not very clear. The modern folk like to dig around to find roots in all sorts of religions. But those religions either didn't have the name, or didn't have the concept. In general, probably the older examples lack notability. (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Fictional characters in writing and movies considered an OR[edit]

I'd really like to see some discussion on rollback and some ideas how to make that reference better. The paragraph is not research per se, it only suggests that the word "tulpa", as used currently, is very relevant to things described in linked books. Do the editors expect me to link only something that literally says "tulpa" in the text? -- Farcaller (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I found a reference to this exact statement here: (the very last Q/A). Does such a source fit the requirement to undo the rollback and link to it so that the WP:OR would not apply? — Farcaller (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not a reliable sourcce as far as Wikipedia policy goes. Bright☀ 14:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Which 'Stranger than Fiction'?[edit]

There's a link to "Stranger than Fiction" near the bottom, but it leads to a disambiguation page. Which one was it supposed to link to? --paulsd (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably Stranger than Fiction (2006 film) since it features a person hearing voices in their head. Regardless, I've removed it since its inclusion appears indiscriminate. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Readability edit on Tulpa[edit]

Your recent edit of Tulpa page changes a few distinct statements into one huge paragraph with everything mixed up. I don't understand this decision, as clearly, the statements made in those paragraphs are only loosely tied to each other. Can you elaborate? Farcaller (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to minimize single-sentence paragraphs or very short paragraphs. As the entire paragraph deals with a single topic (the online tulpa community) I put it all together. It's not mandatory, of course... Bright☀ 13:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
While short paragraphs are bad for readability, I think in this particular case they do help. The original pre-edit text is focusing not on the "online communities", but on how the modern tulpamancy is perceived. For that it has an overview paragraph, a paragraph on populations, a paragraph on notable changes of sexuality (with two researches linked), one referencing the metaphysical part (the chapters above), and finally, an important paragraph on mental health. Even if they are short, they allow to understand the various parts of what concludes the modern tulpamancy easier and they can be extended further (I've got a new book reference this morning and planned to incorporate it). I would recommend to roll back to original form, and I'll commit to adding more "meat" on those statements to make the paragraphs dive deeper on their content. Farcaller (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I split it in two: social aspects, and psychological aspects. Bright☀ 13:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Usage of references to reddit and social networks[edit]

Your edit removes some relevant and curious analytics. While I agree that it requires a citation, can you advice if linking to the said reddit community / russian social network is an acceptable citation in its own (given that the user count is clearly displayed on said pages) Farcaller (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources (for example, linking to reddit to show the size of the reddit community) are acceptable in this case: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. However, they are generally not used in this way. Bright☀ 13:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ack. I'll restore that part with proper sources then. Farcaller (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, the self-published reddit tulpa sex survey cannot be used, since it's both self-published and its author does not appear to be an expert in sociology, psychology, or a relevant field, so their self-published work cannot be used on Wikipedia in these topics. Bright☀ 13:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The "self-published reddit tulpa sex survey" is written by a tulpa (based on the blog) which falls into the WP:SELFSOURCE and satisfies all the criteria. Farcaller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Could you PLEASE centralize discussion? You are replying to a comment from a month ago, and in five other sections. Bright☀ 09:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edit changed the meaning of the statement[edit]

Your edit changed "compares a fictional characters' influence over its writer to tulpas" to "The character of Superman manifests as a tulpa in Alvin Schwartz's book".

This changes the whole tone of the statement.

What I was going for is to reference how writer's experiences are similar to tulpas in Western society (as researched by a reporter).

What you changed it to is "Superman is a tulpa in the book". Superman is not a tulpa in the book, in a fictional sense. He could be a tulpa in the Schwartz's mind, but we cannot really elaborate on that. I suggest to revert this edit to keep the original meaning (also that way it shows importance). Farcaller (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but I still question the importance of this example. As I understand it, tulpas have become a popular topic in modern fiction, and the matter of choosing one example over others, or dedicating an entire paragraph to it, is WP:DUE. Why this book and not that? Bright☀ 13:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Because it's not a tulpa in a fiction book. It's an example of tulpa in an actual person—a writer. Why this writer? Because we had an actual journalist research this one writer in particular and we're limited by WP:NOR. While the science community around tulpas agrees there is some relationship between modern tulpamancy and writers, we don't have any actual research on this yet. Farcaller (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
If there's no research, how do you know there's a relationship? And why do you believe the book is not fiction? Bright☀ 13:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
There was a journalistic research on this particular person (cited in original). There was no research on the broader topic. I didn't read the book—I've read a journalistic research of the author. The character of Superman is irrelevant in this context. Farcaller (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
No offense but Red Dirt Report is not an investigative journal... it's an entertainment magazine, and it published a book review written from the book characters' perspective. That doesn't make the book non-fiction. In fact the review concludes with Clearly Alvin Schwartz was a gifted storyteller and, whether or not these events really did happen, there is a lot there that makes you think. (emphasis mine) Bright☀ 13:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ack. My bad, should have checked the source more carefully. I agree with the conclusion. Farcaller (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Original research and POV[edit]

@Seteleechete: what little literature exists does not set apart tulpas from imaginary friends. Saying they're different goes against the sources, and is original research, in as much as you claim they're set apart in ways that don't set them apart (children with imaginary friends claim their imaginary friends are real; independent; have their own thoughts and feelings; comprise a separate entity; and so on). As someone else said, this article started as spiritual psychobabble; let's not revert it to pseudoscientific psychobabble. Stick to appropriate sources. I know you can find a hundred self-published sources on the internet insisting that tulpas aren't imaginary friends, but that's simply not what the (few) scientific papers say. Bright☀ 16:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, weasel words like "...Tulpas are understood..."[who?] should clearly tell you that you're covering something up; as much as "imaginary friends are understood" (by the children who have them) to be real, "tulpas are understood" (by the people who have them) to be real, or at least so they say on the internet. What little research there is shows that tulpas are simply imaginary friends. Bright☀ 16:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I am very clear that I want to express what tulpas are seen as by the practitioners themselves, adding "by the people who practice it" is acceptable. I am not claiming they aren't imaginary friends I am claiming tulpas are seen as not being imaginary friends. It's very accurate to say that the the community/practioners(supported by sources) sees them as not being imaginary friends. I also think that using pseudo-scientific explanations is appropriate when describing what practitioners believe tulpas are. Because that's my purpose, we are talking about tulpas from a modern western perspective and it uses pseudo-psychological explanations, which should be shared (as seen from the perspective of the practioners and as they describe the phenomenon). I wouldn't mind a split between how practitioners see the phenomenon and how a strictly scientific view of the phenomenon looks but not having the former in some manner is disengenous when describing contemporary tulpas and the beliefs surrounding the practice. Seteleechete (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Your second edit was indeed very accurate to the sources, but it emphasized how tulpas are perceived as distinct from imaginary friends, when the (very few) available sources don't make this distinction. The comparison to children's imaginary friends and how children insist that their imaginary friend is a real person with their own sentience etc is very apt. Bright☀ 05:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
It emphasizes how the contemporary tulpa practice/practioners itself make the distinction(which is accurate to the sources used), it's simply accurate for it to be described in this manner when describing what contemporary tulpa practice itself claims to be about. Personally I wouldn't mind a follow-up piece about how the scientific community, public at large, etc doesn't agree with this view/doesn't hold a view(or even a reference to what you just said about children's imaginary friends etc). That doesn't however make the claims about how the practice itself is described within/making a description of what beliefs it claims to hold somehow inaccurate or inappropriate. Seteleechete (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not accurate because it emphasizes that tulpas are not imaginary friends, when the sources say they are. The amount of emphasis creates WP:FALSEBALANCE between, say, an entertainment magazine like Vice, and an assistant professor of anthropology. Bright☀ 14:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Not WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:UNDUE emphasizes how the phenomenon is described within the context of contemporary tulpa practice(in a section talking about just that). Even Vice can reference/explain such descriptions and most sources I find that describe what the practioners/practice describe it as, do so as creating sentient, independent etc. beings in some form i.e not just an "imaginary friend". Though such a description is also often used, particularly by outside perspectives. I have edited the piece to make this more clear. Also made it more clear how it's not viewed that way outside the context.Seteleechete (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request :
The issue at hand seems to be whether or not to include the idea that "tulpa practitioners" view their tulpa as being sentient and separate from an imaginary friend (or expanding on it in the intial paragraph of the section). While both of you are in agreement that this is something not accepted by the vast majority of society, you disagree over the extent of coverage within the article itself. In looking through the small coverage of the topic, the concept of the modern tulpa seems to lie in between the idea of an imaginary friend and behavior displayed by an individual with a mental disorder (as described by the article). With that being said, I find the addition of this paragraph WP:UNDUE and the sentence "Nearly all practitioners consider the tulpa a real or somewhat-real person" in the paragraph below it sufficient in covering the subject. – Nihlus (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. It seems far from sufficient and far to hidden for people coming to look at the page looking for an explanation about what a modern tulpa is about. There is a substantial interest in modern tulpa practice and there is a lot of people coming to this page looking for a description of what the term is actually supposed to describe within that context. Now while I do agree that it should be made clear that it's not a widely supported view(notably this does not mean it's widely denied either), a prominent description of the practice itself is warranted, especially in a topic meant to describe it. This is giving the topic far to little credit. Also a lot of sources discussing modern tulpa practice will include a brief description of how it's described/viewed by the practice itself(kinda necessary to further discuss the topic). So it's prevalent within such a context as well. Seteleechete (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. I tried solving this with a simple third opinion, but now it seems we're heading towards dispute resolution... Since there are very few sources and the coverage is very brief, dedicating half a paragraph to how un-imaginary-friends tulpas are is WP:UNDUE, for the reasons Nihlus and I specified above. Three sentences out of a two-paragraph section is a lot. One is enough. Bright☀ 09:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I miscounted: you want to dedicate five out of seventeen sentences to how tulpas are not-imaginary-friends. That's roughly a quarter to a third of the section. That's vastly overstating it in comparison to all the other information in the section. If or when the topic gets its own article with multiple paragraphs, you can spend an entire paragraph on what tulpa practitioners think and feel. Right now there are simply not enough sources to write about it without completely shifting the focus of the section. Bright☀ 09:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh I should put some two cents in here. It is correct. The most notable feature of tulpas, their independence and self determination, are also present in an estimated one quarter of imaginary friends by one study.
Of course, they aren't called imaginary friends. But they are probably the same thing. Just hasn't been confirmed by any reliable sources. My memory's not too great, but I don't think even Vessiere's paper made that assumption. (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a reliable source[edit]

Self-published papers by undergraduates are not reliable sources, particularly when they make sweeping scientific claims. The self-published paper by Isler is such a non-reliable-source. Bright☀ 04:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In the future avoid SciEP, whose editor in chief is a murdered doctor. Must be hard to review "scientific" papers posthumously. Bright☀ 04:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh wow. It looks like this edit war is turning into a self parody of itself. Particularly when official peer reviewed scientific papers are being declared unreliable sources of evidence. (also not technically self pubsished) That's like the top of the food chain for reliable sources. Note: There are two versions of the Ister paper. Which version is being challenged? It is also important to note that outside the discussion areas of the paper, the paper consists strictly of the enumeration of survey results, which is raw scientific data. So, one may ask, which sections of the report have been used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hm. lists a bunch of people that aren't dead. Also, this is clearly not a self-published paper, it went through a peer review (I did my homework on bad journalism). I read through WP:SCHOLARSHIP and I don't see how it applies to an actual research in an actual peer-reviewed journal? The article doesn't state Isler is an undergrad, so I'm unsure about that either. Farcaller (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read up on predatory journals. Bright☀ 17:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I did. There is no unquestionable proof the author was writing the research with ill will. The research looks legit and it should be considered legit until proved otherwise, or do I misunderstand the WP rules? Farcaller (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should be treated similarly to self-published sources.

Since Isler is not a reliable source, their work cannot be included. What's more, by publishing in a predatory journal they are hurting their own reputation. Bright☀ 01:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Ister is considered a reliable source within this field. This is due to the fact that Ister is one of the most reliable sources available (as far as tulpas are concerned). Reliability is relative, and the purpose of the policy you cite it to resolve conflicts between two sources. The policy in particular only allows the removal of things of uncertain reliability (through a mechanism like revision) if the information is (1) biographical, (2) an extraoardinary claim, or (3) a better reference has been found. But mostly, I don't feel you have upheld your responsibility to evidence that this paper's publisher is one of those pirate publishers. (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
No. An undergrad with a single "published" paper in a predatory journal is not a reliable source. Bright☀ 08:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Eh, don't be surprised to learn there are exceptions. Though, you may have a point, Ister is held in high esteem in the community. Also published several other resources on tulpas. Also, I notice now you did provide evidence that the journal is predatory in the discussion thread below. (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of the modern definition section & an article lock[edit]

Having watched this article for a while now, the constant bickering from BrightR and Farcaller over the "realness" of the whole thing is getting old. Wikipedia devotes a lot of time to both sides of the debate for other questionable topics of the mind, like hypnosis, or Dissociative Identity Disorder, maintaining a decent neutral point of view. At no point in this article's history has the modern definition been neutral, and if an NPoV cannot be maintained, then it may be for the best that the section be removed outright, or changed to a list of sources (such as well-established communities) for viewers to perform their own research.

Furthermore, to avoid the continued edit wars, it may be best to just outright lock the article. There's a lot of strong personal vendettas being flung around under the guise of trying to maintain a neutral point of view, and if an actual NPoV (such as one from a researcher, even an undergrad who has to get by with semi-trash journals) cannot be found, then the integrity of the article is undermined, and no amount of bickering or edit warring will fix that. If the editwars will continue even after an attempt to simply wipe the section to deal with the lack of NPoV, then a lock is necessary.

Finally, BrightR, a personal nitpick: Being brutally murdered doesn't disqualify your opinions or work, it just means your life was tragically cut short. Furthermore, the article was not "self published", it was released in an open-access peer-reviewed paper - please at least get your facts straight. You went so far as to cite the Vice article, which carries a strong psychidelic overtone, undermining any sense of neutrality. Basically, you're attempting to disqualify an opinion you don't like with half-truths, distortions of reality, and even shaming a murder victim. That's not how you debate.

CliffracerX (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Being brutally murdered doesn't disqualify your opinions or work - it does, however, prevent you from being an editor of a journal. Bright☀ 17:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was suggesting that research paper was "reviewed" by the late founder, I really don't see why you keep bringing it up. In any case, discrediting the journal's editing techniques does not necessarily discredit the paper, nor does Googling the author and trying to discredit them based on age or university status, and even if the journal's trash and the author's an idiot, it doesn't necessarily discount the science within. Furthermore, trying to discredit your fellow editors after they provide valid arguments against your edits is, aside from a breach of good social conduct, a breach of the 4th pillar and, to some extent, a breach of the 2nd pillar. You're attacking Farcaller, seemingly after having all previous arguments undermined. That's not neutral, and that's certainly not respecting your fellow editors. The 5th pillar may state that Wikipedia has no solid rules, but that doesn't mean that you should just bulldoze right on through the guidelines.
Unless you have solid, Wikipedia-guideline-backed reason to undo Farcaller's work, aside from personally feeling that they don't have a neutral point of view, then you have no grounds to perform the reverts you've done. There's too much emotion tied up in this, from both sides, so, I'm going to say again, in order to end the drama, it might be best to simply remove the section, or replace it with a stub that basically says "due to a lack of information, and large amounts of inter-editor drama, this section has been removed and locked." - no more edit wars, no more drama, and it leaves the ultimate neutral point of view, it just requires research on the part of the reader, which...may not be a bad thing anyway. Trying to cram something as complex as this into one subsection isn't going to end well, no matter how hard people try to make it credible, informative, and neutral. CliffracerX (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I really don't see why you keep bringing it up. Unless you have solid, Wikipedia-guideline-backed reason to undo Farcaller's work [...] then you have no grounds to perform the reverts you've done. - sigh. I'll say it again because you missed it the first time: WP:QUESTIONABLE. Isler is not a reliable source. Papers published by undergrads in predatory journals are not a reliable source. Bright☀ 00:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll say it again because you missed it the first time: Papers published by undergrads in predatory journals [citation needed] are not a reliable source. I was aware of your previous argument, please keep in consideration the 4th pillar - assume good faith in others, and be respectful; you're starting to resort to personal attacks. Furthermore, I will ask you again: Please defend your treatment of Farcaller, and explain why you aren't engaging in the same amount of PoV-pushing you accuse them of. You come off as though you've been deflecting up to now. CliffracerX (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Deflecting what? Can you make a cogent point here? Are you disputing it's a predatory journal? Are you disputing Isler is an undergraduate student? Are you disputing that dedicating three paragraphs to an unreliable source is POV-pushing? Are you disputing that when asked for a third opinion, it was agreed that centering on the POV of the practitioners is undue weight? All of these questions have been completely answered in the talk page. If you need it, I will recap all of them one last time. If not, please move on. Bright☀ 01:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You come off as deflecting from your own intense PoV that the practicioners get minimal say, and that you're personally attacking your fellow editors who disagree. Uncertain that the journal's predatory - please provide citations from a reputable source of your choice on why it's predatory. Not disputing that Isler's an undergrad, but that shouldn't undermine the science within. Given the lack of sources to provide information from the perspective of the practitioners - an important thing to take into consideration, given that people may come to the article looking for information on what the practitioners do - it seems worthwhile to use whatever source is available.
Personally, for something like this, I do think that including more information on what the practitioners experience is important, given the lack of quality reference points for society at large as to what it actually entails - however, the modteam spoke, and they said what they said, so I won't argue about that. Finally, as for moving on; if the nonstop drama continues, I intend to walk away, because the article's clearly beyond hope for repair. CliffracerX (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Uncertain that the journal's predatory - Beall (the guy from WP:SCHOLARSHIP), Bokhove, Moher, Eriksson, the COPE standard... and just for fun, SciEP accepted a Star Wars "biomedical" paper... By the way, the onus is on including disputed content, not excluding it.
  • Not disputing that Isler's an undergrad - good, then you can see how that, coupled with his publishing venue, fails WP:RS. Or you might ask yourself how an undergrad studying communications came to publish a paper about psychology and sociology...
  • it seems worthwhile to use whatever source is available - no. Do not use junk sources that fail WP:RS.
  • nonstop drama - you mean removing junk sources and reverting POV edits supported by said junk sources?
All in all I see a deliberate failure to get the point, for example accusing me of shaming a murder victim because I said dead people can't peer-review scientific papers... Bright☀ 03:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't see that any consensus on this matter has been reached yet. But I came here just recently, so maybe it happened a long time ago.
However, I'm posting here to say that I disagree with the idea of locking and/or wiping the important part of the article out. After all the hard work of Farcaller and other editors to get it even this far. I remember a year ago, when the article was in an even worse state, dominated even more by religious and most likely false notions of the topic, very short, and light on info. It must be a very hard uphill battle given the relative lack of reliable sources on this topic, so I commend you for getting this far.
Ehh, it's still bad. Needs work. (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The buddhist connection is a myth.[edit]

I think. I've been a community observer for a while now. I've tried to see where the rumour of Buddhist religious roots of the tulpamancy come from, but despite searching, I have found no reliable accounts at all that there at tulpas within Buddhism. I think it may have been manufactured from the account by Miss Alexandra David-Neel in her book, Magic and Mystery in Tibet, which references tulpas over a couple pages. (This is a theosophist link.)

Though nothing in any major branches of Buddhism appears to share the name Tulpa, there is the related concept yidam, which already has its own Wikipedia article. The remainder of the trace leads to rumours about the way the Dalai Lama reincarnates and stuff. (Pretty neat, but they don't call it tulpa. They call it Tulku). Now, I believe there are lots of elements of Buddhism passed down orally, rather than written down, and some of the rumours point to that direction, but then the question becomes, where did this article get its written proof?

I think the entire Buddhist section needs to be cut as under researched and counterfactual, and the connection to Tibetan Buddhism severed pending review by actual Tibetan Buddhist scholars. (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would note that most of the buddhist section is full of "citation needed" for half a year now, while the only reviewed sources are rejected. That confuses me. Do we need to make a redirect version of the page for a mythological part with no sources and for one where we have at least some science? Farcaller (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
There's exactly one "citation needed" in the buddhism section... Quit your POV-pushing, and please don't cite papers from predatory journals. Bright☀ 17:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please keep respective issues in their respective discussion threads please.
Oh, since we're on the subject anyway, I have massive concerns about the use of Graeme's chart thingy as an illustration. It breaks Wikipedia's rule about illustrative illustrations only. The flow chart is a little... no rhyme or reason. And the caption below the chart is incorrect. (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Me too, it's a bad image. Bright☀ 00:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
but then the question becomes, where did this article get its written proof? In the cited sources. Quit your POV pushing. Bright☀ 00:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Can we keep this calm and free from personal insults? Thanks. I counted the number of citation needed tags and just summed them up. They all are legit requests btw. Farcaller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
"Page needed" would have been a better tag, since the citation was already provided. I have provided the exact pages where the claims are made. Bright☀ 01:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, this all seems very in-bad-faith to me. Whoever tagged this could have used "page needed", but in one case (the Dalai Lama quote) they didn't even bother reading the quite-short article at the end of the paragraph that links directly to the quote from the Dalai Lama. Someone really looking for citations could have easily followed the link... Bright☀ 02:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I was the author of the Dalai Lama quote citation needed. I read the article and the post it refers to: [1]. The original post never mentions tulpas, instead Dalai Lama explains tulku (having it's dedicated WP article). The only connection to tulkus in this article is Alexandra David-Néel, but there's even a quote from her book where she never puts an equal sign between tulpa and tulku. Thus the connection is OC. Farcaller (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. I suggest you read the paper provided below by Bright☀ 07:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, I did read the sources provided in the article itself. The sources DO NOT mention tulpas. Both the sources mention Dalai Lama and his relation to tulku, which is literally a different word. Did you read the source yourself? The revert of is incorrect and the source article doesn't relate to this one. The official "public statement" of Dalai Lama never mention tulpas anywhere: Farcaller (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm tired of your POV-pushing. First you take an internet survey and present it as "a scientific study [that] classified them as imaginary companions who are said to have achieved full sentience"... Then you take the words sprul-pa and tulku, which three sources in the article say were translated into "tulpa", and you refuse to acknowledge this. Bright☀ 08:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't dispute the citations. I think a lot of the problems here are: (1) The citations reference other phenomenon in Buddhism that aren't tulpas. (2) The citations reference Neel's flawed--from an anthropological perspective--account of what a different culture was doing. The really annoying thing is that 100% of other sources relies directly on Neel's account. (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Edit: Here. This article gives a high quality rundown of the real story. (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That is a great paper, thanks. Despite what you say, the paper does affirm that the Western concept of tulpa is based on the Buddhist/Tibetian concept. Bright☀ 07:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Assuming that Farcaller is the IP in this section, I'm here to offer a third opinion. Could I ask you both to set out on this page, as briefly as possible, what changes you'd like to make to the article on this specific point? Additionally, please refrain from any comment that could be taken as discourteous or even an indication of irritation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I have already raised this issue on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#tulpa. Please mind that this talk page and other dispute resolution venues should be put on hold until that process is concluded. Bright☀ 15:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Farcaller is not the IP in this section. Also, as the article says in the abstract, the name tulpa comes from Buddhism, but the concept comes from Theosophy. Though there is further nuance in the main text. (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. As there are already more than three people involved I shall not offer a formal third opinion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Research by R L Wakefield is inconclusive[edit]

Seriously. There is no research by R L Wakefield. If you ever opened the original article, you'd notice the authors are R.L. Spitzer and J.C. Wakefield. You invented a new author and tried to tie a connection from a completely irrelevant research to tulpas now.

The original addition mentioned the research by Vessiere that pointed out a research of R.L. Spitzer and J.C. Wakefield as an example of inconsistency between tulpa practices and DSM-IV. Stop inventing content by trying to nitpick on my grammar maybe? Farcaller (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

nitpick on my grammar - you are using weasel words to misattribute information. For example if a researcher interviews a person who says "I can live without food and water because I sustain on sunshine as a somatic being", it would be a gross mischaracterization to write "A recent scientific study on the subject of photosynthesis classified them as somaic beings who are said to sustain themselves on sunshine without food or water." You can see how attributing a statement to a scientific study is not the same as attributing a statement to the person who said it, hence POV-pushing through weasel-words. Bright☀ 08:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you stop splitting this discussion into more and more sections... Bright☀ 08:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
You removed a section of Vessiere study, reformatted it to reference a different article and then removed the whole section based on that the article doesn't mention tulpas. Vessiere made the connection in his work (which was referenced) and added the R.L. Spitzer and J.C. Wakefield article to enforce his point. Farcaller (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
That's WP:SYNTHESIS, you can't do that. My fault for not reading the reference the moment you added it and actually trusting you to accurately report what's in the reference. Bright☀ 08:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert on the intro text[edit]

There's absolutely no reason to remove the Vessiere study from the article header (specifically edit). The text "A scientific study on the subject of tulpas conducted in 2015 classified them as "imaginary companions who are said to have achieved full sentience after being conjured through ‘thought-form’ meditative practice". Human "hosts", or tulpamancers, mediate their practice through open-ended how-to guides and discussion forums on the Internet and experience their Tulpas as semi-permanent auditory and somatic hallucinations." is a literal quote from a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable source by a reputable scientist. Stop pushing your own POV by promoting the historical/fictional buddhist context only. Farcaller (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an internet survey, you are using weasel words to turn what the practitioners say ("who are said...") in to a scientific classification. Also you keep splitting the discussion into more and more sections. Just stop. Bright☀ 08:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't use weasel words. I use the literal quote from a peer-reviewed paper: "Tulpas, a term reportedly borrowed from Tibetan Buddhism, are imaginary companions who are said to have achieved full sentience after being conjured through ‘thought-form’ meditative practice. Human ‘hosts’, or tulpamancers, mediate their practice through open-ended how-to guides and discussion forums on the Internet and experience their Tulpas as semi-permanent auditory and somatic hallucinations." I didn't write that text. Farcaller (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Sadly Wikipedia has higher standards of attributing material than that paper. "Who are said" needs to be attributed to whoever said it, in this case unnamed tulpa practitioners, not a scientific study. Hence weasel-words. Bright☀ 08:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to split the article[edit]

It's clear that there is some tension between the Buddhist lore and modern practitioners, that cannot be solved simply. I suggest we continue by splitting the article into "Tulpa" that would maintain only the original historical context and "Tulpa (modern culture)" that would focus on the word as it's used now. Specifically, tulpas are a subject of mass media (as shown by Spanish part of wiki), internet subculture, and psychological research. Two of those three points are being constantly reverted as if the editors feel they are tainting the original meaning of the word, but it's fine to have media references in wikipedia and many articles do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farcaller (talkcontribs) 08:36, October 12, 2017 (UTC)

The quality of the sources you tried to use suggest that the new article will rely on papers from predatory journals, personal blogs, and internet forums. Those are completely unacceptable sources and it seems you want to create this article just so you don't have to put them to scrutiny of Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 08:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It's acceptable by wikipedia policy to use self-references for such things. Specifically, it's totally fine to have paragraphs noting how tulpas are being mentioned in TV shows, books, etc. as an example of the word's different meaning in mass media. Farcaller (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
No. And that doesn't even touch the use of papers by undergrads on predatory journals, or internet forums, or personal blogs. I am raising this issue in the reliable source noticeboard dispute resolution noticeboard [09:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)] because it seems you will keep spreading the discussion over more and more sections in order to endlessly drag it along. Bright☀ 08:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
No, please, that's not a good reason to split the article. Please see my comment on the other split proposal in this talk page. No matter what tulpas are, they are just one thing. One thing, one article. They evolved over time from earlier concepts. If those concepts don't have their own Wikipedia articles, then they're not notable. But they should still go in a history section for this article. (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#tulpa. Clearly I cannot resolve the dispute here by myself, so I raised the issue in the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please centralize discussion there. Bright☀ 09:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution failed. Once again, use of a reddit comment as a source is unacceptable. Attributing an unattributed statement to a "scientific study" "classification" is unacceptable. Citing examples in popular culture to themselves is unacceptable. Bright☀ 10:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I suggest approaching the reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard. Bright☀ 14:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
In regard to NPOV. I have started a new section to deal specifically with the matter of the practice itself and various ways it can be viewed. I don't disagree that more "mainstream"(whatever those may be) views of the phenomenon should also be discussed but this is not a reason to not describe what the practice itself claims to be about(and those sources are sufficient to reference the practices/practioners view on the matter). Please don't remove my submission and instead append any mainstream and what not refutations/views you may have to the new section I created instead. And I am careful not to claim any scientific legitimacy on the matter. And I don't claim the sources are necessarily properly reliable(some can be disputed) in a scientific point of view, but they are reliable in regards to describing a prominent practice/movement in regard to contemporary tulpas. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant to describe all points of view on the matter. The solution is not removing all information of the subject matter but rather showing/explaining all prominent views on the subject matter.
And I will reiterate, that it's undue or that there aren't sources that describe what the modern practice is about is simply erroneous. Never mind the large primary communities describing it this way,,, I wouldn't necessarily use these as sources beyond showing scope of and dueness, though I wonder if they can't be used as primary sources anyway.) There are also plenty of other sources that describe what the modern practice describes the practice as, such as Veissière, Vice, Isler, Savage Minds, etc. This subject matter is more than due a proper section in regards to tulpas. Seteleechete (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The solution is not removing all information of the subject matter but rather showing/explaining all prominent views on the subject matter with due weight. As in our initial dispute, the issue is not that tulpa practitioners regard the tulpas as independent persons; that information exists in the article. It's your insistence, through the use of bad sources, to expand that section until it overwhelms the rest of the information. This is further reinforced by the desire to create a POV fork that relies on these bad sources, or the use of weasel words to give undue legitimacy to these sources. Bright☀ 10:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

What sources are reliable, and what we can do with non-reliable sources[edit]

Some sources do meet the requirements of WP:RS: I don't see many here, but I'd accept the reference from the New York Times ( As reports of what people have said, the Vice reference ( is usable with care. In a very limited and cautious way, even with its significant problems, the Veissière article ( is not entirely disqualified. It could tentatively be used to support one or two uncontroversial points. The Vice article, which uses Veissière's work, has done a good though somewhat sensational job of identifying what those points are. (And students can write excellent work, though excellent work is not usually published in predatory journals; the Isler reference is at the bottom end of limited usability.)

The various reddits and other online communities clearly fail WP:Verifiability. I suggest that it might be appropriate to have a limited number (no policy on how many, but I'd suggest four max, two better) as external links. They should not appear anywhere else.

The proposal to write multiple paragraphs based on unreliable sources is clearly unacceptable for Wikipedia. There is nothing stopping any editor from writing this or other stuff on their own publishing platform, of course.

I hope this helps. What policy-based comments can anyone contribute? In the meantime I have removed the last paragraph of the article, as being redundant or inadequately-supported. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Why was my last paragraph removed(not the sources needed part). It references the Savageminds and Vice article and it's far from redundant to actually have a description of what the subject matter seeks to represents. Of course I wouldn't mind a rewording of how this description should look if necessary. Seteleechete (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
It pretty much repeated the information that remains in the paragraph before it. Shall we decide what we can include before we discuss what is actually worthy of inclusion? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
on "the Veissière article is not entirely disqualified - students can write excellent work, though excellent work is not usually published in predatory journals. It could tentatively be used to support one or two uncontroversial points" — Veissière is not a student, he's got a PhD in the relevant field. Are you talking of Isler, whose points were completely removed? Farcaller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I have refactored my comment above for clarity. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
as for "The various reddits and other online communities clearly fail WP:Verifiability", there was a discussion on this page above and the consensus was that it's ok to use social networks as a primary source if they are cited to note the size of the communities themselves, not for any other information. Farcaller (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
There was no such consensus, and while using them as primary sources about themselves is fine under WP:PRIMARY, there are severe POV issues with that; see for example the external-link-pushing occurring right this moment. Bright☀ 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
BrightR, how would you feel about the inclusion of a very few selected external links? Just as links. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
"Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgement to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources." This I believe is the most relevant statement I want to quote from WP:RS. I would like to point out that this article best falls under the domain of anthropology, a soft science already, but also, that we should normally be measuring the reliability of sources in terms of the most reliable available on a topic.
... Err, did someone just call Vessiere a student? I think you confused Vessiere with Ister. Ister's paper in my honest opinion is actually better than the Vessiere paper though. Better done, less philosophising, no odd use of coding, more thorough results and analysis for correlation. I'm not going to fight claim the journal it was published in is predatory, though. I've looked into it further after the issue was raised and concluded that their review process is indeed less than exemplary. The author was only reviewed by one peer.
Personally, could we move the conversation away from measuring the size of the community? I think that is a really low priority for this article. We don't even have any reliable source for firm numbers at this time. (edit: sentence fragment) Tulpabug (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
BrightR, how would you feel about the inclusion of a very few selected external links? Pretty awful. I'd feel like "We couldn't use these as sources, so we'll get them in through the back door as external links." The reason the burden of consensus is on including external links is because there are so many to choose from and it's very easy to link to just about anything. Why link to reddit and not VK? Why to and not (in the latter case, it's because they've been banned for spamming) Why not link to every single online tulpa community website? The answer is WP:EL:
  • No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. - no such justification has been provided, but even if it were...
  • The links fail all three categories of WP:ELYES - (1) they're not official, (2) it's not that kind of article, (3) they are not neutral.
  • They may fall under one or two categories of WP:ELMAYBE, but...
  • They fail several of WP:ELNO - (2) promoting unverifiable research; (4) possibly only used to promote these communities (as no reason for their inclusion was ever given); (10) social networking site; (11) blogs or fansites; (12) open wikis; and...
Even though it's not my burden to show the links are disqualified, I'm somehow tasked again and again here in rejecting frivolous material even though Wikipedia policies state it's the burden on those wishing to include such material. I feel all these additions need to stop until the matter is settled in a broader forum. I suggested the reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard, but it ended up in WP:AN/I. Bright☀ 08:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks BrightR, I take all your points. As you say, some of these fansites / communities / whatever could arguably be included under WP:ELMAYBE, specifically "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". I'd like to support that argument, and hope to reach a consensus on a very short list of links that we could include. Seteleechete has suggested and Objections include the fact that they are fansites dedicated to a WP:FRINGE belief system. On the other hand, this is an article specifically about a WP:FRINGE belief system, and these fansites pretty much are the phenomenon that is the subject of this article. If I were to come to this article wanting to find out more about the subject of this article, I'd really appreciate a couple of well-selected links. I think that we should include them or something like them - I'd appreciate, in particular, any specific reasons to exclude specific sites, e.g. for spamming etc. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
these fansites pretty much are the phenomenon that is the subject of this article. The communities in aggregate, yes. Any one specific community, no. Why link to reddit specifically? Think of the article country. External link About the US - the greatest country in the world! Bright☀ 10:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, if we can agree on a couple of major communities, that would be a help. We certainly don't have to list them all, indeed we should not try. But one or two would, I suggest, be good. Think of the article Nova Roma, about, approximately, a website. An imaginary country. Which, quite rightly, includes as an external link. Can you think of any specific reasons why Seteleechete's links do not represent an important chunk of the modern tulpa community? If so, what links would be better? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
[Do the links] represent an important chunk of the modern tulpa community? They do, but external links aren't supposed to be a representation of the material or people discussed in the article. What would a reader find on An internet forum discussing tulpas. It's not an "ecyclopedic" source of anything. In that sense, the Nova Roma link would be disqualified if it weren't an official website of the organization. Official websites are very different from an assortment of large but unofficial websites, the Nova Roma example falls under WP:ELYES while unofficial websites do not. what links would be better No links, at the very least until the POV dispute is settled. The method and reason for including the links is tied directly to the POV dispute. I suggest letting the dispute resolution process run its course before adding more disputed content to the article. Bright☀ 11:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The dispute resolution process has been closed as failed.

No, I'm not suggesting that we use reddits as a source of anything. That's not what external links are for. They are for further reading - and in this case, they are what the article is all about. That they are unreliable as sources for fact is irrelevant; that they are unofficial is unremarkable. As far as I know there is no officialdom in this area. These links are pointers to the heart of a fringe subject. I propose to drop the issue for the moment, but I repeat my suggestion that the article would be, slightly, improved by including a couple of external links. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process has been closed as failed. Sorry, "dispute resolution" was ambiguous; I meant the AN/I process which is part of the wider Wikipedia dispute resolution process, and it still applies directly to the POV dispute. I'm not suggesting that we use reddits as a source of anything Another ambiguous word, sorry... I didn't mean a Wikipedia reliable source, I meant an encyclopedic resource for further reading. the article would be, slightly, improved I think it's WP:UNDUE at best, presenting /r/tulpa as some sort of encyclopedic resource. At worst it contains misleading information. Bright☀ 15:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I hope you're not confusing ANI (which deals with conduct issues) with a way to resolve content disputes. Anyway, I'll bow out at this point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)