sources for consideration

Criticism section

I have removed the criticism section, which was a laundry list of new points. I suggest working to agree neutral summary wording on these, and what the points should be, rather than simply (as this section did) enumerating the criticisms from (mostly) the Yale report as if factual. The Yale white paper is a non-independent, non-peer-reviewed source. I suggest trying to summarise all perspectives on each claim from a broader range of sources.

The suggested subjects in the addition are:

  • Transparency and exclusion of transgender expertise
  • Pathologization
  • Social Transition
  • Desistance
  • Exponential growth
  • Social contagion
  • Puberty blockers
  • Evidentiary standards
  • Recommendations

Taking them one at a time, are there any sources, for example, both making and responding to the accusation of lack of transparency? Void if removed (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to decide how this affects the responses section, ie when what is in the responses is expanded into the criticism section, how do we deal with those, which do we prioritise etc. Void if removed (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
both making and responding to the accusation of lack of transparency - what? Why would a source accusing the review of lacking transparency respond to it's own accusation? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile the WPATH/USPATH statement focuses on the following:
  • Cass' credentials
  • Lack of subject matter experts
  • International consensus
  • Ethical concerns for PB restriction
As a WP:MEDORG statement, this is weightier than other criticism and could be a good starting point. Perhaps to add to that it is a good idea to collate overlapping criticism that can be multiply sourced (but that aren't just WP:LINKSINACHAIN). Void if removed (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any good secondary or tertiary sources summarising the criticism, rather than building this from primary sources. Void if removed (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one secondary source:
Despite its comprehensive analysis and well-reasoned arguments, the Cass Review has faced criticism from various quarters. Advocates for transgender rights and medical professionals specializing in gender-affirming care have raised concerns about the review's methodology, perceived biases, and potential to undermine access to essential healthcare services for transgender youth. They argue that the review's emphasis on caution and skepticism may perpetuate stigmatization and discrimination against gender-diverse individuals, exacerbating their vulnerability to mental health disparities and social marginalisation. The critics also argue that for many individuals, puberty suppression can be a life-saving intervention, alleviating distress associated with incongruent physical development and facilitating a smoother transition process. Moreover, they emphasize the importance of patient autonomy and informed consent in healthcare decision-making, asserting that adolescents have the right to access gender-affirming treatments under appropriate medical supervision.
I think that this sort of thing could serve as a basis for a summary introduction to criticism? Then expand on the topics? Void if removed (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps? It's not a great source - it cites none of the criticisms directly and is a recurring column ,"Alcimedes", for stuff that's been going on relevant to the profession. It often isn't even attributed to a specific author and habitually refers to itself in the third person. It's basically a bulletin in the journal. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which subjects do you think shouldn't be included? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criticism section worked fine as a standalone section, but there is definitely room for expanding upon it. I also agree statements from WPATH/EPATH/USPATH… and the endocrine society are the most weighty and should be given more prominence. If the criticism section repeats info from the reception section, then we should consider rewriting.
I propose we reintroduce YFNS' edit and discuss sources which could be used to expand it. HenrikHolen (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one source we might consider adding
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2413747 HenrikHolen (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is "perspective" so it is WP:RSOPINION and should be attributed but it is decent source for a criticism section (though I think by NEJM editorial policy might not be peer-reviewed? I am not sure on this point). The principal citations are, again, the Yale White paper and Horton's critique of the interim review.
I think a look at what this considers to be the primary criticisms would be a good start.
From a first read I find the focus is:
  • A reliance on a higher standard than other medicines (to whit RCTs)
  • Bias/lack of transparency
I think these two represent two of the strongest common themes across all criticism, and would make a good initial focus.
As a critique of this piece, I note it says:
The Review calls for evidentiary standards for GAC that are not applied elsewhere in pediatric medicine. Embracing RCTs as the standard, it finds only 2 of 51 puberty-blocker and 1 of 53 hormone studies to be high-quality.
Which is nonsense, none of the high quality sources picked up by the Yale team were RCTs.
The substantive methodological criticism is largely limited to a single paragraph, which just cites and quotes the Yale white paper:
Commentators also point out that the Review (and associated studies) misrepresented the data behind its conclusions,1 had both a high risk of bias according to the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) and a “substandard level of scientific rigor,”1 and improperly excluded non-English articles, “gray literature” (non–peer reviewed articles and documents), and other articles not identified by its simplistic search strategy.1
Is this part just WP:LINKSINACHAIN?
And the last four paragraphs are a strange diversion that seems to tie the Cass Review to medical sexism.
Its certainly usable, and fits better in a criticism section than "responses". Void if removed (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism is a response, though, so it could go in either. A single responses section which also covers criticism is better for avoiding POV forks, but length is a concern.
I checked the NEJM website to see if they have separate editorial policies for perspectives, and it doesn't seem they do. Their policy says they peer-review and edit "all manuscripts", and they have a perspectives editor (mentioned on the same page, under "About the editors", so not part of a separate policy): https://www.nejm.org/media-center/publication-process Lewisguile (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm just looking at these subsequent sources that are a bit more removed from the release for suggestions for how to structure a criticism section, as they're likely to highlight which aspects are notable.
There are 4 principal academic sources of criticism (Horton, Grijseels, Noone et al, Yale white paper), two of which are peer-reviewed, but itemising every single purported criticism from primary sources is not what we should be doing.
My suggestion is that a piece like this highlights some of the major themes - so start there.
Eg.
  • A reliance on a higher standard than other medicines
Critics have argued that the Cass Review applied a higher standard of evidence to puberty blockers than are applied elsewhere in paediatric medicine. Some held that the review placed too much emphasis on high quality evidence, arguing that paediatric care often relies on low quality evidence. While Randomised-controlled trials are commonly held to be the gold standard, critics argue that these are not only impossible to perform with puberty blockers in adolescents, but also that it would be unethical to withhold treatment from a control group.
I think a paragraph like this can be cited to Horton, Yale and this new NEJ piece.
If we get agreement on something like that, then what's the next major theme. Void if removed (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
looking through, i dont see anything separate for perspectives. by all means, it seems like a regular manuscript, per lewisguile.
quoting a phrase of 5 words and two words really should not be triggering LINKSINACHAIN. Its clearly just calling and citing another primary source as part of a broader secondary analysis. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
also linksinachain is an essay. it really hasn't gone through RFC or been fully vetted yet. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On publication - I still am not sure. This page says
Most article types are subject to peer review
Which is as clear as mud, because none of the listed article types go on to say if they are or aren't.
Its not at all uncommon for commentary pieces to not be peer-reviewed, but they aren't clear at all whether that's the case here. Its probably safe to assume it is until proven otherwise, its not a major point, but either way since it is in commentary, it is still WP:RSOPINION. Void if removed (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should restructure the Responses section to cover these points instead? That can completely replace the existing structure, and removes the need to have a lengthy discussion of who liked/didn't like the review. Instead, we'd be framing it in terms of responses to key areas of the review. That seems more encyclopaedic than what we currently have. Lewisguile (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with a "critical response" section that amalgamates / summarises and recounts these, rather than going chronologically, but the issue is the attempt to simply recount every single point made in primary sources, because that's really not what we should be doing - we need secondary sources to summarize some of this criticism so we know what's notable and what's not.
I think that also it has to acknowledge first and foremost there is a significant split in the response, ie every domestic institution that actually matters endorsed it - with the controversial exception of the BMA - while WPATH, US-based medical institutions, and transgender rights orgs condemned it, and haven't stopped condemning it over and over ever since. There's a few other international responses but we've been nowhere near comprehensive there (eg. Ireland's endorsement has never made it onto the page, and the Italian ethics board endorsement was removed after an argument over implication of attribution it to the far-right government of the day).
Aside from the MEDORG statements, in truth, what we have are:
  • Cal Horton's paper on the interim review (primary)
  • The Yale white paper (primary, not peer-reviewed, and with conflicts of interest)
  • The Grijseels paper (primary, and the typo in one review that was pointed out has been corrected).
  • The Noone preprint (primary, not peer-reviewed)
These sources are not independent of each other and all cite each other or have overlapping contributors.
And then rather than much secondary analysis, we just have orgs like the BMA levelling criticism at the Cass Review by citing these, or commentary pieces noting these that are little more than WP:LINKSINACHAIN.
What we should have is a secondary source that actually sifts through this criticism and establishes what is or is not relevant, what has weight, and so on. That's how this sort of thing should be guided. As WP:CRITS suggests:
In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.
Personally, I'd much rather a criticism section that summarises and lays out the criticism and who is making it, but I'm surprised at the lack of secondary sources now I've gone looking. Its been months, yet what's mostly there is primary, or very superficial news coverage of this or that statement in protest. I'd like to see what the BMA comes up with, frankly, its overdue. Void if removed (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BMA said their Task & Finish Group will present their critique of the Cass Review to their UK Council at its January meeting and that is to be held this Wednesday, 22nd, so not quite overdue yet! Hopefully, it will be published soon after. Zeno27 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, especially as the BMA cited the above sources in their original justification for the critique. Void if removed (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note, all of those are secondary sources on the Cass Review. Just because they are critical doesn't make them primary. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; they're secondary on the Cass Review. Whenever a secondary source comments on the same critiques, those are said to be links in a chain. It all becomes a bit circuitous.
The reason we keep having discussions about whether to "recount every single point made in primary sources" is because the current structure focuses on groupings of respondents rather than the substance of those responses. If the responses section were broken up by topic/theme, then it would potentially be very different.
I sympathise with the need for secondary sources which summarise all this, but the fact is that they simply don't exist yet in the way you want. So we have to settle for very partial coverage by secondary sources, which choose to only focus on particular responses. Most media falls into this category too—most of it isn't WP:MEDRS, but media coverage dominates and thereby has set a standard for what's "notable" (e.g., the Telegraph always calls anything critiquing Cass "controversial" or similar, because the Telegraph is very wedded to a particular narrative).
But grouping things by theme/topic at least means we can toss out general statements of "I like it"/"I don't like it". Save the politicians' responses for an opening paragraph of the Responses section, before it gets into the actual substance, if you like. Lewisguile (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile, @Bluethricecreamman how do y'all feel about re-introducing the criticism section and trying to improve it on the page? Me and @HenrikHolen support it but Void if Removed has reverted the content twice now.[1][2] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to have a separate Criticism, as VIR has suggested, then it should go there. In general, it should go into the article somewhere – it's better to try to edit the text directly than to keep removing it and putting it back in. I think the Responses section should encompass the criticisms, but either way, the text should go in as a starting point. Lewisguile (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • think we should keep it in and iterate off it, its hard to debate off a large chunk of material that is missing due to a single editor's objections
  • If we unrevert (and we should), let Void If Removed self-revert... already seen the drama in WP:PIA5 with tag-team edit-warring causing issues
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed section was an enormous addition and essentially a list of every single criticism from every single PRIMARY source of criticism, with no quality control and too many quotes. That's not how you build a criticism section. The responses section is already a mess of that, and we should be at least trying for summary style. Void if removed (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Void, you had two editors a few hours ago above (here) (here) respond to your proposal by explicitly stating strong disagreement to your characterization of them as primary sources. Please respond accordingly rather than WP:BLUDGEON. Relm (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Relm One of those responses was four days ago. Please don't simultaneously ask me to respond to every message while also accusing me of WP:BLUDGEON.
Sources like this are a mix of primary and secondary material, ie where they describe what the Cass Review is and how it was commissioned and what research was carried out, they are secondary. From WP:USEPRIMARY, in science first publication of an idea is WP:PRIMARY. Where academic sources are producing a novel criticism of an existing work, they are WP:PRIMARY sources.
So, for example, the Yale report is WP:SECONDARY for observations like The Cass Review has already been cited in U.S. legal battles over transgender rights. but WP:PRIMARY for their own ideas, such as "The Review’s fixation on “high-quality” evidence is inappropriate". This is in addition to being non-peer-reviewed, and non-independent - everything there needs to be attributed. Void if removed (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:USEPRIMARY: In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. This is referring to the data, not analysis of the data. Furthermore, the examples of secondary sources are defined as such because they are based on and analyze or interpret (rather than merely citing or describing) these original experimental reports.
Also: Critiques and reviews by art critics are usually considered secondary sources, although exceptions exist. For example, an account of the specific circumstances under which the critic viewed the artwork is primary material, as is the critics' description of their personal emotional reaction to the piece. As a result, some critiques and reviews are a mix of primary and secondary material.
So this limits when a critique is primary to things such as when the critic refers to their own emotional reactions to the primary source or how they encountered the source in the first place. Criticism itself is not automatically primary; the criticism is not a "novel idea" in the way WP:USEPRIMARY means it. Stating "x is inappropriate" is primary if they say "I feel x is inappropriate based on my feelings alone", but if they say "x is inappropriate because of a, b, and c" (and cite this), then it's an interpretation or analysis, so it doesn't fall into the exception described. Lewisguile (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support re-introducing it. If someone thinks there's a better way to structure it, then we can discuss that, but until such time that there is agreement on a restructuring plan we should leave it as a standalone section. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the section entirely seems unnecessary and I support its reintroduction while improving it is discussed. Relm (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break After Reinsertion of Criticism Section =

So as of now, in addition to the extensive "responses" section, there is a criticism section that is 1200 words, devoted largely to reciting the opinions of non-MEDRS sources, like the non-peer-reviewed, non-independent Yale Integrity Project white paper.
Meanwhile the section describing the actual contents of the Cass Review and its recommendations is 1600 words.
This WP:UNDUE weight IMO.
I've taken out a claim about peer-contagion and ROGD that was cited to this bioethics paper, I can't find what this was referencing? Was this the correct citation?
The Yale Integrity Project is Yale Law School, not Medical. McNamara is part of the medical school, which causes confusion, but as they say themselves, they are part of the Law School.
Professor Anne Alstott of Yale Law School and Dr. Meredithe McNamara of the Yale School of Medicine, the co-founders of The Integrity Project at Yale Law School
This was established on talk last year here Void if removed (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with "Yale Law School". The website does say it's "cross-departmental", so it may be a case that it's "housed in the Yale Law School", rather than solely being part of the Law School, but I doubt it matters.
I said upthread that it would be better to combine the Responses and Criticisms sections, and I would still be happy for us to do that, if there's consensus. Note that "Responses" also has plenty of non-MEDRS citations in there, too, so this isn't really any different. Some of these sources are more directly relevant than some of the comments in the Responses section anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the Cheung et al (2024) peer-reviewed response to the Yale criticisms go? https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-2024-327994? It points out a lot of errors in the Yale criticisms and addresses many issues discussed here. One of the authors is past president of the Past President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health in the UK. It came out in September 2024. Thanks. Jdbrook talk 23:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it with the Yale criticisms. That seems the most logical for it. If there's a specific rebuttal of a point made by the Yale white paper, then you can mention it there. Just be aware of the sources it uses, as one of them appears to be a substack by an editor on here, which may create a COI for them going forward. Lewisguile (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far Right

I have removed this material which I think was quite an incendiary BLP claim.

I think it would be best to stick to criticism of the review and avoid WP:BLPGOSSIP. Void if removed (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was an appalling BLP violation.Sweet6970 (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was not incendiary or a BLP violation, an RS explicitly said Some trans advocates expressed concern that the Cass Review was linked to broader far-right activism, especially from the U.S., in part due to Cass’ alleged ties to the working group that helped establish harsh care restrictions in Florida in 2022.[3] PATHA, a medical org, has made the same critique: Instead, a number of people involved in the review and the advisory group previously advocated for bans on gender affirming care in the United States, and have promoted non-affirming ‘gender exploratory therapy’, which is considered a conversion practice., which makes no sense unless we explain the context. This is not slightly controversial, even the BMJ and a very pro-Cass report say The activist Erin Reed, who has a quarter of a million followers between X and Substack and is a go-to media source, accused Cass of having “collaborated on a trans care ban in Florida.” Cass spoke with a clinical member of the state’s board of medicine as part of her review.[4] We have multiple RS noting the same issue.[5][6][7][8]
Sweet6970, please do not accuse me of BLP violations without evidence.
VIR, WP:BLPGOSSIP does not apply: (1) Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; (2) whether the material is being presented as true; (3) and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject 1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) yes - multiple RS have mode or noted this criticism because it is relevant to the bias or lack thereof in her research. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was plainly a smear that Dr Cass is connected with the far right. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PUBLICFIGURES applies. If there are multiple sourcing indicating info, its not a BLP violation.
Please put the material back, YFNS has provided more than enough to indicate dueness. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Blue and YFNS. The content was well sourced and should be reintroduced. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, YFNS has sufficiently explained the reason for it's inclusion and keeping it removed seems unnecessary Bejakyo (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some trans advocates
This is weasel words. The citation is this, which says:
Some trans advocates expressed concern that the Cass Review was linked to broader far-right activism, especially from the U.S., in part due to Cass’ alleged ties to the working group
Them.us isn't any sort of widely regarded reliable source for an astonishing BLP claim like this, and here the citation is, again weasel words, that actually cites Zinnia Jones' self-published blog. This is BLPGOSSIP.
The BMJ source you selectively cite says:
Some prominent activists attempted to discredit other aspects of Cass, both the review and the person. Alejandra Caraballo, a Harvard Law School instructor with more than 160 000 followers on X, posted in advance of the report’s release that it had “disregarded nearly all studies,” a claim that Cass called “misinformation.” The activist Erin Reed, who has a quarter of a million followers between X and Substack and is a go-to media source, accused Cass of having “collaborated on a trans care ban in Florida.” Cass spoke with a clinical member of the state’s board of medicine as part of her review.
This source is reporting on the nakedly partisan attempts to discredit the review. This does not support your case, it undermines it, and I note this is a source you have repeatedly fought against inclusion in other areas. Void if removed (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile you cannot make 3rd party BLP claims using SPSs, this is a BLPSPS violation.
I've stripped some out, but I ask you to self revert the rest of your addition and discuss it here. Void if removed (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly reaching. The Los Angeles Blade is reliable news media not a WP:SPS. The fact they've chosen to publish Erin Reed's work doesn't mean it's still Erin Reed's Substack—quite the opposite.
Re: The Kite Trust, Cass herself says she met with Hunter in that source, and other sources confirm it. That's WP:ABOUTSELF, so whether you consider it WP:SPS or not, it's still permissable to use for claims about her. Indeed, WP:USEPRIMARY says that primary sources are better for confirming someone's actual words when they're quoted, so it's a useful link to provide that context. The Kite Trust was also involved in the Cass Review, so is a valid source for comments on that. Cass clearly saw them as appropriate experts in the matter. Moreover, if we say that any source where the publisher is the same as the author is self-published, then the same technically applies to the Cass Review Interim and Final Reports. See the problem?
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention is also a reliable and notable source in general, but I'm not wedded to its inclusion.
Note that my suggested edit does not include wording such as "far right" anyway. But there's clearly consensus to include something here. Lewisguile (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's still permissable to use for claims about her.
Statements self-published by Cass are permissable per WP:ABOUTSELF.
Statements self-published by people who were randomly involved in the Cass Review absolutely are not.
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention is also a reliable and notable source in general, but I'm not wedded to its inclusion.
They might well be reliable for their own material, but the news feed on their site is a straightforward content mirror. They copy and repost stories with attribution, from the BBC, Al Jazeera and blogs. This confers no reliability on the sources.
This is the BBC. It is not Lemkin. We don't use Lemkin as a citation for this. Its just mirrored content.
This is The Guardian]. Again, it is just mirrored content. In the Guardian this is WP:OPINION so cannot be used for statements of fact. Simply citing it reposted by Lemkin - who do not clearly mark it as opinion - doesn't make it reliable for facts.
And this is Erin Reed's substack. Again, it is just mirrored content. As with WP:OPINION in the case of the Guardian, we have to look direct at the source to evaluate it, which is just WP:SPS and thus can't be used for BLPs. Void if removed (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's not currently a consensus at the ongoing discussion at RSN that it is mirroring. Also, there isn't consensus it's WP:SPS, either. I'm happy to wait for a consensus to emerge there.
The Kite Trust source is as SPS as the Cass Review itself is. Both are publishing material on their own websites, under their own names, with words from Cass herself included... But we've had this debate already. Let's wait for the RSN discussion to wrap up to resolve the impasse. Lewisguile (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for what it's worth, the Lemkin Institute is a completely unreliable source. They've recently published press releases arguing that excluding trans women from women's sports is genocidal, in addition to promoting a bizarre, BlueAnon-style conspiracy theory that Elon Musk is trying to usurp presidential power from Trump. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See here re: Lemkin and WP:FRINGE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1272786931/1272819234 Lewisguile (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated earlier on YFNS's talk page, Them is owned by a company that manages several reputable sources. I don't see why they would be unreliable. However, I do believe the text added could use some rewording. Maybe something like Some activists such as Alejandra Caraballo and Erin Reed believe the Cass Review has ties to the far-right due to Cass's alleged ties to the trans healthcare ban in Florida. Cass has rebuked these claims and labeled them as misinformation; a BMJ article noted that she spoke with a clinical member of the state’s board of medicine for the review. could work? — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 21:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC) I've withdrawn from the discussion as I don't think I properly formulated my arguments. I also don't like getting into large and complicated convos like this one. I don't know what took me. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) talk/edits 23:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Them.us is a well respected outlet. see its about page [9], but it includes an Editorial Standards and Practices page.
Their editor in chief is Sarah Burke, who has significant editorial experience. [10]. I see no RSP/N topic talking about them.us.
weasel words applies to wikipedia's MOS. It's not applicable to sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a source is just repeating gossip straight from an unreliable SPS - as this one is - then that is a mark against it for reliability.
I'm sorry, I'm actually a bit stunned that editors are seriously arguing that Trans advocates have worried Cass was linked to broader far-right activism is in any way defensible. This is an exceptional, incendiary BLP claim against a hugely respected individual and it needs strong independent secondary sourcing, not this assembly of unreliable, partisan and self-published sources. Void if removed (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Florida Review called for blatantly discriminatory policies opposed by every health org in the US and was created by a board of people appointed by an anti-LGBT governor, who ran for president on a policy of being harsher to trans people than Trump. RS have associated that with far-right activism against trans people since it happened. That Cass met with people on that board is disputed by nobody, and is indeed a link. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a "link" in the same sense that all conspiracy theories are constructed out of chains of spurious associations. Here we have a conspiracy theory that seeks to discredit an enemy by smearing her as part of "far-right activism". Claiming "it's just a link" is what antisemites fall back on when called out for calling Ben Bernanke a "jewish banker". What's wrong with that? He is one! It's disputed by nobody! This is how conspiracy theories work. We're not saying she's far right, we're just saying there's a link! No, this is not what Wikipedia needs.
It is a profoundly WP:FRINGE viewpoint that Cass and the far-right played any significant role in each others' plans, and just because a handful of partisan sources try to weasel this "some people say" gossip into the discourse, we are not obliged to indulge them. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need the term "far-right" in there anyway. We already describe their affiliations and that's enough, and far more objective. But she's admitted to meeting Hunter and said she didn't know his politics, so it's not WP:FRINGE to say that, nor is it suggesting a conspiracy. In fact, it addresses any conspiracy theories by saying "she met so-and-so but didn't know who he was and said he had no influence on the review". That part, however, got removed because it was cited to Cass' Q&A with the Kite Trust. I think it should go back in.
Re: Lemkin Institute, they're generally reliable on matters of genocide and human rights. Trans genocide is a well known historiographical framework, not a conspiracy theory. Over at RSN, it was pointed out to me that Lemkin shares posts without clear attribution and process, however, so I no longer contest the removal of that particular source for that reason. On other matters (e.g., Lemkin's own in-house reports), I'd still support them. Lewisguile (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should go back in.
Its a self-published source, of course it can't go back in to make BLP claims about third parties.
It isn't WP:ABOUTSELF because it is Kite Trust reporting what they took from a conversation with Cass. It is not what Cass said about herself. WP:BLPSPS is precisely a restriction against self-published sources making claims about what other people did or said.
Here's what the Cass Review FAQs say on this:
Dr Cass met with support and advocacy organisations on 17 April 2024. The organisations shared concerns about the misinformation being spread about the contents of the report and what it meant for the children and young people seeking support. Dr Cass responded to a number of questions that young people and their families had raised with the organisations. Following the meeting the Kite Trust (which is a small, locally focused youth organisation) produced a myth buster to support their youth workers responding to questions from the young people they support. The Kite Trust sent this through to the Review team (on 17 April) but did not state the intention to publish. The myth buster was published on their website the day after the meeting (18 April) before the Review had reviewed its contents and the Review did not sign off the document. Sadly, this was quickly picked up on social media and was used to attack the credibility of the Review and the integrity of the Kite Trust. The Review understands that there was no intention from the Kite Trust (or any of the other organisations present) to misrepresent the meeting. While the language used was not that which the Review uses, the Kite Trust’s statement was not represented as verbatim comments from Dr Cass. Their intention was to correct some misconceptions, it was written to be accessible to the young people they support who are anxious and worried by what they are hearing. The Review has issued its own FAQs, which represents the Reviews position on the matters raised. The Kite Trust and other support and advocacy organisations have engaged with the Review in a positive and constructive way. The statement was intended to address misconceptions and was driven by concern for the young people at the heart of the Review.
Please stop trying to justify misuse of this source for statements about Cass. Void if removed (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Lewisguile, per my comment on the RFC here it is now clear from reviewing the chain of events that what you did was source a direct quote to Cass from Erin Reed's substack, as reposted on LA Blade.
but said she was "not aware of his wider connections and political affiliations" when she met him
However, it is not a direct quote. The original Kite Trust doc and the Cass Review make it clear it is not verbatim - it is Erin Reed who misleadingly presents it as such, and you were misled into believing it was.
These are the attributes of an unreliable source, this is exactly why BLPSPS exists, and that it is reposted in this fashion shows no meaningful standards or oversight from LA Blade. Void if removed (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a mischaracterisation of the Kite Trust PDF. On the last page (p.3), Cass' response is: Patrick Hunter approached the Cass Review stating he was a paediatrician who had worked in this area. The Cass Review team were not aware of his wider connections and political affiliations at this time and so he met the criteria for clinicians who were offered an initial meeting. This initial contact was the same as any paediatrician who approached the study. The Cass Review team declined any further contact with Patrick Hunter after this meeting. Patrick Hunter and his political connections has had no influence on the content of the Cass Review Report. Lewisguile (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of not represented as verbatim comments from Dr Cass are you having difficulty with? Void if removed (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. You made two responses and only tagged me in one. I was literally attempting to re-edit that post after reading them in reverse order to say that justifies removing the speech marks and attributing the summary of events to the Kite Trust.
I only realised you'd commented again when I got an edit conflict message. You're at risk of WP:BLUDGEONING with all your multiple replies in multiple places. Please slown and WP:AGF.
Does Cass deny the content of the Kite Trust? It seems she admits she had that discussion with them? Lewisguile (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be very clear, what we have is the Kite Trust Q&A which is categorically not verbatim statements from Hilary Cass (they don't even present it as such), misleadingly presented as a quote from Hilary Cass by Erin Reed's self-published blog, reproduced without any checking by LA Blade, and then added to Wikipedia as a direct quote attributed to a living person, by you.
It is fair to be misled by a misleading source, but I really suggest you stop defending it now it is apparent this is a BLP violation. This perfectly illustrates every concern I have raised with LA Blade as a trivial reposting pipeline that allows an unreliable SPS to superficially circumvent WP:BLPSPS. Void if removed (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're making several assumptions there. As someone pointed out on the RSN discussion, the Kite Trust PDF was originally called a "Q&A with Hilary Cass" and said "here are her responses". So it's a silly mistake to make, and it should be corrected, but it's hardly a grand deception. You forgave the Telegraph for far trickier bending of the truth re: the Litter boxes in schools hoax a while back.Reword: The Telegraph was bending the truth and intentionally framing the issue a particular way, yet Reed's framing (which doesn't appear intentional) is somehow considered bad enough to rule out her (and possibly the LA Blade) as reliable. That seems unreasonable to me.
Cass does not deny the contents of the Q&A. She only denies that it's verbatim. In doing so, she acknowledges that the Q&A happened. If the content of it was false, wouldn't she say that? Lewisguile (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You forgave the Telegraph for far trickier bending of the truth
  • Citation needed.
If the content of it was false, wouldn't she say that?
I don't understand how you think that's relevant to sourcing BLP material on a CTOP. Void if removed (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you recognised that the Telegraph was more than a little iffy in this area, but said I just think that "generally unreliable" is too strong, and precludes too many uses. I would go for "additional considerations apply", and advise caution on gender issues if the Telegraph is the only source covering it. Which is a far more sympathetic approach than here, despite the sheer number of intentionally misleading articles and statements they made on the issue. Is The Telegraph not also (or moreso) "exceedingly unreliable" in this area? They've likely beaten Erin's number of misleading statements.
Re: the Kite Trust, if the source is reliable (and is considered reliable by Cass herself), and the content of it isn't doubted (or denied by Cass herself), then the only issue is that Reed presents the KT's (otherwise accurate) paraphrasing as a verbatim quote. Which is a minor SNAFU in the scheme of things.
The current wording in the article also doesn't rely on that wording anyway. It only does if we reinsert the Kite Trust material on Cass' lack of knowledge of who Hunter was. I'm happy to leave that out. The rest of the paragraph in question is cited to multiple other publications anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a bit WP:POINTy but you're taking only one part of a very, very long-winded and wide-ranging discussion. My opinion on this story is that the reporting was - across the entirety of the media - wrongly focused on whether or not a student literally identified as a cat, when the "real" controversy was a teacher calling a student "despicable" for saying that such a thing was silly, even if it were only hypothetical. If you looked at the supplied stories given in evidence in that interminable RFC, my recollection is that after some initial "allegedly" type reporting, the Telegraph attributed the claim whether there was a student literally identifying as a cat to the parents of the girls in question, and later caveated it with the school denies it/the parents were under the impression there was.
So they initially said this:
A Church of England school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat.
But ended up with:
A teacher at Rye College, a state secondary in East Sussex, was recorded telling a 13-year-old pupil who refused to accept her classmate could identify as a cat that she was “despicable”.
The school now says that no children at Rye College identify as a cat or any other animal. However, the girls and their parents claimed it was their understanding that one did.
Which is already covered by WP:RSBREAKING and not GUNREL per se.
My personal opinion on the Telegraph is that I won't have it in the house and if it is the single source on a subject it is probably not WP:DUE - but if someone is going to declare it "generally unreliable" then they should bring the evidence, and in this case, the evidence was inadequate. I looked at it, I gave my reasons, the underlying story about a recorded argument in school was a real one and not a hoax, and the only unclear part was whether a student literally identified as a cat beforehand or whether it was about a hypothetical cat, which was ultimately presented (acceptably and accurately) as he said/she said.
I don't think anything here rises even close to the level of forgiving them misrepresenting a non-quote as a quote. If you want to continue discussing the Telegraph, I suggest taking it to my talk. Suffice to say, I completely reject your allegation You forgave the Telegraph for far trickier bending of the truth and ask you to strike it.
All of which is a massive distraction from the unreliable chain of self-published sources that resulted in a BLP violation here, which you continue to double down on. You can't take a living person's silence on whether a third party SPS is reliable to use that SPS to make claims about them, that isn't how WP:ABOUTSELF works at all. Void if removed (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They intentionally framed the issue a particular way. Your argument that Reed is unreliable is based on her framing something a particular way. In the same way you argue the Telegraph wasn't technically inaccurate, several people have argued the same about Reed's piece (e.g., the "100 studies" thing). At the end of the day, you are treating your opinion as fact even after others have explained that it isn't, which is very much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BLUDGEONING. For the sake of ending the circular debate here, I will strike that particular part of my comment and leave the rest here to explain my intentions in greater detail. Lewisguile (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but if the suggestion is that we’re approaching this from the perspective of heading off conspiratorial thinking, then surely we are saying that there is nothing to the conspiracy. In other words, there is no significant relationship between Cass and the far-right (or Republicans, if you prefer) - and if it’s not significant then it’s not due. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories can be significant even if incorrect. So long as we don't engage in the conspiracy theories ourselves, describing them neutrally isn't a problem. Several publications have repeated the claims; that's what makes it WP:DUE (at least, in this particular section).
The problem is Cass' counterclaim, which was in the Kite Trust PDF. My view is that charities/similar orgs don't count as SPSes in the way our guidelines mean it (they have their own regulation, often governmental, with internal policies, etc), but I appreciate others take a more narrow/literal view of WP:SPS. As such, I won't fight for Cass' response (even if paraphrased) to go back in, but that's the reason I included it in the first place. Lewisguile (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not the right approach to conspiracy theories. If a conspiracy theory is untrue, then the encyclopedic thing to do would be to either (a) ignore it completely so as to avoid amplifying it (because the way conspiracy theories work is to plant seeds of association, so Wikipedia would be doing the dirty work of the conspiracy theorists by giving it oxygen here); (b) centre the rebuttal of the conspiracy theory.
"Alleged connections", vague associations, and weaselly unspecified criticisms are not due when there is no substance behind them. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with YFNS. If YFNS and others finds multiple sources where many identify Cass as linked to right wing activism, its not a BLP violation. Its also not a BLP vio if you find it personally objectionable, policy indicates WP:PUBLICFIGURES apply. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly due and properly sourced. There is no policy based grounds for removal. Simonm223 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Cass Review, not the Florida Review. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the Cass Review ought to be about the Cass Review, not the Florida Review. 16:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

COATRACK

The current wording of the ‘Florida’ para, which starts Critics have also criticised meetings between Cass, members of her team, and members of Florida governor Ron De Santis’ medical board…’ is not related to the subject of this article, which is the Cass Review. It is WP:COATRACK, and should be removed, quite apart from any other objections to the wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source used in that paragraph is about the Cass review. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text in our article is not about the Cass Review. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources think this information is relevant to the Cass review (the whole process, not necessarily just the final report). By your process the entirety of the background section would be a coatrack. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument against inclusion seems consistently WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The story is, according to the BMJ, Cass spoke to a clinician.
That's not a story. That's not anything. It's certainly not worthy of an encyclopedia.
If you have to expend 5 sentences spanning a dozen sources to explain why that's somehow really really really bad according to a couple of especially vehement activists, that's a WP:COATRACK, and one adorned with a very familiar array of coats. Void if removed (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus here doesn't currently agree with you. Lewisguile (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but it's not Wikipedia's place to protect Cass' reputation. She chose to collaborate with participants in the transphobic Florida Review. That is clearly relevant to the reception of the later Cass review considering the character of the criticism. Reliable sources demonstrate this relevancy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She chose to collaborate with participants in the transphobic Florida Review.
This is wandering into WP:RGW territory now. Void if removed (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counts

I'm counting @User:Void if removed, @User:Sweet6970, @User:Barnards.tar.gz against inclusion.

I'm counting @User:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist, myself, @User:HenrikHolen, @User:Bejakyo, @User:Lewisguile, @User:Simonm223, @User:LunaHasArrived for inclusion. Its slightly more than 2 to 1 for inclusion, unless folks don't agree, i see this as consensus that they aren't convinced of arguments against inclusion. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's right. The sources do connect the meetings to the Cass Review. We could always clarify that in the first sentence by adding during the course of the Cass Review at the end? Lewisguile (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting "meetings" plural?
From the BMJ, it is referred to as a call. From the emails, its obvious that the single "meeting" between Hunter and Cass was not an in-person one (unless they somehow physically met while remaining in different timezones). Using uncaveated language like "met" is highly misleading to a reader if such a meeting was not physical. Void if removed (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluethricecreamman: I did not receive your ping. I am aware of your post because this page is on my watchlist. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC) PS I think it’s because you amended the format of the pings, and it only works on a fresh post. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah damn messed that up. lemme repost, apologies to folks for double ping if they get it
I'm counting @User:Void if removed, @User:Sweet6970, @User:Barnards.tar.gz against inclusion.
I'm counting @User:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist, myself, @User:HenrikHolen, @User:Bejakyo, @User:Lewisguile, @User:Simonm223, @User:LunaHasArrived Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it only works on first ping. I got both, so hopefully everyone got it this time. Lewisguile (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ping received this time. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add me to this. Saying the Cass Review falls under BLP is absurd. By that logic, anything about Twitter falls under BLP because Elon Musk. Snokalok (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Snokalok: WP:BLP applies to references to living persons on any and every page on Wikipedia.
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
Neutral point of view (NPOV)
Verifiability (V)
No original research (NOR)
Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

I see that the ‘far-right’ smear has been reinstated by Bluethricecreamman. WP:BLP says, amongst other things, Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. Please self-revert.I think this should be taken to the BLP noticeboard. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wont selfrevert. see counts above but most folks for inclusion rebutted blpvio claims with info that sources are high quality and WP:PUBLICFIGURES applies.
generally inclusionists seem unimpressed by deletionist args and disagree that blp applies by 2 to 1 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That second source is commentary, and thus opinion. It also states the proven misinformation the Cass review was able to exclude well over a hundred studies and so isn't a reliable source.
And frankly a source which employs the tag "transphobic UK pediatrician Hilary Cass" is so grossly unprofessional and defamatory it should be nowhere near a BLP claim. Void if removed (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion can be used if attributed, LA Blade and them.us are high quality, and its not a BLP vio if 2 to 1 folks dont buy your argument.
put out a notice on BLPN to see if others wanna weigh in. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local consensus cannot override Wikipedia policy on BLPs. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, referred to by Bluethricecreamman in the edit summary, includes:In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. [my emphasis] Multiple reliable third-party sources have not been provided, and this material should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are not the sole arbiter and interpreter of wiki policy and if 2 to 1 folks agree you got policy wrong, then you got your policy wrong. dont WP:BEAT a deadhorse unless more folks from blpn agree with your interpretation Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop treating this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Void if removed (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) No, it's marked "political analysis and commentary", which the LA blade classifies as news (https://www.losangelesblade.com/category/news/political-news/political-commentary-analysis/). Commentary pieces are marked "commentary", and classed by the LA Blade as opinion (https://www.losangelesblade.com/category/health/commentary-health/opinions/)
2) Saying somebody is transphobic doesn't make a source unreliable... That's a ridiculous argument. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's marked "political analysis and commentary"
No, it is marked as "political commentary and analysis". Commentary goes first.
And it is an opinion piece, not news - if the site isn't clearly marking opinion as such then it is unreliable. As it is "political commentary and analysis" makes it clear it is WP:NEWSOPED, which is for commentary and analysis pieces.
The tagging speaks to WP:BIASED. Void if removed (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, point stands it's still classed as news, not opinion. If you want to start on RFC on the Los Angeles Blade's general reliability and argue that it doesn't know which of it's own content is news or opinion, go ahead, but until then we can assume that California's award-winning largest gay newspaper that was an offshoot of the award-winning oldest LGBT newspaper in the US is reliable.
And if you hadn't read WP:BIASED, it says that Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the consensus slightly differently. I think there's broad agreement to keep the mention of the De Santis meetings, etc, but I think that's better described as "anti-trans" than necessarily "far-right". More sources seem to support that framing. I think those advocating to keep the material wanted the general info about the Cass team's meetings in there, not necessarily the specific wording of "far-right". I'm happy to self-revert that if I've misread it, @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist. Lewisguile (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah you got it, everyone knows the DeSantis admin's far-right, the important thing is noting the collaboration per multiple RS over saying "far-right" and "anti-trans" is slightly more common than "far right" anyways. I do think we should keep the PATHA statement in the same paragraph - at the moment their note about anti-trans activists from the US being involved is in the paragraph about excluding trans people which is a thematically related but different concern Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'm pleased we all agreed.
I also agree to putting PATHA in that same paragraph. Lewisguile (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, can agree to this too, seems reasonable compromise. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
seems like a grounded compromise Bejakyo (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This just feels like a repeat of the previous discussion. Suggest we WP:DTS HenrikHolen (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw the post at BLPN. In my view, unless there are multiple sources stating that "Cass was linked to broader far-right activism", I would leave it out. Them states: "the Cass Review was linked to broader far-right activism, especially from the U.S., in part due to Cass’ alleged ties to the working group that helped establish harsh care restrictions in Florida in 2022"; so it appears to me they can't even make a definitive statement about her ties to the working group, since they couched their language with alleged, and then also say "in part", but don't explain what the other "part" is that links her to broader far-right activism. The LA Blade piece is clearly marked as "Political commentary & analysis", which appears to be another term for the opinion of the author, so that should be attributed appropriately. And the way that sentence begins with "Trans advocates have worried", without explaining or giving attribution to who these advocates are that are worried, seems weasley. I think a contentious label like "far-right", requires attribution as to who is exactly saying that (i.e. worrying about it), so it is clear to our readers, instead of a vague assertion from unidentified trans-advocates. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this assessment. When the sources use weasel words like "alleged" or "some people worried that" or similar, those claims do not meet the high bar BLP requires. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2025

I am sure I'm won't surprise anyone by saying the "Criticism" section of this article is terrible.

"Researchers Cal Horton and Ruth Pearce have said of the Cass Review, "its most controversial recommendations are based on prejudice rather than evidence".[213]" "Researchers" makes it sound like they have medical terminal degrees, but you can see their credentials at:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/cal-horton/ and https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/ruth-pearce/

Lots of criticism has been written about the Yale response to the Cass Review. You might see before utilizing it as a cite for an article:

https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/yales-integrity-project-is-spreading https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/yales-integrity-project-is-spreading-ba7 https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/yales-integrity-project-is-spreading-dbb

For instance, "The Yale Integrity Project white paper suggested that what the Cass Review referred to as the "exponential change in referrals" to youth gender services was not actually exponential, and that the recorded growth could be the result of double counting data points."

First, if a change was or was not exponential, shouldn't this sentence describe the years in which the growth was or was not exponential?

The Cass Report argues: “The numbers of children and young people presenting to the UK NHS Gender Identity Service (GIDS) has been increasing year on year since 2009, with an exponential rise in 2014,” the authors write at one point. They subsequently describe “the exponential change in referrals over a particularly short five-year timeframe.” Whereas as the Yale authors make an objectively false claim about the Cass Review: “The Review’s interpretation of this data is that it shows an ‘exponential’ increase from 2010–2022". The Yale authors are arguing there was no exponential rise BUT in years in which Cass didn't claim an exponential rise.

Read the above Substacks. There are dozens of instances of this.

You should remove the Criticism section until you can validate each sentence, because most I see here are demonstrably false. 68.12.132.227 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Substack is also not a reliable source. Lewisguile (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The requested change, per the last paragraph, is "remove the Criticism section until you can validate each sentence".
The level of validation wanted is apparently something like proving that the critics are correctly and validly criticizing actual flaws in the Cass Review. Wikipedia's usual standard is only to verify that the critics actually made this criticism (no matter how misguided, inaccurate, or embarrassingly wrong the criticism might be). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Sophomore Writing II

@TheFeministWorm, Brianda (Wiki Ed), this is really not a suitable article for students or new editors. Please choose something that is not subject to Wikipedia:Contentious topics restrictions. That means, among other things, that students should not choose any articles in what we call the WP:GENSEX area ("Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people"). These can often, but not always, be identified by looking for warning messages at the top of the talk page. For example, the top of this page has a note that starts "Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article", and there's a similar note at Talk:Feminism. I don't see a similar note at Talk:Intersectionality, so that might not be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern, but also, people need to learn somehow, right? So long as they follow the rules for WP:GENSEX and contentious topics in general (e.g., following enforced BRD and semi-page protection requirements), I don't think we should discourage people from engaging with the article. We can see any edits that get made and address any issues if they arise. Editors with insufficient experience or confidence can also make edit requests or raise discussions here. Lewisguile (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And editors with insufficient experience to know that their confidence is misplaced will end up reverted, blocked, or banned.
People need to learn, but the "somehow" should not involve highly disputed topics. We have encouraged students for years to avoid articles about social problems (also Wikipedia:Featured articles and medical subjects, except when an upper- or graduate-level class is specifically about medicine). Students tend to be interested in serious problems, which is to their credit, but getting embroiled in long-standing disputes is not an effective way for them to learn. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agree with whatamidoing…
this page and many contentious topic pages are among the most fraught areas to learn about wikipedia and the process of writing an encyclopedia page.
anyone without sufficient experience is very likely to have a miserable time editing on here. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assigning any student a contentious topic article seems like a pretty terrible idea and setting them up for a bad grade as it is unlikely they would be able to make any significant changes to such an article. It would also not promote them towards being a continuing future editor after having to deal with such fraught topic areas. SilverserenC 17:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Student assignments are usually graded according to what you add yourself, regardless of whether it's kept (reverts are not always the student's fault, after all). But it's also unsatisfying to do all that work and have it disappear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I personally think that being a student doesn't mean a person can't edit a WP:CTOP well, or engage with the rules/guidance properly. But I appreciate I'm in the minority here.
Reversion can make people leave Wikipedia, for example, but I suspect it can also make some people engage even more (even if, initially, it's only because they want to understand why/better explain themselves).
I doubt I'd have edited as much as I have if I hadn't made some good faith edits and been reverted in a topic I was interested in early on, and then became motivated to find out what I'd done wrong and how I could improve my contributions. (I am possibly unusual there, I'll admit.) Lewisguile (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statistically, you're definitely unusual. I've heard that the best way to get a newcomer back is to leave their first edit (mostly) intact and add a {{citation needed}} to it. The most promising newbies seem to check back the next day, and if they see that their contribution was kept/valued, then they'll try to address the tag. (I assume that any sort of interacting with/improving upon the original contribution will help, not just that particular tag.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well that's good to know. I will file that away for future dealings with newbies. Lewisguile (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WAID on this. There are many articles to assign - this is not one of them. Snokalok (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cass_Review
No tags for this post.