Jump to content

Talk:Cass Review

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sources for consideration

[edit]

UCU

[edit]

@HenrikHolen you have reinstated the following text:

In June 2024, the University and College Union's (UCU) national executive committee unanimously passed a motion saying that the review "falls short of the standard of rigorous and ethical research expected of research professionals" and "provides no evidence for the ‘new approach’ it recommends". The motion described the Cass Review as having "serious methodological flaws" and defined by "selective use of evidence and promotion of unevidenced claims". They resolved to "commit to working with trans-led organisations to resist the Cass Report recommendations".

Claiming this was "more neutral" than what was previously there which was:

In June 2024, the University and College Union's (UCU) national executive committee was condemned as "anti-scientific" by some academics after it unanimously passed a motion criticising the review and committing to "working with trans-led organisations to resist the Cass Report recommendations".

I remind you that WP:NPOV is about representation of sources, not about your own personal opinion. WP:CHERRYPICKING from sources to convey a particular POV that is not reflective of the balance of coverage in those sources is not NPOV.

With that in mind, the opening paragraph of the source in question - and thus the aspect that this source emphasises most strongly - is:

Academics have condemned the University and College Union’s decision to campaign against a widely praised independent review into NHS treatment for gender-questioning children, claiming its position is “anti-scientific” and could expose researchers to harassment.

By my count, that article is roughly half about the condemnation of the motion and praise for the Cass Review, and half coverage of the motion itself, which is why I specifically devoted about half the length to each in my revised wording. As it is, given the opening POV of the article, and its balance of coverage, I would say my text is a fairer representation of the source.

I ask you to self revert, or explain why you think your representation is an accurate and neutral representation of this source. Void if removed (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that we are on the same page, I reinstated the language from before your edit, this is not something I have written. The language of the current version succinctly describes the motion passed without making judgements as to whether this was the correct decision. Your edit editorialized the paragraph and created the impression that the author believes the UCU acted in error when passing the motion.
I am not opposed to including responses from third parties. However, when doing so, we cannot solely present the opinions of third parties who opposed the move. Moreover, the "academic criticism" in question refers to tweets by one professor and an interview with one other, not published academic literature. I have to question whether this is even due. HenrikHolen (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am frankly suspicious of using the Times as our sole source here. They're known to be biased on trans issues, and in my experience especially in this specific way, where they portray anything trans-supportive as controversial but anything trans-hostile as obvious.
I also second Henrik's skepticism that the criticisms they mention in this article constitute "academics have condemned", the very NPOV old framing. (Even if we rely on the Times for facts, there's no reason we need to copy their biased language.) I don't think that they even reach "academics were critical". Maybe "a small handful of particular academics were critical"; certainly it seems likely from the totality of the sources that WPATH would be fine with it, and they're academics. Loki (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the motion, this is about the source. You are editorializing by selective representation of the source, excluding aspects that are reported with at least equal prominence. WP:CHERRYPICKING says A source must be fairly represented for the purpose of the article and that includes contradictory and qualifying information, see WP:BALASP for policy.
Again, from WP:CHERRYPICKING
As to contradictory information that needs to be reported in Wikipedia, if, for example, a source says "Charlie loves all blue coats and hates all red coats", to report in Wikipedia that according to that source "Charlie loves all ... coats" is cherrypicking from the source. It is cherrypicking words with the effect of changing the meaning of what the source is saying. It is cherrypicking even if the source is precisely cited. It is still cherrypicking even if the editor meant well in changing the meaning; the issue is not the editor's intention, but how the Wikipedia article represents the source's meaning.
This is exactly the case of this paragraph.
Your edit editorialized the paragraph and created the impression that the author believes the UCU acted in error when passing the motion
I did no such editorializing and created no such impression. I accurately represented the balance of treatment in the source, which gave no indication of the author's opinion, but merely the conveyed the reaction to UCU's actions, which was given equal weight in the originating source.
If you want to remove the paragraph because it isn't DUE, do so. Void if removed (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misreading the cherry-picking guidelines. Cherry-picking would be to include only criticism of the UCU motion but not support, or vice versa. The current state includes no responses from third parties, neither supportive nor critical, and so I am struggling to see how that can be construed as cherry-picking.
When it comes to the language, the phrasing "was condemned for" in the topic sentence, in my view, creates a clear impression of wrongdoing by the UCU, and does not give equal prominence to the fact that the move was lauded by many.
I suggest we let other editors weigh in and possibly post this in WP:NPOVN
HenrikHolen (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BALANCE states Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources.
Meanwhile WP:WEIGHT states Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.
This is policy. It is not our job to give or avoid giving the impression of wrongdoing, it is our job to represent what RS say in proportion to the views presented in those sources. You could have argued for different wording to reflect this balance, but that's not what you did - you reverted back to a POV that is an inaccurate representation of the balance of views in the source, claiming it was "more neutral".
the move was lauded by many.
Can you quote the part from that source which says that? I don't see any. The only defence is from a UCU spokesperson defending their own actions.
You can argue none of this is DUE and take out the paragraph completely and I'd support that, but if you want to use this source, you should represent it accurately. Void if removed (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original text did editorialise with its framing, but the revised text does the same (albeit in the opposite way). Following that adage that "we describe debates; we don't engage in them", something like this might be better:
In June 2024, the University and College Union's (UCU) national executive committee unanimously passed a motion committing to "working with trans-led organisations to resist the Cass Report recommendations". Political economy professor Thomas Prosser said the motion "risks making the union appear anti-scientific". Other union members said it suggested the union and its members were "against research", and that a union motion was an insufficient avenue to critique the review.
This way, we are describing the debate (group a said x, group b said y), without engaging in the debate ourselves. This details more of the critique of the motion than the motion itself without having to use the source's non-neutral tone. This is hopefully NPOV without omitting anything major. Anyone reading it can then make up their own minds or read the sources directly. Lewisguile (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's too much text for such minor coverage IMO, and much of the article itself is social media drama (ie the "against research" stuff is just posts on Twitter). All I'm after is a way of presenting the info in broadly the same proportion as it is in the source, not a blow by blow of everyone saying why they love/hate the motion.
I think "some academics" was a fair compromise, and its not necessary to name individuals.
I disagree with "insufficient", that's not anywhere in the source and I'm not sure what its a paraphrase of.
How about:
In June 2024, the University and College Union's (UCU) national executive committee unanimously passed a motion criticising the review and committing to "working with trans-led organisations to resist the Cass Report recommendations". This was met with criticism from some academics and union members, who described the move as "anti-scientific". Void if removed (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a fair middle ground. Barring any objections from other editors I would support amending the paragraph to VIR's proposed phrasing. HenrikHolen (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, too. I probably added too much in to try to balance it out. (E.g., "insufficient avenue" was my attempt to summarise the "Using a union motion to argue against a lengthy and detailed report was also unwise, suggested Alice Sullivan, professor of sociology at UCL"). Since we all seem to like VIR's version, I'll add that text in now. Lewisguile (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we have the “anti-scientific”, we should say what the criticisms were, lest we give readers the impression that criticism of the review itself is inherently anti-science; and thus we should have the quotes from the THE article. I’m going to boldly add them, if you take exception feel free to invoke the BRD. Snokalok (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the verge of suggesting this myself. I think it makes sense to include the UCU's stated motivations for opposing the Cass review. Thanks HenrikHolen (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken these out again, I just think 3 quotes from the same source assembled like this is overkill, and not balanced compared to the other coverage in the source - and once you start trying to balance it with more quotes from the critical POV, it gets bloated for something with so little coverage. "Anti-scientific" is just an attempt to find an NPOV way of describing the criticism (ie by quoting it directly, given the prominence in the source). If this quote can be instead summarised in different language that doesn't require more quotes back and forth trying to balance it, I'd favour that? Void if removed (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I think VIR is right about length and WP:DUE here. On the other, I sympathise with the clarity issue re: the current wording. With that in mind, perhaps we could just change the text to: In June 2024, the University and College Union's (UCU) national executive committee unanimously passed a motion criticising the review's methodology, sourcing and claims. (Deleting the rest after and committing to working with..., etc.) This keeps it brief, but focuses on the actual objections. Lewisguile (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. HenrikHolen (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine with this as long as we take out the “anti-science”. That’s not something that I feel we can have without giving the UCU’s quotes as well Snokalok (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the UCU's position is well covered with that. If we removed "anti-scientific", it starts to become unbalanced again. What wording would you suggest instead? Lewisguile (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unanimously passed a motion criticising the review's methodology, sourcing and claims. What are they saying about such things? Are they saying that the review derived its conclusions from reading animal entrails? Are they saying it was bought off by the Catholic Church? We don’t know. All we know was that the review was criticized in these areas - and when you balance that with a direct quote of “anti-scientific”, you lend said rebuttal an air of greater credence, and make it seem as though the very act of criticising the review in such a capacity is reasonable to call anti-science Snokalok (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do prefer your proposed text over the current text though. Snokalok (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, but I disagree there. I think we don't need to list the details (people can find those for themselves), as it takes up a lot of space and starts becoming WP:UNDUE. If anything, both the claim and counter claim are vague enough that it shouldn't sway a person either way (which is as intended). Saying something is "anti-scientific" without rationale is equally as unpersuasive as saying there are issues with methodology, sources and claims. The detached reader would probably (and should) think, "I'd need to read more about these claims to make my mind up" before deciding either way.
A better way to handle the entire Response section might be to summarise the key objections and the areas of key support/praise, and then cite those broadly ("Politicians generally supported x, while academics said y. Trade unions and LGBTQ charities said a, and human rights organisations said b..."), maybe with a couple of representative quotes as illustration. Or to separate it into media coverage, medical responses, and then general support/disagreement in civil/wider society. But that's probably a long way off.
To find a way forward, one way to compromise might be to add a short clarification as an endnote? That can go at the end of the UCU sentence. We probably need to do the same for the objectors' response, too, though. As much as I agree the Times is biased and highly emotive in this area, there's very little coverage elsewhere to rely on. Lewisguile (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What’s your proposed wording? Also is it okay if we put your compromise wording above in for now? Snokalok (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to swap to the later quote from the article, which is more caveated, ie "risks making the union appear anti-scientific" Void if removed (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good shout. So I think we have the following at the moment:
In June 2024, the University and College Union's (UCU) national executive committee unanimously passed a motion criticising the review's methodology, sourcing and claims. This was met with criticism from some academics and union members, who said the move "risks making the union appear anti-scientific".
Does that seem acceptable for now? If so, we can always add the above while we iron out any other changes.
@Snokalok, for the endnote, I was thinking something like this: The motion said the review has "serious methodological flaws", "provides no evidence for the 'new approach' it recommends", and is based on "selective use of evidence and promotion of unevidenced claims".
If we put all that together, we end up with:
In June 2024, the University and College Union's (UCU) national executive committee unanimously passed a motion criticising the review's methodology, sourcing and claims.[a] This was met with criticism from some academics and union members, who said the move "risks making the union appear anti-scientific".[1] Lewisguile (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is acceptable. I still think we can make it even better, but this proposal is acceptable. Snokalok (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can make it better, too. If you want to add the interim wording while we sort that out, I think that will be okay now? Lewisguile (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Personally, I have a mixed relationship with endnotes - because I feel that, while they are a useful tool, the only people who really know to click them are wikipedia editors. The average reader will see them oftentimes as just a weird citation, and they rarely check those Snokalok (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True. But someone who wants more info will presumably look for more info, and that's a good a place as any to start. If they don't click on the endnote, they may not care to find out more. Lewisguile (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bit late to this but I don't think the responses to the response are due. The UCU represents over 100,000 people. It would be more noteworthy if not a single one disagreed, we have 4 referred to in the source, a shockingly low number.
Of the two named ones, one, Sullivan, is a WP:FRINGE academic discussed at RSN.[1] The other one petitioned his university to disassociate with Stonewall, [2][3], says "I advocate traditional definitions of gender and sex and am very concerned about the transitioning of children",[4] and signed an open letter by Sex Matters.[5] So, yeah, 4 criticisms, 2 from GC figures and 2 from anonymous tweets.
The UCU's motion was notable. The handwringing by 2 people on twitter and 2 GC activists isn't. I'm also not a fan of the endnote and support putting the actual quoted criticisms accessibly. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to use a source, you should reflect it accurately, not select the bits you like from a source and dismiss the bits you don't. Void if removed (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section is "Reception by charities, unions and human rights organisations". It is not "Reception by charities, unions and human rights organisations and some people on twitter who disagreed with them". UCU's motion was and due, the response to it aren't. From WP:DUE Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects
  • "In June 2024, the University and College Union's (UCU) national executive committee unanimously passed a motion criticising the review's methodology, sourcing and claims."
  • "This was met with criticism from some academics and union members, who said the move "risks making the union appear anti-scientific"
We are giving two GC academics and two people on twitter equal weight to a unanimous motion from a >100,000 member organization. WP:UNDUE.
Would you be ok with me appending a sourced note "a few people in the org disagreed" to every positive statement about the Cass Review or does this only apply to critical ones? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not determining weight - the source is. Your citation of WP:DUE is arguing against your own original wording, which focused exclusively on one aspect of this source, while ignoring another. The source itself gives both aspects at least equal weight, and arguably prioritises the negative response. In that context, the compromise arrived at is more than fair. Void if removed (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled to "Response from charities, unions and human rights organisations"

[edit]

I renamed the section "Response from charities, unions and human rights organisations" just now, since unions don't quite fit the other two brackets. Is there a better umbrella term? "Civil society"? "Third sector"? Other NGOs could potentially go here, too, such as the EHRC (meaning the top subsection could just become "Response from political parties"), but I'll leave it as is for now. Lewisguile (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a bit of a mish-mash of different types of organisations and needs either a unified title, splitting up or moving some responses elsewhere. These are the organisations mentioned and I've attempted to categorise them:
*Amnesty International: HR organisation
*Mermaids: trans charity
*Stonewall: LGBTQ+ charity
*University and College Union: Trades Union
*Trades Union Congress (TUC) LGBT+ conference: (part of a) Trades Union
*100 LGBTQ+ organisations and activists: unknown
*The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA): LGBTI organisation
*international LGBTQ student organization IGLYO: LGBTQI organisation
*Transgender Europe: trans organisation
As far as I can tell, none of the one I've categorised as organisations are charities. Zeno27 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for things to be moved around, as needed. What do you suggest? Lewisguile (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section was originally "Response from advocacy organisations" IIRC. I think that's a fair description. Void if removed (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that fits unions. "Responses from civil society" seems broader? Lewisguile (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unions are worker advocacy organisations. Void if removed (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. But it's probably a stretch to call them advocacy orgs in the way most people would understand that term. Trade unions aren't the same sort of thing as Amnesty International, for example.
Another option would be "Responses from other civil society organisations", given that other NGO academic groups and other charities are elsewhere. But I think "Responses from LGBTQ rights groups, human rights groups, and trade unions" might be okay, even if it's long? That was Henrik's suggestion downthread.
A final option would just be to call it "Other responses", but I worry that opens the door to everything and everyone being added. Lewisguile (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Responses from LGBTQ rights groups, human rights groups, and trade unions" is the least bad option, but personally I think this makes clear that this responses section is a coatrack and we're trying to fashion enough pegs to hang everything off.
I think a section dedicated to the ongoing and developing criticism from LGBTQ orgs later in the article would make more sense. Void if removed (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't civil society strictly speaking include NGO academic groups which at present are discussed in another section. I think the current headline is fine. HenrikHolen (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Responses from LGBTQ rights groups, human rights groups, and unions"? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest 'Trades Unions' to differentiate it from any other kind of union. Zeno27 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Lewisguile (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Grove, Jack (2024-07-03). "Anger over UCU's 'anti-scientific' fight against Cass Review". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  1. ^ The motion said the review has "serious methodological flaws", "provides no evidence for the 'new approach' it recommends", and is based on "selective use of evidence and promotion of unevidenced claims".

Contradiction between articles

[edit]

Our article Transgender health care misinformation says of the Cass Review:The Cass Review, a non-peer-reviewed narrative review of trans healthcare in the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS), claimed that there was a lack of evidence to support trans healthcare for children. It has been criticized by a number of medical organizations and academic groups for its methodology and findings. Refuted aspects of the report include claiming that a majority of transgender youth desist, endorsing gender exploratory therapy, and implying poor mental health causes children to be transgender. It has been criticized for bias by international and UK-based transgender healthcare organizations as well as transgender activists such as youth-led organization Trans Kids Deserve Better. In May 2024 the UK government enacted a ban on puberty blockers based on the report. This does not seem to tally with what this article says about it. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what do you think is mismatching here?
While this article does into significantly more detail (as we would obviously expect), we do include international criticism of the review here. We go into significantly more detail about domestic endorsement of Cass here than I think is necessary, but I'm not sure I can see which aspects of this misinformation article you are considering inaccurate and contradictory.
That article is a well-referenced Good Article; which parts of this C-class article do you think need amendment? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine you are mostly concerned with the sentence: "Refuted aspects of the report include claiming that a majority of transgender youth desist, endorsing gender exploratory therapy, and implying poor mental health causes children to be transgender", since this article does discuss the opposition from some medical groups.
I don't think this qualifies as a contradiction. The Cass review article might not make the same claim, but it also does not make any statements which conflict with this claim. I will say though, that "refute" is perhaps too strong a word, and "dispute" might be better. HenrikHolen (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular interest in improving that article. If its wrong, it is wrong - and it clearly is factually wrong, uses sources that reference the interim report, and strangely promotes an almost inconsequential activist group above all the other, better documented, higher profile critics and supporters. If it is another WP:POVFORK of material here, it probably needs taking to the NPOV board. Void if removed (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article should have a criticism section that actually outlines why people have criticized the review. As it stands, we offer bits and pieces of why, but no centralized collation of the issues raised.
it clearly is factually wrong Care to explain? Does the report not endorse exploratory therapy or say most kids desist? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of criticism sections in general, but I do agree we should be clearer about why and not just list off a bunch of organizations that have criticized it without any attempt to connect the fact of the criticism to the actual critiques of the report. Loki (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think - again - if we could just move past the need to shove everything in the "responses" format and accept having another section, there's definitely scope for some sort of collected discussion of the criticism. Void if removed (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain?
It isn't a narrative review, it wasn't about "trans healthcare" but a review of gender identity services for children and young people, it didn't say there was a lack of evidence to support trans healthcare, it found that the existing services were based on weak evidence, and the ban by the UK government was related to private provision. As for other issues, why did you deviate from the lede of this article in describing it, ie leaving off the praise and acceptance of all the UK medical bodies and focusing only on criticism? Why did you rely heavily on material that you know - from the many discussions here - is critique of the interim report? Why the focus on a tiny and inconsequential activist group and not criticism from someone actually notable like, say, the BMA or Stonewall?
As for the "exploratory therapy", as you know it was kept off the page on Gender exploratory therapy as a source - and the NPOV tag there removed, by you - because editors said it didn't endorse it. Void if removed (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good point, and I think it makes sense to have more in depth description of the criticism instead of just a list of orgs that criticize it without much explanation as to why. HenrikHolen (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to lede

[edit]

I have reverted this change.

The lede should summarise the body, not itemise it. Over-emphasising specific responses in this way is undue and POV. Highlighting the BMA criticism and none of the criticism of the BMA's resposne is POV. the GLADD response is less notable than the endorsement of medical colleges. Changing "widely" to "some" is editorialising and misrepresents the wide endorsement of the review by the bodies that actually matter (ie the royal colleges, the NHS etc). Emphasising that WPATH "heavily criticised" is POV. Void if removed (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was criticism of the BMA's response: council unanimously voted to critique and evaluate the review before outcry from some members led the BMA to pledge to undertake it's assessment neutrally.
The GLADD response is highly notable as the overarching body for LGBT medical professionals in the UK
Changing "widely" to "some" is editorialising and misrepresents the wide endorsement of the review by the bodies that actually matter (ie the royal colleges, the NHS etc). Except we have sources that gave mixed support in there (such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists noting criticisms from trans members and patients and calling for their inclusion), and "widely" hides that the BMA and GLADD objected.
Emphasising that WPATH "heavily criticised" is POV - Let me get this right, the world's leading body for trans healthcare, whose guidelines are internationally accepted (Even Cass noted this, she said it was a bad thing but she noted it's the standard), which has repeatedly criticized the Review, is undeserving of space in the lead?
Your reversion also removed the numerous critiques from LGBT rights bodies, notes about the Green Party's rescinded support, and hid the fact that Labour's LGBT branch criticized the report even as the party welcomed it.
Your reversion is highly POV and seems to be part of a continued campaign to make the Cass Review appear more widely accepted than it was and downplay it's criticisms. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The existing wording is longstanding NPOV consensus, so reverting to it is not POV. Summary style is much better for the lede than simply re-enumerating items that are in the body, selecting the items you think are most important.
The endorsement of the relevant medical bodies is far more significant than GLADD's response.
Noting the official response of the two largest parties is notable, much more so than factions within Labour dissenting.
The issue with WPATH's response is it is the response to the interim review. Void if removed (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY
Why is GLADD not a relevant medical body?
A brilliant way to sidestep LGBT orgs within the party criticizing it to make it look more accepted than it is and remove responses from parties who you don't like.
WPATH responded to the final report as well. But anyways, this is an article about the Cass Review, not the Final report, so criticisms of the report at multiple stages are due. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the inline citation in the lede was still referencing the Interim Review response. It still is actually - I think that should focus on the longer, May 2024 response.
I think that the lede should be a brief WP:SUMMARY, and as things stand the current wording gives that.
Once you start bringing individual responses up, then its about which - and if you're only bringing the critical ones, it becomes POV, which needs offsetting, then it grows, and the whole thing ends up a mess that's harder to balance. Void if removed (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a brief summary - it was widely welcomed by medical organizations in the UK with the exception of the British Medical Association, who are independently reviewing the Review, and the Association of LGBT doctors and dentists. International medical organizations and those in other countries were ambivalent or critical of the review. The review was heavily criticized by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health and regional affiliates, LGBTQ+ rights bodies within the UK and internationally, and UK-based trade unions. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative might be: it was broadly welcomed by UK medical organisations with the exception of the British Medical Association, which said it would independently evaluate the Review, and the Association of LGBTQ+ Doctors and Dentists. International and non-UK medical organisations were ambivalent or critical of the review. The review was criticised by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health and regional affiliates, and LGBTQ+ rights bodies within the UK and internationally. Lewisguile (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you mention the BMA in the lede, you have to mention that it was the subject of significant controversy as that's what the balance of coverage reflects, so I'd shy away from it because it is hard to summarise in the lede in a neutral way.
I'd say:
International and non-UK medical organisations were ambivalent or critical of the review. Is taking it too far, and veers into WP:OR, especially since some positive receptions have been excluded or never raised. Really we should be basing that sort of assessment on secondary sources rather than our own.
I'd leave:
The review's recommendations have been widely welcomed by UK medical organisations.
And maybe add the following sources if we need to substantiate "widely":
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqe6npgyr5ro
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-12/gender-dysphoria-cass-review-medical-treatment-children/103700476
WPATH is probably due a specific mention as the most notable critic, so how about just sticking with that by adding it to the existing wording like:
However, it has been criticised by a number of medical organisations and academic groups outside of the UK and internationally for its methodology and findings, most notably the World Professional Association of Transgender Health and regional affiliates. Void if removed (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like Lewisguile's wording of the first sentence and last sentence, and am not a big fan of Void's changes to either: the lead is supposed to be a summary and I think that the British Medical Association ... said it would independently evaluate the review is a perfectly fine summary of that situation. I agree with Void that the middle sentence should ideally have a source saying that directly. Loki (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is supposed to cover major controversies and the fact is the majority of coverage of the BMA council's action has been to note it was controversial - so much so they actually rowed back on it somewhat. Conveying that in the lede is hard and probably would be overlong, but leaving out the controversy is not neutral, hence my preference for simply letting the body explain that particular saga.
As for GLADD, they aren't notable enough for an article and aren't in our list of Medical associations based in the United Kingdom. The endorsement of the royal colleges etc is of far greater consequence. Giving such WP:UNDUE prominence in the lede to two outliers - one controversial - is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Void if removed (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally opposed to sweeping changes to the lede, and I think this could be approached more incrementally. One change I feel would be warranted is to briefly summarize the response from WPATH in the lede, since this is by far the weightiest source on the topic. HenrikHolen (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I also think a middle ground between "widely" and "some" is "many", because I think that's true: many UK medical organizations were positive but certainly not all of them. Loki (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

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.[6][7] 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 =

[edit]
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]

Endocrine statement

[edit]

I have removed a lengthy quote that was from the end of the source where it started talking generally about healthcare bans in the US and was not referring specifically to the Cass Review. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Cass_Review&diff=prev&oldid=1270527688

As presented it appeared the endocrine society was accusing the review of misinformation, which is not the case from reading the full statement.


Also this source is terrible - a PDF embedded in a WBUR page. Is there no better source for their statement? Void if removed (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better link.[8]
The statement said what it said: Transgender and gender-diverse teenagers, their parents, and physicians should be able to determine the appropriate course of treatment. Banning evidence-based medical care based on misinformation takes away the ability of parents and patients to make informed decisions. This was after being asked for comment on the Cass Review. The Cass Review seems to oppose the idea that Transgender and gender-diverse teenagers, their parents, and physicians should be able to determine the appropriate course of treatment so this is obviously relevant. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you forgot the link, but i'm guessing this is the link you meant to post.
https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2024/statement-in-support-of-gender-affirming-care
After reading the statement it seems to me that the endocrine society is suggesting that the Cass review contains misinformation. I support reintroducing the quote in full. HenrikHolen (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full quote in context:
Although the scientific landscape has not changed significantly, misinformation about gender-affirming care is being politicized. In the United States, 24 states have enacted laws or policies barring adolescents’ access to gender-affirming care, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In seven states, the policies also include provisions that would prevent at least some adults over age 18 from accessing gender-affirming care. Cisgender teenagers, together with their parents or guardians, are deemed competent to give consent to various medical treatments. Teenagers who have gender incongruence and their parents and guardians should not be discriminated against. Transgender and gender-diverse teenagers, their parents, and physicians should be able to determine the appropriate course of treatment. Banning evidence-based medical care based on misinformation takes away the ability of parents and patients to make informed decisions. Medical evidence, not politics, should inform treatment decisions.
You are misrepresenting this source, which only mentions Cass in the second line, and is in every other way a defence of their guidelines and a criticism of politicised bans in the US. Void if removed (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say "misinformation about gender-affirming care is being politicized in the US". It says it's being politicized, gives examples in the US, and then continues with the general principle that trans kids, their parents, and their doctors should be the ones making these decisions.
Considering Cass criticized the guidelines, and generally seems to oppose that principle, and the statement was a response to the Cass Review, your argument that it being a defense of their guidelines means it wasn't about the Cass Review seems lacking. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said: a criticism of politicised bans in the US which my quote bears out. That's what it says. It talks about bans in the States and then straight on to the claim about misinformation, in a paragraph 8 paragraphs after the one solitary mention of Cass, in a statement titled "Endocrine Society Statement in Support of Gender-Affirming Care".
WP:SYNTH says do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
You are improperly over-interpreting this source. Void if removed (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying a response by the organization specifically to the Cass Review that goes on to say Although the scientific landscape has not changed significantly, misinformation about gender-affirming care is being politicized and then concludes Cisgender teenagers, together with their parents or guardians, are deemed competent to give consent to various medical treatments. Teenagers who have gender incongruence and their parents and guardians should not be discriminated against. Transgender and gender-diverse teenagers, their parents, and physicians should be able to determine the appropriate course of treatment. Banning evidence-based medical care based on misinformation takes away the ability of parents and patients to make informed decisions is not referring to claims from the Cass Review, in this response to the Cass Review? SilverserenC 00:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add onto this, the Endocrine Society is an international org, not a US one, and the quote seemingly refers not just to the US but the situation in general. That said, it was a bit lengthy of a quote. I’ve partially reverted the removal to address this but feel free anyone to let me know if you prefer a different course of action.Snokalok (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm not a big fan of long quotes categorically, and so I'd really like to see if there's some way we can summarize this. Loki (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm saying that, because it is a statement in support of gender affirming care, per the title. It responds to Cass at the start, and then moves to general defence of the subject at the end. Void if removed (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CoE report

[edit]

I have removed the addition of a CoE report to "responses".

This report was not a response to the Cass Review. It was, as the report states, making a reference to the 2023 NHS service specification. This is stretching the meaning of this page considerably. Arguably usable on Transgender healthcare or Transgender rights in the United Kingdom but not here. Void if removed (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Void if removed So Cass said "puberty blockers should only be in clinical trials", nhs england updated their service specifications, explicitly doing so based on Cass's recommendations, and said "PBs in clinical trials only", and the council of Europe raised ethical issues with that - but this isn't relevant here? This frankly looks like just another attempt to whitewash the Cass review... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this provides important context. The requirement that patients take part in research is a consequence of the Cass review and the statement by the COE pertains to this recommendation. HenrikHolen (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's relevant. It seems there's consensus to remove it, so I'll restore the text and give it a once over for CEs and NPOV. Lewisguile (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to the criticisms section under the bit about social transition and puberty blockers. That seems a better fit for now. Lewisguile (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A source that doesn’t mention the subject of this article isn’t obviously relevant. If it’s non-obviously relevant then we should be able to find an RS that says so. If it’s just wiki editors who think it’s relevant then that’s OR/COATRACK (and there are a lot of coats that could be hung here so we have to draw the line at what can be supported by reliable sources). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's a response to a response to the Cass Review, and one that specifically implements a policy named in the review. I don't know how it could possibly not be relevant. Loki (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Loki said. Lewisguile (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been added to a section of responses to the April 2024 publication of the final report of the Cass Review.
And then we have this 102 page report which doesn't mention Cass, which mentions in passing the 2023 NHS interim service specification in the midst of a discussion of European member states, as follows:
There are also other challenges for young people in accessing TSHC in member states. For example, the Italian Ministry of Health ordered an inspection of Careggi Hospital in Florence, which provides trans- specific healthcare for children and young people, potentially hindering access to puberty blockers for minors. In May 2024, the French Senate adopted a draft law that would ban hormonal treatments for young people before the age of 18 and would heavily restrict prescriptions of puberty blockers. A number of critical issues were identified by the Directorate-General for Health Planning who invited the Tuscany Region to implement, within a defined deadline, a series of corrective actions that were duly identified, particularly in relation to the administration of puberty blockers, and, consequently to report the results to the Dicastery. In 2023, NHS England announced that it would limit puberty blockers only to children and young people enrolled in a clinical trial. The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has also recommended the restricted use of puberty blockers and hormones to clinical trials. There are ethical implications of only offering treatment to a small group of patients, potentially violating the fundamental ethical principles governing research.[...]as for many young people the only way to receive treatment is to participate in the trial, therefore calling into question whether consent can be constituted as free and informed in these situations.
The text makes clear it was a response to Europe-wide shifts in policy on Puberty blockers or Transgender healthcare, and as such is due for those pages.
Grabbing over-long quotes from this doc and dropping them in the section "response to the Cass Review" is WP:SYNTH that doesn't even make chronological sense. In any case, this section is not a catch-all for responses to any and all NHS or Government policy that might have been influenced by the Cass Review, interim or otherwise. Void if removed (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Loki. and removal of a source because of "over-long quotes" as somehow WP:SYNTH is a few leaps in logic. could you explain more? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just not read the whole comment? Void if removed (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains a section about the subsequent government action following the Cass review. The COE report is a comment on that subsequent action. It's clearly relevant. HenrikHolen (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the final paragraph of your reply, which implied that long quotes was what triggers WP:SYNTH. apologies.
Agree with henrikHolen and sociologist. In general, the Cass Review caused a ban on puberty blockers for teens, which caused the CoE report. could be structured into a paragraph about impacts of the cass review and the final results, but the source should belong. Other sources frame it similarly. [9] [10] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the final paragraph
Well there you go. I'll repeat myself:
In general, the Cass Review caused a ban on puberty blockers for teens, which caused the CoE report.
This is WP:SYNTH because the source does not clearly make these connections, and doing so yourself is against policy. This is fundamental: Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources..
Let me be clear of the timeline.
(Edited timeline because on closer reading the 2023 spec was a consultation document based on the 2020 NICE reviews, not the Cass Review interim report)
To take this, and put it in our section - which is for the responses to the publication of the final report - is WP:SYNTH because at no point is does this mention Cass, or the final report, or indeed any action that stemmed from the final report. To take lengthy quotes that are talking about multiple member states and a service spec that predates the final report and recontextualise them as an implied response to the final publication of the Cass Review by a chain of WP:OR is completely improper.
It is misplaced - it doesn't belong in this section, and there is no section in this article where it makes sense. OTOH as I've repeatedly said there are other articles where it makes total sense. Void if removed (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for input at NOR. Void if removed (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For others who may have missed the discussion on NOR, there's also:
The NYT article actually goes into more detail than we do about the objections to the clinical trial requirement. I have updated the text to incorporate the new source and additional info. Given that this was a Parliamentary debate, covered also by the NYT, which both mention the COE statement (notable itself), I think this is WP:DUE. Lewisguile (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That NYT source is all it would have taken, next time start with that.
OTOH, it's not for you to go through Hansard picking MPs to quote. Void if removed (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Past RSN discussions to verify that Hansard should not be used without a secondary source:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_63#Hansard:_a_reliable_source.3F_A_primary_source.3F
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_70#Use_of_Hansard
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_135#Is_Hansard_the_UK_parliaments_minutes_a_reliable_source?
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_265#House_of_Lords_member_statement_about_MEK_targets_(People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran) Void if removed (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added NYT before adding Hansard. Hansard was added afterwards. Lewisguile (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just another attempt to whitewash the Cass review
Can you please stop your personal attacks.
The source says nothing about Cass, it is not a response to the Cass Review and bringing it in is obvious WP:OR. Void if removed (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far Right

[edit]

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.[11] 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.[12] We have multiple RS noting the same issue.[13][14][15][16]
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://wiki.riteme.site/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 [17], but it includes an Editorial Standards and Practices page.
Their editor in chief is Sarah Burke, who has significant editorial experience. [18]. 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

Removal of LA Blade story

[edit]

Removal of a story for being SPS, when it is literally republished elsewhere seems incorrect. [19].

In general, LA Blade is a well respected outlet. Even in essays like WP:USESPS, there are carveouts for what is termed "traditional print media", which LA Blade falls under. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about respected, it is a minor offshoot of the Washington Blade with no presence on RSN I've seen, and if it is simply reposting a substack, that's still a substack and doesn't reflect well on their credibility.
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
This is more like content aggregation. They seem to simply augment their feed with reposted content from other sources:
Rhode Island Current
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/06/19/survey-ranks-rhode-island-first-in-nation-on-lgbtq-safety/
Media Matters:
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/05/20/daily-wires-walsh-using-a-trans-mans-shirtless-photo-without-permission/
Alabama Reflector:
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/06/19/attorneys-in-alabama-trans-medical-case-turn-over-document/
WeHo Times:
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/06/19/weho-is-co-sponsoring-1st-ever-inglewood-pride-festival-june-22/
In each case, LA Blade is not the source. LA Blade confers no reliability upon Media Matters or Alabama Current - they're just taking their content and reposting it.
A content aggregator simply reposting Erin Reed's blog doesn't make it somehow make it viable for 3rd party BLP claims. Void if removed (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LA Blade has a print edition, and has similar editorial standards as washington blade.
I think I'm going to post this on WP:RSN and see if folks have opinions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Blade is perfectly legit. Republishing material isn't, in itself, problematic. If they have an editorial team, it means they have scrutinised the text and consider it worth republishing. There's no disclaimer that I can see which says they haven't edited it or that they don't take responsibility for its content.
Also, @Void if removed, you've also removed Cass' own defence from this, which makes it less balanced, not more. Cass says she didn't know who Hunter was before meeting with him, and that's WP:ABOUTSELF, so perfectly admissable, too.
I'm not seeing consensus to remove this source. Quite the opposite. Lewisguile (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about balance - you sourced those statements to self-published material from the Kite Trust, which cannot be used for statements about third-parties.
For content mirroring, see the status of Yahoo News on RSN as an example, ie we differentiate between reliable in-house content, and the syndicated content where we examine the reliability of the originating source.
LA Blade has hundreds of articles mirrored from a variety of sources sat alongside its own in-house content - straightforward mirroring like this doesn't confer reliability on the content, it should be treated exactly the same as Yahoo news, or any other syndicated news source.
And also we can tell the material wasn't edited prior to publication, because it contains Reed's original (and subsequently corrected by Reed, but never by LA Blade) misspelling of Hilary Cass as Hillary. Void if removed (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2025

[edit]

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]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cass_Review&oldid=1275329532"