Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

    Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

    List of archives
    , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
    460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468

    Additional notes:

    • RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
    • While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
    • This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.


    RfC: Jacobin

    [edit]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    This RfC arose from a specific, corrected mistake. Some proponents of downgrading argued that the error is egregious enough to question Jacobin’s systematic oversight, while those in favor of Option 1 argued that the error and ensuing correction adds to Jacobin’s reliability like that of other newsrooms and that the error was made under an unrelated context. I find rough consensus that this incident does not affect Jacobin’s reliability, especially that of their "straight news" content; in other words, Jacobin’s non-WP:RSEDITORIAL content is generally reliable. Many participants argued against the RfC itself, saying that the incident clouded the mood of this debate. Evidence of repeated patterns of failures in fact and reliability was not presented, save for, like, 4 references to using conspiracy theorists and reliability among specific subjects, murmurs among the deluge of over 200 responses.

    Instead, the core dispute here is over whether a source that predominantly publishes opinions and analyses should be labeled as “Generally reliable” (GRel) or “Additional considerations apply” (MRel). Most participants agreed that Jacobin predominantly publishes opinions and analyses, which should not be cited without the standard considerations of Due Weight and Attribution. Proponents for GRel emphasized these considerations, while proponents for downgrading argued that GRel confuses editors into thinking Jacobin’s publications are usually citable. As participants were about evenly split on this core contention, I find no consensus for the reliability of Jacobin as a whole on WP:RSP.

    Some participants compared Jacobin as a left-wing analogue to the libertarian Reason, which was designated GRel following similar processes Jacobin was designated GRel under. As such, we may need broader discussion on what category to put all such sources under, generally and without reference to the reliability of specific sources. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC: LionhearTV

    [edit]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on New Page Sources, the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:

    Royiswariii Talk! 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deprecate. The Philippines has plenty of WP:RS to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
    LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as DailyPedia and Philippine Entertainment.
    In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the RAWR Awards, which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ABS-CBN and GMA Network.[1][2] Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.[3]
    A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the Bini (group) talk page in September 2024 (see Talk:Bini (group)/Archive 1 § LionhearTV as a reliable source). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 52 § Lionheartv) and the WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 452 § LionhearTV). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about SMNI, which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.
    At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as unreliable on Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#The Philippines as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
    AstrooKai (Talk) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? AstrooKai (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's immaterial on how we determine WP:RS. What could be very important that other WP:RS missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of WP:RSSELF. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
    1. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
      Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
    2. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)
      Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
    These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
    1. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
      Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
    2. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024)
      Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
    I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of churnalism. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 4 (previously Option 3) - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -Ian Lopez @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Items such as but not limited to "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group" don't belong here per "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" specifically under "News reports", "Who's who" and "celebrity gossip and diaries". That being said, I change my vote and recommend that LionHearTV plus other sites under the eMVP Digital network be deprecated and/or added to this site's spam blacklist. -Ian Lopez @ 15:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion about moving RFC to RSN
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    @AstrooKai, @Borgenland, @Howard the Duck, if you don't mind we can move this discussion to Noticeboard to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. Royiswariii Talk! 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Borgenland (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). AstrooKai (Talk) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC: EurAsian Times

    [edit]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    ; edited 17:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

    The EurAsian Times (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned a few times on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.

    In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?

    Thank you. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed[reply]

    - Amigao (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (EurAsian Times)

    [edit]
    • Option 2/Do not enter to RSP I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I don't see a reason to make any RSP entry -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of RSN discussions to summarize or adjudicate and if it is in use hundreds of times then making a RSP entry at this point seems to be problematic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 Based on prior discussion at RS/N and WP:NEWSORGINDIA I'd suggest this is a generally unreliable source. I don't think there's a case for deprecation though. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 as this is a classic case of churnalism and it has been found general unreliable in past RSN discussions. - Amigao (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (EurAsian Times)

    [edit]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RFC: Tornado Talk

    [edit]

    What is the reliability of Tornado Talk?

    The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Background (Tornado Talk)

    [edit]

    Previous Discussion Links (Recent to oldest): 1, 2

    TornadoTalk.com, according to their about page is a team of people who write summaries about tornadoes and they do a "damage analysis" for the tornadoes. Their about page also lists the bios of three editors with the notes of other editors (no bios). Wikipedia currently has 13 articles which cite TornadoTalk's website. On several articles/summaries written by Tornado Talk, they cite Wikipedia with nearly all of these cases being for photographs (example: [4]). Several articles by Tornado Talk are behind paywalls and unable to be verified or checked due to an anti-archiving and anti-coping extensions on their website. Tornado Talk articles are unarchivable to the Wayback Machine.

    Secondary Reliable Sources entirely about or mentions Tornado Talk: [5] (Jul 2024; fully about + mentions one author), [6] (Mar 2024; single sentence mention), [7] (Aug 2023; fully about one author).

    In August 2023, amid the Good Article Review for the Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945, Tornado Talk was removed from the article as its reliability was questionable. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Tornado Talk)

    [edit]
    • Option 2 over 1 - Grazulis-esque but more unreliable IMO.
    Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally Unreliable per WP:SPS, which says, Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.. No evidence that any of the writers listed here [8] qualify as subject matter experts. In the sciences, a subject matter expert would normally have a Ph.D., an academic posting, and a history of relevant publication in peer reviewed journals. Geogene (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally Unreliable I'm not seeing sufficient evidence for this to pass the bar as an RS. As said above, none of the authors qualify as established subject matter experts with a history of publication in academic literature. Noah, BSBATalk 23:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2/Do not enter to RSP Evaluations should be depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and I think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, it looks inappropriate to even try for any RSP rating, because there is not a lot of RSN discussions to summarize or adjudicate, and for such a niche topic I think it never could have many or need a generic ratinf. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally unreliable. This is an SPS, and none of the authors have PhDs in relevant areas. A meteorology BS is nowhere near what qualifies as an expert in tornado analysis for the purposes of EXPERTSPS. The fact that they routinely source Wikipedia is further evidence that they are not reliable. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ...How routinely? I didn't even see that (given the fact much of their content is paywalled). This might be a fatal blow to this getting anything except a generally unreliable rating. Departure– (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Departure–: They do for photos (I counted at least 10 times already). However, if they take a photo from Wikipedia, they seme to almost always actually cite "Wikipedia" and not the author. I would have to really check to see if they have broken any copyright laws by doing that, in regards to any possible CC2.0, 3.0, or 4.0 copyright licenses. But even for some damage photos that NWS took, where it is clear Wikipedia isn't the photographer/creator, they still cite Wikipedia. I also see the Tornado records article listed as a source for Tornado Talk's "June 23, 1944 Appalachian Outbreak" summary. Three Wikipedia articles are listed as sources in this article.
    Actually, their "May 31, 1985 Tornado Outbreak" summary is a very clear instance of them citing Wikipedia. One of the photos the Commons actually deleted for a copyright violation (taken by the government of Ohio; copyrighted), Tornado Talk uses it and directly cites "Source, Wikipedia", for a photo not taken by Wikipedia and one that has been proven to be copyrighted. But yeah, they do cite Wikipedia in some articles (for content) and it seems fairly often for photos. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On several articles/summaries written by Tornado Talk, they cite Wikipedia with nearly all of these cases being for photographs (example: [53]). In other cases they cite Wikipedia for historical background or cite it for particular tornadoes, e.g. here and here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'll be damned. At least they cite the revision Special:Diff/1226002829 but that still has a lot of uncited parts. Wikipedia synthesis may have just ended up in a source cited by multiple other articles. Departure– (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do photos count here ? I’m not sure how/if photos matter since (a) the wording of WP:CIRCULAR seems like it’s about text; (b) it seems to their WP:RS credit if they have an editorial norm to show where a photo comes from; and (c) sources accepted as RS sometimes have dubious image practices. e.g. Images in RS sources may be of edited images or of whatever loosely related stock image they could readily grab without giving any note that it’s just for color but not a direct portrayal of the topic. I have even seen mentions of media groups questioning what types and how much image editing is acceptable. So I’m wondering how do photos count, or do they count at all ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they are for a type of niche (i.e. tornado-specific), I would say yes & no. If it was just photos, then it could probably be overlooked. But the photo issue (i.e. they aren’t even willing to double check copyrights / correct photographers on tornado-related photos) compounds with them actually listing Wikipedia in a few articles as actual text-based (non-photograph) sources. To me, it is just a little bit further evidence towards why they may not be “generally reliable”, since even in their niche topic, they do not seem to have a good editorial/verification-of-information setup, if something like a damage photo is not even correctly cited. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Erin Reed, LA Blade, and Cass Review: Does republication of SPS in a non SPS publication remove SPS?

    [edit]

    Context: @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist added a critical source to Cass Review by Erin Reed. The source was originally posted on Erin Reed's blog. It appears lightly editted, but is essentially reposted on LA Blade site. @Void if removed deleted the edits claiming WP:BLPSPS. [9]

    Two questions: 1) Is LA Blade a reliable publisher? 2) Does reposting the story indicate republishing? Is the story still SPS? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting situation. Generally, coverage of an SPS article in a non-SPS news source is perfectly fine to use so long as the latter source is used as the reference. Not sure how that works for republication in a non-SPS source though. I would think you'd just ignore the SPS version at that point and only consider the republication on its own merits and the news source it was made in. As for the LA Blade, it seems like a fine reliable source, just with an LGBT subject focus? No prior discussions on RSN that I can see. It's a subsidiary of the Washington Blade, which is a rather respected newspaper. SilverserenC 01:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it has been republished and "lightly edited" it's no longer an SPS as long as the edited version is used. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't "lightly edited", and I think @Bluethricecreamman should strike that from the top comment to prevent further confusion on this point. Here's a link to a diff between the LA Blade post and the original archived version, and it can be seen the supposed copyedits (name mispelled, lead->led) were actually errors in the original post that LA Blade has retained verbatim. It is the substack which was subsequently corrected. Void if removed (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said there - this is a source that is simply padding its inhouse content by reposting content from other sources and in those situations is little more than news aggregation.
    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, nor vice versa - they're just taking their content and reposting it. Void if removed (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When it reposts content from Media Matters, the "real" source is Media Matters. When it reposts from Substack, the "real" source is substack.
    Trivially reposting an SPS doesn't make it non SPS, and the fact that this happens just makes this source not a reliable one. Void if removed (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A reliable publishing outfit republishing an article by definition makes the article non-SPS. Because it is no longer self-published, but has been picked up by a publishing group. If the New York Times decided to republish an article by someone (with their permission of course) that was originally on their blog or somewhere else personal to them, of course it would count as a reliable non-SPS published article. SilverserenC 04:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does WP:MEDIAMATTERS apply when this source simply reposts MM? Void if removed (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT doesn't verbatim repost hundreds of articles from other sources in an. aggregate news feed, and if it did we would be having the same discussion, ie whether the NYT's reliability was conferred to those sources.
    See Yahoo news for a comparable source, where in house content is reliable but syndicated content must be evaluated as the original source. Void if removed (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    a news aggregator like Yahoo News openly acts as an algorithmic news aggregator, and reposts hundreds of stories algorithmically.
    LA Blade has editors, and it appears they do slight edits and revisions (see the diff). an editor separate from the writer did choose to republish the content. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this appears to be fundamentally different from a news aggregator. This is republication news done properly, where it's having a writer's work be redone for a real news outlet. SilverserenC 05:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it most similar to when a journalist sells their article to multiple newspapers. Not sure what we would usually do in that situation in terms of reliability but that's the best comparison in my mind. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they just posted the original version, without even checking the spelling of Hilary/Hillary.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20240420010815/https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dr-cass-backpedals-from-review-hrt
    It is Reed who subsequently corrected the substack.
    So this is another mark against LA Blade - they didn't even do basic due diligence on spelling. Void if removed (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a legitimate removal to me. LAB is a generally reliable site and in general I do agree that if a source runs an article by a reporter who originally published it on Substack that doesn't mean LAB didn't apply editorial control. However that does assume this isn't published by LAB as an outside editorial etc. Seeing it published by so many sources somewhat undermines the idea that this is actually editted by LAB vs just republished. That isn't the strong reason for rejection in my view. The stronger reason is how the source was being used. In article it was being used to say "critics said" and it was implying BLP concerns about Dr Cass. Is the author of the substack a noteworthy critic? Is the author a sufficient "expert" to be used to question a medical expert and/or that expert's report? I might consider myself very knowledgeable about automobiles but that doesn't mean any substact rant of mine is "expert criticism of Tesla". One final comment, yeah, if LAB didn't bother to do basic edit checks like checking the spelling of names etc I would say that is a strike against LAB as a RS and further suggests this shouldn't be used. Springee (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I wasn't the one who added Reed's piece from the LA Blade, that was another editor later.
    Apart from that, the LA Blade is definitely a RS, and editing/publishing Reed's work means it is not self-published and should be treated like any other LA Blade article. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't even see an About page on the LA Blade website so they give no details of who they are, their funding, political stance, etc. Zeno27 (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    they are an offbranch of washington blade and shares staff with wa blade. [10].
    in general wa blade does similar reposts. [11] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's clearly a connection between the two but that page says nothing about the relationship between them, their editorial policies, their independence, etc. Zeno27 (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems this hinges on whether LA Blade is applying full editorial controls to the piece, or whether they are mechanically republishing it in the manner of a content aggregator. The fact that the piece is reproduced verbatim, including typos, is suggestive that either editorial controls were waived, or those controls were weak-to-non-existent in the first place. I don’t think this is exactly equivalent to the way Yahoo News operates, but that seems a closer analogue than a regular news publishing process. I don’t think such a mechanism should be used to launder an unreliable source into a reliable one.
    As to whether the original blog post is reliable… it seems to have been published shortly after the publication of the full Cass Review, and repeats or amplifies (or possibly even originates) some of the misinformation that was circulating at the time, for example regarding large bodies of evidence being “disregarded”[12]. This could be viewed as a problematic for the reliability of LA Blade if they let this sort of thing through without fact checking.
    In short, this is not a source that belongs anywhere near our article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot speak to the LA Blade's general reliability. However, I don't know that the question here is really whether the LA Blade is generally a reliable publisher, but whether this article in the LA Blade is a reliable source for the specific content sourced to it (WP:RSCONTEXT). Having looked at a diff showing the WP content sourced to Reed/LA Blade, I think the answer to that is yes. Re: question (2), I again think that the specifics will determine whether an SPS remains an SPS when republished by a non-SPS. Some possibilities:
    • Is it analogous to Yahoo news, which reposts news algorithmically? (I'd say no; the LA Blade's choices about reposting strike me as clearly curated.)
    • Is it a mirrored site? (The LA Blade certainly isn't mirroring Reed's Substack as a whole, and I'm not inclined to see it as a mirror of this specific article, given that the LA Blade sought out / obtained permission to republish it. Seems to me that mirroring isn't curated.)
    • Is the republisher simply hosting the original content? (I'd say no, as it was republished with permission, whereas hosting doesn't have to seek permission; by its nature, hosting has the permission of the person(s) using the site as a host.)
    • Is it analogous to someone self-publishing a novel and then having a second edition published by an established publishing house, or to someone self-publishing a blog and then selling an entry as an article to one or more newspapers as a freelancer? (The latter is more analogous, and my answer is probably yes. The LA Blade sought permission to republish it. It's republished in a couple of other places, but a freelancer can grant simultaneous publishing rights. On the other hand, I don't know that she sold rights to any of these publishers.)
    • Was any editorial review used in the republishing? (This is mixed; on the one hand, typos weren't corrected, and on the other hand, I doubt that the LA Blade would have republished it without an editor first judging it to be a worthwhile article.)
    So on the whole, I'm inclined to treat this particular article in the LA Blade as a non-self-published source. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (The LA Blade certainly isn't mirroring Reed's Substack as a whole, and I'm not inclined to see it as a mirror of this specific article, given that the LA Blade sought out / obtained permission to republish it. Seems to me that mirroring isn't curated.)
    The LA Blade search is awful, but from a quick scan they seemed to be mirroring every post from Erin's blog until June 17th.
    Scanning down the archive at https://www.erininthemorning.com/archive from June 17th and comparing to https://www.losangelesblade.com/?s=%22Erin+in+the+morning%22
    By eyeballing it I got about 15 in a row before the random ordering of the LA Blade search made it impossible to keep track, but there's many dozens more, and some of the others appeared out of order further down the search. It is definitely not just this one article, and I'd say it is more like a syndication arrangement, especially given the number of other reposted titles on LA Blade. Void if removed (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were mirroring her Substack as a whole, it would include all of her columns, all of the comments on her columns, her home page, her About page, and her Archive page. It's very clearly not mirroring her Substack as a whole. Having looked more closely at the article on Reed's Substack, the LA Blade's vertion isn't even mirroring this one column, since the page on her site contains additional content (e.g., comments) that doesn't appear in the LA Blade version. Mirroring has a specific meaning. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When we talk about sites that mirror Wikipedia articles, we don't demand it include all the category tags and side bars or else it isn't proper mirroring. But I'm just trying to find a term for what this is. It's not like when, say, an essay that started as a blog post gets rewritten and republished as a long form piece in a lifestyle magazine. It's a shallower process.
    What we have here is something like a curated news aggregator, taking hundreds of posts from dozens of other sources and sharing them. It doesn't confer additional reliability or political neutrality to media matters when it posts them. It doesn't convert an opinion source into non opinion. In all cases, for this directly reshared content, it's the underlying source we have to look at to assess it's reliability. What if we deprecated the Alabama Reflector for some reason - would we be expected to close our eyes and pretend not to notice if someone tried to cite them reposted on the LA Blade?
    Can you imagine using this trivially reposted content to get two bites at the apple when sourcing contentious material? You couldn't point at a reposted article *and* it's underlying source and argue this was two separate sources.
    In every sensible instance, you wouldn't cite this reposted copy, you'd cite the original source. It's there, linked in every post, why would you not? I can think of no reason not to, other than if the underlying source was disallowed by policy (OPINION, DEPRECATED, BLPSPS), and this process offered enough of a figleaf to get around that, and that should be concerning. Void if removed (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether the republication of this column confers non-SPS status. No one is proposing "two bites at the apple." I see the situation as somewhat analogous to the first question you answered here, where you suggested that it's possible for the same text to be SPS in its original but non-SPS when republished elsewhere. (You weren't certain whether the original was SPS as you weren't familiar with it. You never clarified whether you consider material published by the US Department of Justice to be self-published, but based on your comments elsewhere, my impression is that you do.) I disagree with "In every sensible instance, you wouldn't cite this reposted copy, you'd cite the original source." Why? In large part because of the BLPSPS policy. If you want to use something as a source for content about a living person, you'd have no choice but to cite the non-SPS republication rather than the original. I accept that you don't consider the LA Blade's republication to constitute a non-SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If another source publishes then it is no longer WP:BLPSPS, and the specific usage and the source doing the republishing have to be assessed on their own merits which might nonetheless lead to exclusion. Self-publication does not inherently mean non-reliability, even if most cases it does (hence the strict BLPSPS bar) so upon republication (i.e. endorsement by an RS), we have to go to the merits. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the LA Blade link. It seemed to me to be a clearly valid source, and I added it after VIR complained about a different source being used. I don't think the LA Blade would republish without any editorial oversight—they'd be as liable as Erin Reed if they got sued—so it seems the basis of the argument is "I don't believe it's been [properly?] edited", which is clearly an opinion and trying to prove it requires WP:OR. Typos are easy enough to explain, and their existence doesn't also imply fact checks weren't done. The two things aren't the same. "Lead"/"led" is a common thing for editors to miss, for example.
    In the simplest terms: it's no longer an WP:SPS, so WP:BLPSPS doesn't apply. A few typos are not a smoking gun for lack of editorial oversight, either. Lewisguile (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Erin Reed in the LA Blade, the Advocate, and the Lemkin Institute

    [edit]

    I'd been meaning to ask RSN about this for some time. Bluethricecreamman noted above that the LA Blade was republishing Reed's work, but they aren't the only RS to do so. In addition to the LA Blade, America's oldest gay newspaper The Advocate also routinely republishes her substack[13], and her work has been reposted by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention.[14] Reed has won journalism awards from the National LGBT Journalist Association and GLAAD.[15][16]

    I think her substack should generally be considered an SPS, but when reposted by the LA Blade, Advocate, or Lemkin Institute should be considered published/reliable. Especially if, as Bluethricecreamman, they are edited prior to republication. Would like to hear others thoughts on that. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's definitely becoming a more common thing, particularly with so many well known and respected journalists writing news on Substack now and also publishing those same stories in actual news outlets. Feels like a new method of journalism that needs to be considered, just as the change to website based publications and not solely print media was once upon a time. SilverserenC 05:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There clearly is some editing being done (see diff), indicating oversight. I guess philosophical question is if editorial control during drafting is necessary to not be SPS, or the work is selected because it is so good that editorial control would not improve it.
    I personally believe the choice to republish indicate that a publisher considers the work exemplary enough to elevate beyond just SPS, by definition, if the publisher is known to have an editorial team. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course. Consider:
    • Sal Scientist self-publishes a WP:PREPRINT online. It later goes through peer review and appears in the Journal of Important Things. Of course it's not self-published any longer. Nobody expects you to track down whether the article first appeared as a self-published pre-print.
    • Alice Author self-publishes a novel. It sells so well that Big Famous Publisher offers to produce and market a second edition. Of course it's not self-published any longer. Nobody expects you to look at the name of a Big Five publisher on the copyright page and think "Oh, maybe it says Penguin Random House here, but I shouldn't trust what the source says, and should make sure that the author never self-published it before this reputable publisher picked it up."
    But online you need to watch out for something that might be better described as "mirroring" or maybe "hosting". Yahoo! News and Apple News aren't really publishers. They're just pass-through websites for the actual publishers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll repeat my question here then.
    Does WP:MEDIAMATTERS apply to this: https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/05/20/daily-wires-walsh-using-a-trans-mans-shirtless-photo-without-permission/
    Because this looks like simple pass through reposting to me. Void if removed (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the source is the LA Blade. Loki (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile this is really the BBC.
    https://www.lemkininstitute.com/single-post/time-has-come-for-reparations-dialogue-commonwealth-heads-agree
    We can all see what the real source is, we can't be expected to pretend otherwise. I think that if you tried to cite either of these, it would be sensible to just cite the original story, from the original source.
    The only reason I could see not to in these cases is if the aim is to circumvent policy or existing consensus that would apply to the original source. Void if removed (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If publisher A publishes a story from author B, then it's just general Wikipedia policy to say that the publisher is the source. We don't say that every NYT story is sourced to the byline, we say they're NYT stories and reliable because they're in the NYT.
    So, for instance, this is very clearly a BBC story. It's published by the BBC. Loki (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a big distinction to be made between an organization that aggregates news articles relevant to its cause [17] and a new organization publishing work by a freelancer. The former is not doing any editorial oversight besides the aggregation, whereas the latter is providing its imprimatur of reliability to what it publishes. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The key here is that the article was edited by subsequent publishers. If the article were not edited then I'd say it remains SPS. However having gone through even "light" editorial controls the article is no longer self-published. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The key here is that the article was edited by subsequent publishers
    As I've made clear in this thread multiple times, it was not. It was posted verbatim, complete with errors, and the substack was corrected afterwards, while the mirrored copy never has. Void if removed (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The editing process includes acceptance/legal/compliance/etc. It's not just spellchecking. Typos do not mean the other stuff didn't happen. Lewisguile (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said upthread you're wrong about the editing.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20240420010815/https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dr-cass-backpedals-from-review-hrt
    They just posted it complete with the original misspellings, which Reed later corrected on Substack.
    They didn't even check the spelling of the name of the subject, and they never corrected it. This is junk. Void if removed (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For Wikipedia purposes, it doesn't matter whether or not the publisher actually did any editing (except maybe for their own future reliability, not that you're going to seriously harm that with spelling mistakes). The point is that they're putting their name and their reputation on it. Loki (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For discussion purposes, both YFNS and Bluethriceman have claimed that this was edited before publication, based on a misreading of the order of events. That needs to be clear.
    When it comes to reliability, a source mirroring a blog without even checking that the name of the person it is about is actually correct is a red flag for that source's reliability.
    The fact that the mirrored blogposts themselves also contains outright misinformation is also a red flag. For example here:
    the review dismissed over 100 studies
    This is completely false. Multiple activists and groups wrongly made this claim and had to retract it. Erin Reed is one of those who spread - and continues to spread - this misinformation.
    LA Blade seem to have two different kinds of article on their site - in house content and mirrored content.
    Their in-house content may be reliable, but their mirrored content is just that - a mirror. You're asking that we disengage our common sense and pretend we don't know that a source is "really" Media Matters or a blog, simply because it is appearing in a branded content feed, and pretend that confers some new status on it. We wouldn't do that with an RS mirroring wikipedia content, because we can engage our faculties and see this is straightforward mirroring.
    From digging around, it is hard to tell because their search seems quite broken, but it seems stories tagged as "Special to LA Blade" were, until 7 months ago, largely mirrored content.
    If you scroll down this list, they are all in house, until you get to this from 7 months ago which is from "Rhode Island Current".
    From that point on, the majority are mirrored content from a variety of sources - Media Matters, WeHo Times, Florida Phoenix, Alabama Reflector and so on. None of these change their reliability simply by being mirrored on another site - we can all verify what the actual source is. If an WP:OPINION source was mirrored by LA Blade without being tagged as opinion, the original source would still be opinion, it wouldn't magically become reliable for facts.
    This search brings all the mirrored content up. There's hundreds, stretching back years.
    Mixed in with this, it also seems to include every substack post made by Erin Reed during that period, but none since.
    So, whether LA Blade's own content is reliable or not, they were (for a time at least) mirroring a large amount of content from other sources, and mixed in with that mirroring Erin Reed's error-strewn blogposts containing outright misinformation, but seem to have stopped about 7 months ago.
    I think we need to distinguish clearly between the two kinds of article, similar to the difference between in-house news alongside syndicated newsfeeds, where what we do is judge feed content case by case based on the originating source. Void if removed (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That "misinformation" from "activists" is appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine? From synopsis: "Improperly excluded non-English articles ... and other articles not identified by its simplistic search strategy". Or does that not add up to over 100 studies? VintageVernacular (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @VintageVernacular
    We are talking about two superficially similar but very different claims, both incorrect or misleading for different reasons. The first is that the York team excluded almost all of the studies they found, your new one is that the search employed didn't find enough studies. I'll explain the first then deal with your new one:
    In April 2024, a badly worded press release announcing the final report of the Cass review described two of the systematic reviews that accompanied its publication, saying:
    • Of the 50 studies included in the review looking at the effectiveness of puberty blockers for gender questioning teens, only one was of high quality
    • of the 53 studies included in the review on the use of masculinising and feminising hormones, only 1 was of sufficiently high quality
    Without actually looking at what the systematic reviews said, activists Like Erin Reed, Alajandro Carabello, Transactual and many more seized on the "sufficiently" in the second quote, put 1 and 1 together and came up with "over 100 papers were excluded/dismissed/disregarded" or "98% of the evidence was ignored".
    2 seconds of actually looking at the reviews shows that both high and moderate evidence was included, and they each only excluded 19 and 24 studies from synthesis as poor quality. In neither case is this 100, or the majority, or anything other than good and standard practice with a systematic review trying to avoid being biased by poor quality studies.
    Erin Reed said the review dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality which is exactly this nonsense claim, and it has been reposted by the LA Blade, with no correction or acknowledgment, ever. Reed repeated it multiple times in various forms and has never walked it back.
    Activist group Transactual included it in a briefing ("Out of 102 studies into puberty blockers and hormones, only 2 were included by the Cass Review team"), and stealth-edited it out when it was revealed to be nonsense, without ever acknowledging it. MP Dawn Butler - after being wrongly briefed on this by Stonewall - repeated it in the House of Commons and had to apologise afterwards, because it is nonsense on stilts.
    Now, your new, similar sounding claim is something different which arose months later.
    The origin of this is with a white paper from the Integrity Project at Yale Law School, created by Meredithe McNamara and Ann Allsott. McNamara is an expert witness in several of the contentious legal cases in the US where right-wing legislatures are trying ban paediatric transition, eg. Boe vs Marshall, and her testimony is that the evidence to support it is strong. After the Cass Review was published, the AG in Alabama moved to have her expert testimony struck because it was so contrary to this newly available assessment that the evidence base was in fact poor.
    On July 1st 2024, McNamara and co-authors published a white paper criticising the Cass Review, and the same day McNamara submitted it attached to an affadavit in Boe vs Marshall saying why the Cass Review was bad and no-one should pay any attention to it.
    If one was so minded, one could argue this isn't exactly an independent critique.
    One of the (many) specious claims in that document is the one you bring up, which is that the York systematic reviews - as that NEJM perspective piece puts it - improperly excluded non-English articles, “gray literature” (non–peer-reviewed articles and documents), and other articles not identified by its simplistic search strategy.
    • I'm not aware of any non-English papers that were excluded, nor are any identified in either of these sources. As complaints go, this is an empty one. Its been 9 months, surely someone would have named one by now, no?
    • If you think that unpublished theses, buried negative studies, commentaries and preprints are enough to completely change the outcome of a systematic review from "shockingly poor" to "unquestionably good", I have a bridge to sell you. Grey literature is by no means a standard inclusion in a systematic review, and one justification when it is is to address "unpublication" bias, ie those inconvenient negative results that don't make it into print.
    • The white paper in fact identifies no improperly excluded papers, merely complaining that one study released after the date cutoff was excluded.
    • By "simplistic" what the NEJM perspective authors actually mean (and are clearly misunderstanding) is that the York team employed a single search strategy that supported all of the reviews - that is they did a very broad search for all papers on anything related to gender care, then filtered those papers into each subject-area review (blockers, hormones, social transition etc). The Yale white paper says The York team used a single search strategy for all SRs, which likely excluded many relevant studies in each of the specific areas but despite claiming it is "likely" they don't identify any.
    This is chaff from a non peer-reviewed source, trying to poke holes in the most comprehensive systematic reviews of this field ever undertaken, one that completely concurs with previous and subsequent reviews. For all the hyperbole, the York reviews aren't outliers, they are absolutely mainstream.
    Now, this new article you're citing from the NEJM is a law & policy "perspective" piece, and thus opinion, merely repeating (and citing) the claim which originates in that white paper 6 months prior, and if it was peer-reviewed I don't think it reflects well on NEJM for publishing it frankly. For example, in the body it goes on to say:
    Embracing RCTs as the standard, it finds only 2 of 51 puberty-blocker and 1 of 53 hormone studies to be high-quality.
    But of course the York reviews did not "embrace RCTs as the standard" - they found one cohort and one cross-sectional study to be high quality. This perspective piece is wrong both in number and in kind, and somehow neglects to mention the inclusion of moderate quality evidence. These are not a small details - the entire thrust of that opinion piece is that RCTs are too high a standard, which falls apart because that is not the standard that was applied.
    That of course is just my interpretation as a lowly editor - but in terms of policy, it is RSOPINION and acceptable only with attribution if due, and absolutely nowhere near a top-of-the-pyramid MEDRS like the York reviews in terms of making wikivoice claims of fact on a biomedical subject. Void if removed (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In re "I'm not aware of any non-English papers that were excluded, nor are any identified in either of these sources": I believe that a website (non-peer-reviewed, but perhaps scholarly-ish in intention) recently said that they didn't limit their search to English-language papers and found exactly one non-English (Spanish language) paper on the subject. There was no indication that including/excluding it would have changed the results.
    I would not be surprised if this will change scholarly practices to explicitly identify how few non-English papers exist: "We limited our search to English papers. To be sure that this was a reasonable limitation, we checked again without this limitation, and found (zero, one, two) non-English studies that could have been included. We therefore conclude that restricting it to English sources had no effect on the net outcome..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it does matter if the republisher didn't do anything. If they republished errors then it suggests the republisher has poor editorial oversite. Using the example above, if a RSN discussion regarding LAB came up again I would argue this counts against it as it doesn't appear to excersize editorial oversite of the material it publishes. It might claim it does (and might as they aren't required to publish anything by a particular author) but if they don't bother to catch things or update with the substack then it does appear they passed an article through rather than actually checked it before republishing. If ABC News republished and AP article we don't view ABC News as the publisher, we view AP as the publisher and editor in control. If LAB is going to pass the article through without correcting errors then we have to assume a similar relationship where they are leaving editorial oversite to the Substack publisher. At least in the case of an AP pass through, that relationship is clear. In this case it isn't clear who is excersizing editorial control thus I suggest this might be an example of LAB not using editorial control and publishing based on bias rather than proven facts in the Substack (again a negative about LAB). That doesn't mean I would say avoid using LAB in general. As a "use with caution" source they would be great for expressing the views/opinions of LGBTQ+ thought leaders with respect to some topic/law/etc. However, it means we should be very cautious when the source is used to support a negative BLP claim or contentious factual claims/analysis. Springee (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a specific example - this Lemkin post is not clearly marked as WP:OPINION - but the source it is mirroring is.
    So is the above link reliable for facts, or not?
    It obviously isn't, because its an opinion source that's been mirrored, but we can only know this by evaluating the original source. If you take at face value a trivially mirrored source is "published" by someone else, then it is suddenly reliable for facts, which is nonsensical. Void if removed (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed my mind on the Lemkin piece, which I'm happy to leave out. The LA Blade is another matter. Lemkin, it seems, does just repost stuff and they're open about that. There's no indication the LA Blade is doing the same thing. Lewisguile (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliability is always dependent on context. Isn't this similar to how we treat material in Forbes? We treat content produced by Forbes staff as generally reliable, but content from Forbes contributors as self-published. Merely appearing in an otherwise reliable source does not make self-published content reliable. - Donald Albury 17:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Forbes contributors' articles are considered SPS because they're added by the contributors themselves without review. There's no evidence that Reed uploaded this article herself rather than a member of the LA Blade's staff reading the article and thinking it would be good to publish. I don't see evidence that the LA Blade has anything equivalent to Forbes contributors (which Forbes describes here as "our 2,400-plus network of contributors—Ph.D. economists, bestselling authors, hotshot gamers—who bring expertise to hundreds of topics. On any given day, some 300 contributor pieces shoot across our digital channels"), and where its contributor articles are identified with "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time I checked our definition of Wikipedia:Reliable sources included the "piece of work itself" and the "creator of the work". The piece of work cited is internet conspiracy b****t based on twitter gossip. The creator of the work doesn't even know how to spell the name of the author of the Cass review, and was one of the main sources for the most significant disinformation about this review, that it "dismissed over 100 studies". A fact that they and losangelesblade seem uninterested in correcting, despite being widely demonstrated as false (something you can confirm with a most basic level of reading and comprehension ability). MEDRS are attacked by peddlers of disinformation and internet conspiracy theories and this is all apparently just fine because losangelesblade has washed the sins away by, as Void clearly demonstrates, republishing all their work unedited on the basis that the facts are inconvenient to The Cause.
    What really is the point of Wikipedia, if the very worst sources can get cleansed simply because losangelesblade is doing what it seems all US politics is doing, which is that facts and integrity are entirely unimportant any more, and if the story fits the activist agenda it gets published. Our guideline says "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest." Clearly losangelesblade and erin's substack fail that.
    Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, where fact checking and integrity are essential, otherwise why bother? But is also a community project. And sadly here I see a community who also don't seem to care about facts or correcting mistakes. Void has carefully pointed out that the substack was not "lightly edited" but in fact reprinted verbatim with the glaring face-palm-level mistakes retained. And both YFNS and Bluethriceman have not amended/struck their comments in light of this.
    I do despair really. Erin gets their activist substack reprinted in an online mag that clearly performs no editorial function whatsoever, not even bothering to check if the subject of the piece, Dr Hilary Cass, has their name spelled correctly, never mind any, you know, actual claims or facts. And suddenly editors now proclaim every single word of that is a reliable source. That's a clever trick if you can pull it off. -- Colin°Talk 18:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but suddenly editors now proclaim every single word of that is a reliable source simply isn't true. For example, I said "the question here isn't really whether the LA Blade is generally a reliable publisher, but whether this article in the LA Blade "is a reliable source for the specific content sourced to it" (WP:RSCONTEXT). Having looked at a diff showing the WP content sourced to Reed/LA Blade, I think the answer to that is yes." We're not even discussing the Reed article that you quoted. Please don't describe your fellow editors as doing something they haven't done. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If what Colin says is true then we really should ask if LAB can be generally reliable. If true I would argue they would at best be a use with caution source and this Substack/LAB article would be a clear not reliable source. Springee (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that Colin has provided evidence of Reed's columns being unreliable. He quotes "dismissed over 100 studies" and says that this was "widely demonstrated as false." I think that's a mistaken interpretation. First, if you read the entire sentence, it says "To justify these recommendations, the review dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality, applying standards that are unattainable and not required of most other pediatric medicine." Reed linked the phrase "dismissed over 100 studies" to this BMJ Group article as evidence for her claim. (The BMJ Group publishes the BMJ, but this isn't a BMJ article.) The BMJ Group article refers to "two systematic reviews of the available research, published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood," saying:

    Of the 50 studies included in the review looking at the effectiveness of puberty blockers for gender questioning teens, only one was of high quality, leading the authors to conclude that although most of the studies suggested that treatment might affect bone health and height: “No conclusions can be drawn about the impact on gender dysphoria, mental and psychosocial health or cognitive development.” Similarly, of the 53 studies included in the review on the use of masculinising and feminising hormones, only 1 was of sufficiently high quality, with little or only inconsistent evidence on key outcomes, such as body satisfaction, psychosocial and cognitive outcomes, fertility, bone health and cardiometabolic effects.

    I don't think it's false to say that the review "dismissed over 100 studies ... as not suitably high quality." The site that Void if removed linked to in their comment "This is completely false" is actually discussing a quote from a UK Labour MP who said "Around 100 studies have not been included in the Cass report..." There's a difference between "have not been included" (the MP quote the other site addressed, which is false) and "dismissed ... as not suitably high quality" (Reed's claim, which was based on the BMJ Group column and is arguably true). FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The FAQ published by Cass makes it clear that "dismissed ... as not suitably high quality" is also incorrect: All high quality and moderate quality reviews were included, however as only two of the studies across these two systematic reviews were identified as being of high quality, this has been misinterpreted by some to mean that only two studies were considered and the rest were discarded. In reality, conclusions were based on the high quality and moderate quality studies (i.e. 58% of the total studies based on the quality assessment). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Emphasis should be placed on the phrase '...that only two studies were considered and the rest were discarded...', which lends more credence to FactOrOpinion's point that there is a distinction. Reed did not state they were excluded, she stated that they were not deemed high quality. Relm (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article under consideration stated: The report disregarded a substantial amount of evidence for transgender care as not “high quality” enough. I think it's hard to read "disregarded" as much different from "excluded". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you refer to as "the article under consideration" is not the article being discussed. Void if removed linked to this LA Blade article, which originally appeared as this blogpost. Both Vir and Colin quoted "dismissed over 100 studies," a phrase that appears in the article Vir linked to. Your quote doesn't contain that phrase, nor does your sentence appear in the article that Vir linked to (or, for that matter, in the original). You seem to be moving the goalposts to a totally different article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, "disregarded..." is from a different article (they're both on the same page; I scrolled down too far). But "dismissed..." is just another way of saying the same misinformation. So to Relm's point, I think it's hard to read "dismissed" as much different from "excluded". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't just pick individual words out of sentences and pretend that the sentences they come from are interchangeable. The first sentence is "To justify these recommendations, the review dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality, applying standards that are unattainable and not required of most other pediatric medicine." This sentence links to a BMJ Group column confirming that over 100 studies were characterized by the Cass Review as not "high quality." The second sentence is "The report disregarded a substantial amount of evidence for transgender care as not "high quality" enough and then described the evidence surrounding transgender care as weak, despite other reviews, major medical organizations, and the largest psychological organization in the world finding the evidence compelling enough to support gender affirming care." This sentence links to a letter signed by over 200 Irish academics in response to the Cass Review. Notice that the second sentence did not refer to "over 100 studies." It only referred to "a substantial amount of evidence." Presumably you know that the Cass Review excluded 42% of the 103 studies that were considered for inclusion. I'd say that that's a "substantial amount." You might disagree. But in no way is the second sentence "just another way of saying the same" thing as the first sentence. Details matter in assessing whether a claim is true vs. false. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FactOrOpinion, this page is for determining general reliability of sources. If you want to argue specific article text, the article talk page awaits your wisdom, though your arguments for your case do appear rather circular. The consequence of where this debate appears to be heading is exactly what I claim, and will get cited to edit war disinformation into our articles.
    This is a very obvious example of washing twitter trash rumours, self published in an activist blog and verbatim republished in a internet magazine without any editorial control whatsoever. This is like someone reposting an article credulously repeating twitter rumours about Lisa Truz, former president of the Unity Kingdum.
    arguments of evidence
    When dealing with MEDRS topics, our sources should be commenting and disagreeing at the highest level of the pyramid here. The best quality sources, medical journals and multi-year government reviews by distinguished authors. Instead we have these findings attacked by editors whose sources are operating at the bottom of the pyramid. Whatever negative shit turns up on a Google search is posted in the hope some of it sticks. Internet nonsense about who is rumoured of talking to who or met who or followed who on twitter. That trash should stay on twitter where hopefully someone will turn off the power switch.
    The "dismissed over 100 studies" disinformation is essentially the "Donald trump won the 2020 US election" shibboleth for the topic of the Cass review. If you have a source repeating such tripe, and which in 2025 has failed to strike or retract it, then it is clear it has zero reputation for fact checking and reliability, and a clear reputation for credulously publishing things they wished were true without concern about whether it is or not. Both LAB and Reed failed that test when they published this and continue to fail it today. And yes, per Springee, it raises questions about LAB's reliability more generally. This as a good example of a wider US malaise. That neither side in these culture wars is arguing with any integrity. -- Colin°Talk 20:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FactOrOpinion, this page is for determining general reliability of sources. No, actually, the RSN is a place for discussing both general reliability and specific reliability. Read the top of the noticeboard: "Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!", excluding only "general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources." That phrase "in context" at the top of the page is there for a reason: because the reliability of a source depends on the content being sourced to it. My comment was hardly "unrelated" to the source's reliability. When dealing with MEDRS topics, our sources should be commenting and disagreeing at the highest level of the pyramid here. That's the case if the WP content is itself medical in nature. But the WP text in question was not medical in nature. A WP article can include both medical content and non-medical content, as is the case in the Cass Review article. For example, there is zero need for the statement in the lead that the Cass Review "was commissioned in 2020 by NHS England and NHS Improvement" to be sourced to a MEDRS source. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF. This is starting to get hostile, making it harder to reach a consensus, not easier. Civility is important here (not least because the subject is a designated contentious topic).
    No one is arguing to include the "dismissed 100 studies" thing, either. That's not in the article or the proposed text. Lewisguile (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LA Blade and Advocate are fine. I think the Lemkin Institute is different because, as someone rightly says upthread, it is open about the fact it just reposts stuff. The LA Blade will have a legal team, editors, contracts, fact checkers, etc. It's a different kettle of fish. Lewisguile (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The LA Blade will have a legal team, editors, contracts, fact checkers, etc." Yet the website makes no mention of any of this - it's supposition. They provide no editorial policy and the only policy document on their website is their 'Privacy Policy' - and that gives a 404. It comes across as a very amateurish outfit that does not merit any measure of reliability or credibility. Zeno27 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? The list of staff and their positions and all of that is on the Contact Us page. Are you seriously calling the Washington Blade amateurish? SilverserenC 01:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, they have no published editorial policy, nor any details of fact-checkers, legal team or contracts. One person with a LABlade email address and LA phone number is listed as the 'Local news Editor'. The only other editor listed is Naff, located in Washington. All they say is "Editorial positions of the Los Angeles Blade are expressed in editorials and in editors’ notes as determined by the paper’s editors..." Are you seriously calling that their 'Editorial Policy'?
    "Are you seriously calling the Washington Blade amateurish?" That's not something I said. What I said was that the link on the LABlade website for their 'Privacy Policy' gives a 404. Providing a privacy policy is something any reputable organisation should be doing - and it's a legal requirement in many countries. As I said, LABlade does not come across as a reliable or credible source. Zeno27 (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just quickly noting that the claim that "the only other editor listed is Naff" isn't quite accurate; the LA Blade contact page also lists International editor Michael K. Lavers.... again, a Washington Blade email, but that makes sense in this being a localized version of the DC paper.
    Looks like the privacy pollicy was there in late 2022, gone by early 2023.... and at about the same time, the layout of their classifieds section changed. The privacy page was set up as a subset of classifieds (for some reason.) So presumably it was not an intentional deletion, just no one never noticed that the restructuring broke the link. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is they moved everything here and then forgot to properly update the links: https://www.washingtonblade.com/terms-of-service/ The same "Privacy Policy" link is broken on the Washington Blade website too, but much of what you'd expect to find there is on the TOS page instead. Lewisguile (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of presumed reasons for it being a 404 now, the fact remains it is - and it has been for several years. This can only be a lack of due diligence on their part and indicative of an organisation with a careless and indifferent attitude to their website. Zeno27 (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'd missed Lavers. As you say, he's got a Washington Blade email address. Zeno27 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In re "The LA Blade will have a legal team, editors, contracts, fact checkers, etc." For a publication of that size, I understand that the usual number of media lawyers is zero. Instead, you have a specialist service on retainer, and the editors call them if they're especially worried about anything. In the US, the cheapest way to do this is usually to join your state's newspaper association, which typically offers a small amount of legal advice at no charge (e.g., https://cnpa.com/legal-help/). For smaller publications, this, plus the name of a lawyer to call in an emergency, may be all they have.
    The usual number of fact checkers on the staff of a smaller publication like this is also zero. The editors do the fact checking themselves, and they only do this if they see anything that they are particularly concerned about. In any given article, the usual number of statements independently fact-checked before publication is zero. The most you can expect is that the journalist (not an editor, not a fact checker) might drop a quick e-mail message to anyone they spoke to in person that says something like "Thanks for your time earlier today. I just want to make sure that I've got your name spelled right, and that I'm quoting you correctly. I have "Alice Expert, a professor of expertise at Big University, said, 'Most people don't understand just how big the Sun really is'." Please let me know right away if I've got anything wrong. Thanks."
    "Having a legal team" is not what makes a source be reliable, and it has nothing to do with whether the source is self-published. Donald Trump has many legal teams. His tweets are still self-published. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite possibly. But the same could be said of any small/local news outlet as well. That's still more rigour/oversight than a blog, for example, which is the key comparator here. I also don't think the presence of details which some editors find misleading is proof they didn't fact check — it just means their assessment of that material was different. And given how split people are here on the same topic, I don't think that's evidence of anything other than inherent subjectivity/bias (which we all have). As this is becoming a very long topic, however, I'll leave it there for now. Lewisguile (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Are Erin Reed’s reposted blog pieces reliable and non-SPS if republished by a reputable source such as The Advocate or LA/Wa Blade?

    [edit]

    Are Erin Reed’s reposted blog pieces reliable and non-SPS if republished by a reputable source such as The Advocate or LA/Wa Blade? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally yes - republication by an editorial team indicates team believes the piece is worth publication. Proper attribution of opinion remains important, and dueness remains a concern.
    Making this RFC because I want a close to point to. Above discussion remains sufficiently mixed up at this point I think RFC and close by an uninvolved participant could clear stuff up. YFNS also pointed out this situtation has occurred previously as well, where sufficiently motivated editors will claim BLPSPS whenever Erin Reed’s work is republished. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - Honestly, I don't think we even need to have the "reposted blog pieces" bit. Someone who wrote something elsewhere who then got it officially published in a reliable news publication has always been a reliable non-SPS. It's irrelevant if the content was used anywhere else previously so long as it isn't another news publication who is just being reprinted a la the Associated Press and its article use in various outlets (which is reliable anyways as it is). Question to anyone who would say no: If there was no evidence of there being a blog post or anything else like that, but just this published article, would you consider it fine as an article publication? Why does the former bit make any difference whatsoever? (And no, having a name spelled with an extra L or having lead spelled as led in a sentence doesn't make a reliable source unreliable) SilverserenC 03:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you ask, as I laid out here, the edit that started this was one where text from a third-party summary was misleadingly presented by an SPS as if it were a direct quote from Hilary Cass, which was then reposted by LA Blade and then wrongly attributed from there to a WP:BLP on a WP:CTOP. That's a pretty bad chain of events IMO.
    Any source that does that is a source we should be avoiding, so if they had posted this article themselves then that would be a black mark against them in the reliability stakes.
    In this case however, we can charitably consider LA Blade in two parts - their in-house content, and their hundreds of reposted articles from other sources, which are all clearly indicated as originating elsewhere.
    LA Blade's in-house content is probably fine, I have no idea, I've not checked - I think that would require a separate discussion. But their reposted content has all the characteristics of the various underlying sources with no added reliability, and so we should always go direct to the source, and judge that directly. Void if removed (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    * Bad RFC / No The above discussion encompasses three sources - Lemkin, LA Blade and The Advocate. These have very different publishing characteristics, and @Bluethricecreamman still has not struck the claim that LA Blade edited prior to reposting, which they did not. The Advocate has barely been discussed and doesn't seem to be behaving in the same way as Lemkin and LA Blade.
    • Lemkin simply copy and repost occasional stories of interest from various sources into a newsfeed, including the BBC and the Guardian, without any claim to their veracity or taking responsibility for them.
    • LA Blade mechanistically repost (or at least did) hundreds of stories from dozens of outlets, and mixed in amongst them are dozens of sequential posts from Reed's blog. There search is bad so it is hard to be sure, but I saw very few, if any, gaps in that process - for a time it simply seemed to be shadowing every blogpost as it appeared.
    A reliable source occasionally picking up a self-published source, and elevating it to an article, with some editorial oversight, would certainly mean it was no longer SPS. But an indiscriminate reposting of dozens of blogposts as soon as they appear into a shared newsfeed of dozens of posts culled from other sites is not that.
    There is a general point here - if a source is simply reposting content from other sources somewhat like Yahoo News, but on a smaller scale, do the reposted sources have the reliability characteristics of the reposting source, or the original? This on Lemkin is WP:OPINION because the original source is, despite not being marked as such on the Lemkin site. This on LA Blade is WP:MEDIAMATTERS because its just straight-up copied from there with attribution. If we have to go to the underlying source to understand its properties, then the reposting source confers no reliability onto it and we shouldn't cite it, ever. Exactly as with Yahoo news syndication, content that is merely being reposted en masse into a newsfeed has to be judged by the originating source - and if that is the case it remains SPS, or else any blog content aggregator (curated or automated) would get around BLPSPS. The only reason to cite this sort of content would be to circumvent policy that applies to the original source, and that seems not in the spirit of policy.
    On top of that, the RFC begs the question of whether LA Blade are a reliable outlet if what they did was mechanically repost dozens of blogposts until June 17th, - complete with still-uncorrected misspellings and typos and false and misleading claims about the Cass Review or BLP claims about Hilary Cass - from someone described in a peer reviewed report the British Medical Journal as a prominent activist attempting to discredit other aspects of Cass, both the review and the person.
    For example, per the BMJ, Erin Reed said Cass collaborated on a trans care ban in Florida when the truth is Cass spoke with a clinical member of the state’s board of medicine as part of her review. Reed is a hyperbolic, partisan, untrustworthy source, full stop, and should be nowhere near pages of subjects she is actively trying to discredit via smear and misrepresentation. Void if removed (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be very clear, the edit which precipitated this RFC was to source a direct quote to Hilary Cass, using Erin Reed as a source, by way of her substack reposted on LA Blade.
    [Cass] said she was "not aware of his wider connections and political affiliations" when she met him
    Let's look at the post being cited: https://www.losangelesblade.com/2024/04/19/anti-trans-british-pediatrician-backpedals-on-her-review-on-hrt/
    This is a response to a Q&A posted by the Kite Trust here in April 2024.
    Throughout, Reed presents this as an interview, with quoted statements attributed as Cass' responses, eg:
    Dr. Cass, in the latest interview, denies any wrongdoing, stating: “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.”
    This is the whole basis of the article. If this were a reliable source, we could use that for a direct quote attributable to Hilary Cass herself, because that is how it is presented.
    However, according to the FAQ on the Cass Review website, that is a misrepresentation and this is categorically not a verbatim quote. None of these are verbatim quotes, nor are they even a reliable paraphrase:
    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.
    This is not a verbatim quote, despite being misrepresented as such by Reed, and reproduced with apparently no oversight on LA Blade.
    Erin Reed is exceptionally unreliable on this subject, and the edit which precipitated this entire RFC demonstrates it perfectly. Void if removed (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see you care about this situation very deeply, as do we all. You also clearly have very strong feelings about Erin Reed in particular ("Erin Reed is exceptionally unreliable"). However, we all feel that way about certain sources and we all have to grit our teeth and bear it sometimes, so let's try to stick to the facts as much as we can, so that this doesn't become any more emotive than it needs to.
    Given that Cass says those aren't her verbatim words but are the Kite Trust's summary of them, I think it's fair to use in-line attribution to the KT for those parts of the paragraph sourced to it.
    Cass doesn't seem to be disputing the content of what they said—merely the wording used/the framing by others that it was a verbatim quote. So the FAQ actually confirms the interview took place and is a paraphrasing of her words. She hasn't requested a retraction or alteration of those words, has she? If she has, that makes things much simpler. If she hasn't, I don't think the FAQ contradicts the Q&A. If a source such as the LA Blade article has elements which are objectively misleading, we obviously shouldn't repeat the misleading info (or the misleading framing, as the case may be) in Wikivoice.Whoops! Didn't see the new header and thought this was still the discussion. Same point is already covered elsewhere anyway. Sorry about that. Lewisguile (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to continue to debate content, please do it on the talk page of the page in question, not in a reply to my vote on an RFC. Void if removed (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a question that interests me Void if removed can you please name one trans author who supports affirmative care and who you would call a reliable source? Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Erin Reed is exceptionally unreliable As best I can tell, you've presented two examples to substantiate this claim; if you've presented more examples and I missed the other(s), please point them out. Otherwise, I think you need to present more evidence for a claim like "Erin Reed is exceptionally unreliable."
    Example 1: in the preceding discussion (above) you quoted her saying "the review dismissed over 100 studies," and you said that her claim was "completely false." I discussed above why I believe that your claim is inaccurate.
    Example 2 (here): the Kite Trust reported on a "Q&A with Dr. Hilary Cass." The Kite Trust stated at the top of its report "Here are her answers" and presented what appears as a Q&A format (questions in bold, answers non-bolded). The Kite Trust didn't state explicitly that these answers weren't direct quotes, but in several places used wording that indicates portions weren't direct quotes (e.g., the text of one answer says in part that "Dr. Cass feels this is important...," when Cass would not be referring to herself in the third person). It's unclear whether any of the text in the Kite Trust's Q&A report was verbatim from Cass. The Review's FAQ later said "the Kite Trust’s statement was not represented as verbatim comments from Dr Cass. ... it was written to be accessible to the young people." The Q&A took place on 4/17, Reed's article appeared on 4/19, and it's unclear when the Review's FAQ was published, but the Internet Archive's first archive of it is on 4/26. In her 4/19 column, Reed described the Q&A as an "interview," used the phrase "Her answer" three times, and then writes "Dr. Cass, in the latest interview, denies any wrongdoing, stating...," followed by a quote of one answer. So Reed is definitely presenting that specific quote as a statement from Cass. On the one hand, the Kite Trust did say "Here are her answers"; on the other hand, it's clear from the text that in several places, these answers weren't verbatim, calling into question whether any parts of the answers were verbatim. It's definitely wrong on Reed's part to present the quoted answer as a statement from Cass rather than as the Kite Trust's statement about Cass's answer. But that falls short of making Reed "exceptionally unreliable." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely wrong on Reed's part to present the quoted answer as a statement from Cass rather than as the Kite Trust's statement about Cass's answer.
    I think this was all you needed to say. Reed presented it as a direct quote, LA Blade reposted it, and an editor added it as a direct quote from a BLP on a CTOP on that basis.
    Your response asking me for more evidence of Erin Reed's reliability is exactly why this is a bad RFC. There's about 5 different things at play here, from how we judge sites the blanket repost material from other, better sources, to whether Reed is unreliable, to whether that makes La Blade unreliable for reposting her with no editorial oversight.
    Reed has repeatedly claimed that studies were dismissed and disregarded for not being "high quality".
    • In this article: the review dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality,
    • In the article at the top of this RFC. disregarded a substantial amount of evidence for transgender care as not “high quality”
    • In this blogpost: disregarded the body of research on transgender care as not "high quality,"
    However you try to spin "dismissed" or "the body" or "a substantial amount", I don't see how you can argue that saying that the claim the review dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality isn't false when the review commissioned multiple systematic reviews, two of which covered blockers and hormones, one of which excluded 19 studies from synthesis as poor quality, and the other excluded 24 from synthesis as poor quality. Its not even arguable - it is completely false. Any claim that anything was dismissed or disregarded for not being "high" quality is false and by this point deliberately so, because anyone with eyes can see that in the York reviews, the majority of material that was included in the synthesis was "moderate" quality. You can simply read them yourself and verify.
    Ironically a recent report from the Commission on Human Medicines revealed that the York team bent over backwards to include the evidence they did:
    we were informed that by usual standards the impacts identified as moderate quality evidence would usually be consistent with poor quality evidence, but were placed in this category as the overall quality was so poor they considered a need to provide some differentiation.
    The evidence in this area is poor.
    In the article at the top of this RFC Reed says Cass described the evidence surrounding transgender care as weak, despite other reviews, [...] finding the evidence compelling enough. Reed continually misrepresents Cass as some sort of outlier, when review after review after review after review and now again this month another review agree on this, and no amount of activists like Reed convincing their social media following that some supposed massive amount of really good evidence was wrongly excluded by evil bigots changes what is very dismal picture.
    If all this isn't enough to at least raise an eyebrow, I don't know what to tell you, but here's one more anyway.
    • June 2024 Kemi Badenoch, admitted that “gender critical” individuals were placed in health roles to facilitate the Cass Review, and June 2024 Kemi Badenoch revealed that members of the movement were put in key health positions to produce the Cass Review - this is a conspiracist misrepresentation of this tweet which is merely noting that the Cass Review happened in part because Sajid Javid was health minister at the time not that he was placed there to facilitate it! This is a Tory politician blowing her own trumpet as Equalities minister, taking credit for a success and having a pop at how "Labour did not want to know" in the run up to a general election in the UK, not Reed's invented fantasy about some "movement" having taken over key positions in order to engineer the Cass Review.
    Do you actually want more? I can give you dozens, but this isn't an RFC about the reliability of Erin Reed, and I can't see anyone else caring. Void if removed (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this isn't an RFC about the reliability of Erin Reed OK, I won't respond further about her reliability. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i argue the question i pose in the RFC includes that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understood your question, it's not about whether her columns are reliable on their own, but whether they inherit reliability from the publications that republish her work. I can't answer that question. (I've heard that the LA Blade or The Advocate have good reputations, but outside of the 2 Reed columns I looked at for this discussion, I haven't read either publication, so I'm not familiar enough with them to judge that for myself. In addition, it's entirely possible for a GREL publication to have a writer whose work I consider unreliable.) I actually dislike questions about the general reliability of publications; I think reliability of source X is best judged in relation to the WP content sourced to X. A given source might be reliable for one thing and not reliable for another. I did respond above re: whether I believed the republication to establish the columns as non-SPS, but I guess I should add something about that to your RfC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that the reliability of source X is best judged in relation to the WP content sourced to X. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reconsidered Bluethricecreamman's comment and so will respond further about the reliability of several specific statements you've quoted from Reed: I think this was all you needed to say. You're free to think that, but I clearly don't agree, which is why I went into more detail. I don't see how you can argue that saying that the claim "the review dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality" isn't false But I did argue that her statement is arguably true, and I linked to the comment of mine where I did it, which you appear to have ignored. it is completely false No, it isn't, as I said in my comment about it.
    I also discussed above your second partial quote from her saying that the Report "disregarded a substantial amount of evidence for transgender care as not 'high quality,'" and I disagree with your assessment there as well. However you try to spin "dismissed" or "the body" or "a substantial amount"... In that second comment of mine, I stressed the importance of not pulling select words out of context and suggesting that the statements are interchangeable.
    Your third partial quote is "disregarded the body of research on transgender care as not 'high quality.'" It's once again important to look at the full sentence and what she links to in support of her claim. The sentence is "The review, highly susceptible to subjectivity, disregarded the body of research on transgender care as not "high quality," a subjective judgment that cannot be trusted as politically unbiased given prior concerns." She supported her claim that the measure used (the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) is subjective via the study she linked to. The second link no longer works (that user appears to have closed their X account), so I cannot read what it said, but Reed's claim there seems to fall in the general category of what she said in the first two quotes you presented, and I disagree with your assessment. anyone with eyes can see that in the York reviews, the majority of material that was included in the synthesis was "moderate" quality. Anyone can see that the reviewers assessed them that way, and anyone can read the study she linked to as support for her claim that assessments using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale are "highly susceptible to subjectivity."
    Reed says Cass "described the evidence surrounding transgender care as weak, despite other reviews, [...] finding the evidence compelling enough." Once again, you're not quoting the full sentence. The full sentence is "The report disregarded a substantial amount of evidence for transgender care as not "high quality" enough and then described the evidence surrounding transgender care as weak, despite other reviews, major medical organizations, and the largest psychological organization in the world finding the evidence compelling enough to support gender affirming care." Notice that she linked to a letter from over 200 Irish academics, and their discussion supports her claim that "other reviews, major medical organizations, and the largest psychological organization in the world finding the evidence compelling enough to support gender affirming care." Reed continually misrepresents Cass as some sort of outlier, when review after review after review after review and now again this month another review agree on this. But the various reviews clearly don't agree on it, as the reviews linked in the letter from Irish academics shows. I also don't think that she's presenting the Cass Review as "some sort of outlier," only that it comes to a different conclusion than other reviews and organizations.
    Look, I get it. You believe that "Erin Reed is exceptionally unreliable." I clearly disagree with your interpretations of specific examples you gave to substantiate your opinion. I have no opinion about Reed in general as I haven't read enough of her work. In the little I've looked at, she appears to support her claims. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    which you appear to have ignored
    No - you just made a defence based on parsing the very same press release which Reed misunderstood in the first place. You can check the reviews themselves to see they don't say this, and thus the claim is false, and your defence of it based on not actually checking the reviews a bit of a waste of effort.
    You might well argue it is an understandable error - but it still wrong.
    the reviews linked in the letter from Irish academics shows
    None of the linked articles are reviews, I'm afraid you can't just take these claims at face value - click the links, and check - they aren't reviews, either systematic or narrative. They don't include more evidence than the Cass Review.
    When someone says "reviews" and gives a link to support it, and that link also says "reviews" and claims they represent more evidence than the Cass Review, and it turns out they aren't actually reviews, 1 is irrelevant, and 2 were included anyway, this is multiple layers of misinformation.
    You're not helping your case IMO. Void if removed (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can check the reviews themselves to see they don't say this. It's unclear what the referent of "this" is: they don't say what? She was not making a claim that over 100 studies were excluded from 2 of the systematic reviews, no matter how much you wish to interpret it that way. She said that the Cass Review "dismissed over 100 studies on the efficacy of transgender care as not suitably high quality." The reviews confirm that 101 studies were deemed not be be "high quality" using the NOS. None of the linked articles are reviews My mistake. I'm guessing that they meant to link reviews instead of studies, but there's no way for me to know. The letter does say "the Cass Review’s systematic reviews deviated from best practice in systematic review methodology in several ways," noting six different ways in which that occurred. The letter also supports her claim that "major medical organizations, and the largest psychological organization in the world find[] the evidence compelling enough to support gender affirming care." FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing that they meant to link reviews instead of studies
    So when sources are proven to be unreliable, we can just imagine they meant to be reliable and give them a pass anyway?
    I'm done. Void if removed (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That you choose to interpret "My mistake. I'm guessing ... but there's no way for me to know" as "give them a pass anyway" is counterproductive. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reed said the Cass Review disregarded a substantial amount of evidence providing this open letter as a citation, and I have demonstrated to you why it does not support this claim: because it claimed to present 3 reviews [...] that include more evidence than the Cass Review, when actually they weren't reviews they were single studies, 1 was irrelevant and the other 2 were actually included. It is just wrong in every way its possible to be wrong.
    You responded with an incredibly charitable I'm guessing that they meant to link reviews instead of studies which is about as convincing as saying the dog ate their homework, and a selective demand for rigour, and having dismissed that moved on to taking their "six different ways" at face value.
    Do you see how that could be quite frustrating? Having explained why an original claim was false, you don't acknowledge it, and throw up a different one for me to respond to.
    You could always - having found them to be unreliable in one way - consider the possibility is that this really is an unreliable source, cited by an unreliable source, spreading misinformation about a systematic review from a world class centre of systematic reviews who know a thing or two about conducting systematic reviews, and that maybe the six criticisms are as misleading as those links you took at face value.
    But lets just look at point 4 as a simple illustration. They complain 2 reviews didn't use a risk of bias tool, but that's because those reviews weren't looking at effect sizes - they were looking at the demographics and care pathways.
    https://adc.bmj.com/content/109/Suppl_2/s3
    https://adc.bmj.com/content/109/Suppl_2/s57
    Risk of bias tools help you determine if your effect sizes are false positives or negatives - did intervention x result in outcome y. But these reviews weren't checking effects - they were collating eg. the numbers of referrals to clinics worldwide and plotting them. What they did was completely valid, which isn't surprising what with them being a world class centre of systematic reviews.
    And then complaining that NOS isn't "best practice" when its one of the most widely used tools and recommended in the Cochrane handbook for exactly this kind of nonrandomised assessment. And in any case, having these reviews completely concur with the findings of three other systematic reviews that used GRADE just demonstrates how robust these findings are, across different methodologies - that's good science.
    It's a nonsense criticism. This stuff is nonsense all the way down. It takes them 2 sentences to knock out nonsense like this, and multiple paragraphs for me to walk you through the explanation why it is nonsense, yet you keep giving them an unwarranted level of benefit of the doubt. Void if removed (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you're not done. And you're not alone in being frustrated here. I quoted part of one of your statements and asked you a straightforward question about it ("It's unclear what the referent of "this" is: they don't say what?") — a question that I needed answered in order to understand what you were trying to say — but you chose not to clarify. In the very same sentence that I quoted part of / asked about, you falsely asserted that I hadn't checked something that I'd checked ("your defence of it based on not actually checking the reviews"). You've clearly chosen to walk away from resolving the issue of whether her statement about the 100 studies was/wasn't false. I think we're unlikely to be able to resolve anything else if we cannot resolve something as straightforward as that. You've twice clipped my statement "My mistake. I'm guessing that they meant to link reviews instead of studies, but there's no way for me to know," ignoring the first and last parts and now characterize my response "as convincing as saying the dog ate their homework." When I say that I was mistaken and am guessing something but don't know, I'm not trying to convince you, and I'm baffled that you'd interpret it as an attempt to convince you. You claim that I'm making "a selective demand for rigour," without giving even a hint of what "demand for rigour" you're referring to. You now falsely claim "Having explained why an original claim was false, you don't acknowledge it..." Just what part of "My mistake" do you not understand? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am guessing something but don't know
    Ok, so perhaps I'm taking it too much to heart, but after days of being challenged and WP:HOUNDED (by others) for (I think) trying to uphold some sort of standards, when you reply to guess that they meant to link to reviews which supposedly covered more information as they claimed, I find it really quite insulting to my time and effort. It is not what I expect of the process of evaluating a source's reliability. I just showed you they misrepresented evidence to you, and I know that no such evidence demonstrating their claim exists. But what is the point in me showing you in time-consuming detail a source is misrepresenting the evidence, if your response is just to guess there are ways in which they might not have been?
    It seems quite a simple process to me. I don't especially care if the source lied on purpose or is just incompetent - it is unreliable. An unreliable source citing an unreliable source citing studies that disprove their claims.
    You've clearly chosen to walk away from resolving the issue of whether her statement about the 100 studies was/wasn't false.
    Yes, I've said all I'm going to say on that one, IMO you're quibbling over whether saying "dismissed" as not "suitably high quality" or "sufficiently high quality" is the same as saying they were "excluded, “discarded”, “disregarded”, not included or rejected" which is an unsustainable reading when the threshold for "sufficiently" or "suitably" was "moderate".
    101 out of 103 studies on gender-affirming care were dismissed for not being of "sufficiently high quality," is such a clear recitation of this misinformation, I'm not interested in engaging with any further defence of it. At this point we're reading the same words and you're denying what to me is their plain meaning and that's that. Void if removed (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Badenoch, her tweet [18] says it was the Conservative appointment of government ministers who were gender-critical to the health and equalities portfolios that lead to the Cass Review being commissioned. She ways that Labour wouldn't have commissioned the Cass Review because they did not want to know while the Conservatives did, which is why it happened and puberty blockers for minors was blocked. Reed is accurately summarizing what Badenoch herself is saying, but you're assuming she is actually saying the most conspiratorial interpretation possible. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reed literally says placed in health roles to facilitate the Cass Review, I'm assuming nothing - that is conspiratorial.
    There is no other way to read that than that Javid was appointed to facilitate the Cass Review.
    This is an extreme level of conspiracism as well as ignorance of UK politics. Javid was made home secretary by Theresa May, who was the PM who commissioned the 2018 consultation on the reform of the gender recognition act. That's being placed in one of the three great offices of state by a PM who has been massively supportive of things like self-id. He then became chancellor under Johnson, another of the great offices. After that, Health Secretary is essentially a demotion. He was made HS after Matt Hancock resigned during the pandemic for breaking social distancing. The idea that Johnson appointed him in the midst of a national crisis to facilitate the Cass Review is one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories I've ever heard. Void if removed (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Javid only became health secretary in 2021 and the Cass Review was commissioned in 2020. Since Badenoch is specifically talking about a Conservative willingness to commission the review that only came about after a change in holders of the Equalities and Health portfolios, I don't see how he is relevant. In any case, Reed does not say that Javid was appointed to facilitate the Cass Review, does not mention Javid, and only cites Badenoch, who clearly does think that the appointment of gender critical ministers facilitated the commissioning of the Cass Review. Unless you think she's lying? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you think she's lying
    What's that you say? A Tory politician lying? Say it ain't so.
    Seriously, Tories exaggerating their successes in an election campaign is par for the course.
    What Javid did do is issue a statutory instrument to facilitate data sharing and responded immediately to the interim report.
    So all Badenoch is taking credit for is that Javid allowed it to proceed effectively and responded immediately to interim findings, while a Labour government (in her view) would not have been so sympathetic.
    See how far we've wandered from a conspiracy where “gender critical” individuals were placed in health roles to facilitate the Cass Review—a mechanism remarkably similar to how Florida’s review led to the banning of care in the state, borrowing from DeSantis’ strategy? Void if removed (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there's a serious case to be made that Tory cabinet ministers weren't gender critical in 2020, then what Reed reported was 100% true. Badenoch did say that the appointment of gender critical cabinet ministers led to the commissioning and the mechanism is similar to how the ban went down in Florida (i.e. through medical regulation using a favourable review as opposed to criminalization or passing a law). What Javid did in 2022 to facilitate the Cass Review has no bearing on what Badenoch's claims. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question How do we decide when a source is acting as an aggregator vs when it's acting to republish under it's own name? We seem to have different standards or do we have "use the strongest" as the standard? If a minor (LocalInterestNews) site legally republishes an AP news wire report I presume we would use the strength of the AP's reputation not that of LocalInterestNew. If the NYT were to republish a Substack article verbatim I presume we would say the Substack article gains the strength of the NYT because the NYT, presumably, doesn't do aggregation. How do we decide when a media source is just aggregating? Also, if the Substack article contains errors and the NYT doesn't correct them how do we handle it? Finally, if the NYT republishes the Substack article and it's later shown that the Substack article is wrong does that count against the NYT's overall reputation? In the case here it appears the Erin Reed article had both clear signs of a failure to do fact checking before it was published and is repeating claims in a misleading or factually incorrect way. If LAB is just aggregating then we should view this as something that wasn't carefully checked/edited and thus is more like an editorial. Errors don't reflect on LAB rather they reflect on Erin Reed herself in which case we treat the whole article as an unreliable editorial. On the other hand, if they reflect on LAB then we should question LAB's editorial standards and treat it as a use with caution source. Either way, if the errors alleged above are true then the specific article should be viewed as unreliable (and certainly UNDUE to discuss a medical report) regardless of where we stand on a SPS being republished by another source. To be clear, the outcome of this RfC should not be viewed as establishing this Erin Reed article as reliable or DUE in the Cass Review article. Springee (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: your first question, news aggregation typically involves an algorithm that automates the selection/republication of articles on the aggregator's site. The LA Blade's selection of articles is clearly curated, which makes it less likely that they engage in news aggregation. If you think they are engaged in news aggregation, a first step is for you to identify for us some other news sources that LAB regularly republishes. Re: "it appears the Erin Reed article had both clear signs of a failure to do fact checking before it was published and is repeating claims in a misleading or factually incorrect way," would you quote the parts you're referring to? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I already did that here in the WP:RFCBEFORE.
      Their search is terrible but this should bring back everything that's been reposted. Looks like they stopped doing it about 7 months ago (including Erin Reed's blog), but again the search is terrible so I can't be sure.
      Some random samples:
      Void if removed (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Those results definitely don't look like news aggregation to me. BTW, if you don't like LAB's search function, you can do a site-limited search using a standard search engine. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I find it telling that VIR has time to write all these WP:WALLSOFTEXT but couldn't provide any answer at all to the question of whether they could name one trans writer who supports affirmative care who they would consider reliable in any context. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      How they feel about other sources wouldn't show that this sources is reliable or unreliable. I suggest taking the question elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and no. Why the confusing answer? Because the RfC question has a big if. Yes, if a blog post is republished by a reputable source which applies the same editorial controls that give rise to its reliability, then it is no longer a self-published blog post and should be considered a publication of the outlet in question. No, because in this specific case, it seems that at least in the case of LA Blade, there were no such controls in operation. It's not that a typo is the most serious offence, but it seems to be a smoking gun that zero editorial control was applied to the article. Particularly egregious is the passthrough of a blog post which repeats misinformation, per Fullfact, and still stands uncorrected nearly a year later. Mass republishing of blog posts verbatim does not satisfy the if posed in the RfC, and puts a question mark over the reliability of any outlet doing so. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and no. Barnards.tar.gz says it well. If it is published as an editorially reviewed article, then yes, it is both not a SPS and it is the same reliability as any other article published by that source. However, if it is simply repeated as an editorial, or copied without review/editorial review, then no. The devil is in the details here - many sources, even the "best" such as the NY Times, will offer to individuals to republish their blog pieces/opinion pieces, because they want to "report a wide range of viewpoints". That does not mean they accept editorial responsibility for the content, even if it's not published in the opinion section. Generally speaking, sources only exert editorial control over their own reporters, or over reporters they specifically contract with to produce actual content on a one time/short term basis. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and Yes (yes only to the second part of the question). The question has two parts: "Are Erin Reed’s reposted blog pieces reliable ... if republished by a reputable source such as The Advocate or LA/Wa Blade?" and "Are Erin Reed’s reposted blog pieces ... non-SPS if republished by a reputable source such as The Advocate or LA/Wa Blade?" People's answers to these two parts need not be the same. I cannot answer the part about inherited reliability, as I don't know enough about the reliability of The Advocate and the LA/WA Blade, and a quick search of the RSN archives suggests that there hasn't been a general reliability discussion of either paper, though I didn't search in depth. I also think it's mistake to come to conclusions about general reliability without first discussing multiple specific examples; I recognize that people want general guidance, but it's still the case that in assessing the reliability of a source, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I gave my analysis of the non-SPS status above. I don't think that republication guarantees non-SPS status, but in this case my answer is yes, per that analysis. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, if something is republished by a RS then it inherits the reliability of the RS - only the final publisher of a particular piece matters. In fact, it's quite normal for things to be published in an unreliable venue only to later be published in a reliable venue (eg. preprints.) Some people have speculated that the Advocate and the Blade may not have applied their usual editorial controls and fact-checking to it (big, if true - this would obviously be a problem not just for this piece but for their overall reliability) but there's simply no reason to think that is the case here beyond people disagreeing with or disliking the piece itself, which is obviously not a valid WP:RS argument. It's a circular argument that could be used to dismiss anything - "no reliable source says X! You've presented an RS saying X? No, it says X and is therefore unreliable, its publisher must have dropped the ball or something." The entire point of evaluating the broad reliability of sources is to avoid that scenario - and the fact that multiple reliable sources have put their weight behind it makes it a particularly weak argument here and suggests that the criticisms of the piece just aren't as well-grounded as its critics think. EDIT: Sine I was referenced below, I'll reiterate the point that most of the opposition to this relies on editors disagreeing with the source's conclusions. Look at the amount of text spilled arguing over individual points of fact, above and below. None of that matters one iota for RS purposes. You cannot disprove a source to render it unreliable, that's not how reliability works - it's about the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Our job is to reflect what sources with such reputations say, including potentially harsh criticism that not everyone may agree with, when it's published in prominent reliable sources. In short, the publisher is essentially all that matters in a case like this. Otherwise we end up with editors trying to litigate the entire underlying real-world dispute (ie. the legitimacy of the Cass review and the political connections of its critics), which is WP:OR. Trying to substantiate your disagreement doesn't change that fact that you're trying to exclude the source based on disagreement; that's still not how RS works. --Aquillion (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Reed's blog pieces are unreliable because they fail all three of our aspects of reliability:
    1. The piece of work. This isn't a systematic review or government commissioned analysis. It is conspiracy-theory activist attack pieces operating at the bottom of the argument pyramid I posted above.
    2. The author. Reed has on multiple occasions made claims that are false. This has been covered above, mostly by Void. I would agree with their statement that Reed is exceptionally unreliable on the topic of the Cass Review.
    3. The publisher. Self-published on Substack that one's obvious no.
    The question in this RFC posts is that simply by altering the third aspect, the publisher, it becomes reliable. Literally "Are Erin Reed’s reposted blog pieces reliable" merely by being reposted in LAB? Aquillion's suggestion that some editors "dislike" the work is unfair and unjustified, as is their assumption against all the evidence void posted, that they are preforming any kind of editorial or fact checking. Even if the mythical editorial board and team of fact checkers that editors above have invented existed, we'd then expect some evidence that they earned their wage. That some contentious paragraphs get dropped. Some facts corrected. Some of the blog pieces refused. But as Void demonstrates above, they reprinted literally every piece Erin produced over a substantial time period. This isn't how journalism works. Because it isn't journalism. It's activism. Does John Crace's political sketch become a reliable source on UK politics by being republished in The Guardian. No, because his work is mostly made up nonsense with a tenuous connection to what actually happened, done so for humorous intent. The Guardian publish it to give its readers a laugh, not because they regard it as political journalism. The LAB republish Reed's blog pieces because their readers likely support the agenda, but if they actually regarded it as serious journalism, .... well I think the first thing you might try to get right is spelling Hilary Cass's name properly. That might be a teensie bit of an indication you cared.
    We all know that news media is increasingly short of cash. Once mighty newspapers are now staffed by a handful, no longer employing photographers, full of product reviews rather than investigative reporting. Wikipedia over-relies on internet news sites for its sourcing. When it does that, the results often lower themselves into whatever negativity activist editors have found on this mornings Google search. Rather than a balanced analysis of the topic. I think we are in a dangerous situation where unreliable material on a contentious topic is being washed through clearly automatic republication without any effort for "fact checking and accuracy". It does not automatically become reliable through this process.
    Following the Cass Review, which was for NHS England, the Scottish government asked a multidisciplinary clinical team to consider it. After three months of deliberations this team of health experts enthusiastically supported the evidence base of the review, and produced a 57 page document how Cass's conclusions might be best implemented in Scotland's different NHS. This is the consequential reality of when serious people who seriously matter have reviewed this topic. The "alternative facts" conspiracy theory voices get too much weight already in that article. Washing such blog pieces as "reliable sources" as this RFC is attempting, weakens Wikipedia considerably. The boring news that serious clinical professionals agreed with Cass and the health bodies who actually matter in England and Scotland are implementing their recommendations is not the topic of the twitterati and the blogosphere. The news about Scotland didn't get a look in at the LAB. The multiple systematic reviews that agree with the Cass's own reviews don't get a look in at the LAB. The Cass review met with over 1000 individuals and organisations, including transgender children and adults and activists supporting gender affirming care. But the misleading impression you'd get with Reed's work in the LAB is that they once might have met a Bad Person. And weirdly that Bad Person's thoughts so infected the entire report whereas the 999 other people they met left no impression on them at all. Maybe they were all "dismissed" like the fake news about the "dismissed" research? This unbalanced thinking is what happens when one sources to activists. Maybe in 10 years time some actual proper journalist or historian will write a book and we can source to that. In the meantime, please let's not cite trash like this. The LAB reprinting activist blogs verbatim is not journalism with a reputation for fact checking an accuracy. -- Colin°Talk 16:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Colin, unless you have an RS that describes Reed as a "conspiracy-theory activist," I ask that you retract this per the WP:BLP policy re: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced. I recognize that there's some leeway to make claims on talk pages that wouldn't be allowed in an article, but this particular claim goes too far over the line. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Erin Reed: The “independent” review was lead by Dr. Hillary Cass, who reportedly followed several anti-trans organizations on social media and who met with Governor DeSantis’ medical board and offered information in their efforts to ban care in Florida, leading to some to question that independence.[19] (note the scare quotes)
    Cass Review FAQ: the Review has been underpinned by an extensive programme of proactive engagement, which is described in Chapter 1 of the report. The Review has met with over 1000 individuals and organisations across the breadth of opinion on this subject but prioritised two categories of stakeholders:
    People with relevant lived experience (direct or as a parent/carer) and organisations working with LGBTQ+ children and young people generally.
    Clinicians and other relevant professionals with experience of and/ or responsibility for providing care and support to children and young people within specialist gender services and beyond.
    A mixed-methods approach was taken, which included weekly listening sessions with people with lived experience, 6-weekly meetings with support and advocacy groups throughout the course of the Review, and focus groups with young people and young adults.
    Reports from the focus groups with young people with lived experience are published on the Review’s website and the learning from these sessions and the listening sessions are represented in the final report.
    The Review also commissioned qualitative research from the University of York, who conducted interviews with young people, young adults, parents and clinicians. A summary of the findings from this research is included as appendix 3 of the final report.[20]
    Conspiracy theory: an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy (generally by powerful sinister groups, often political in motivation), when other explanations are more probable.
    The more probable explanation that Cass's commissioned systematic reviews and ultimate report produced results they did is because they are based on sound evidence based medicine (multiple other systematic reviews agree with them, they are published in the most prestigious journals and the York team are world experts in such reviews) and was written by an esteemed paediatrician after consultation with more than a thousand individuals and organisations. The conspiracy theory explanation is that never mind the science or those more than 1000 individuals and orgs, one of them turned out to have a connection with DeSantis, ah ha! Evil sinister groups. A join the dots of who once met who and implications that somehow that taints the report and its underling research.
    In my actual world, the Cass Review was a report for NHS England about a clearly failing gender clinic, and which has been accepted and adopted by NHS England and in turn NHS Scotland (which had no obligation to do so). In the conspiracy theory world, the Cass Review was created in collaboration with evil conservative US politicians to harm American trans healthcare.
    Further up, Void quotes two pieces by Reed where they make unjustified and unevidenced and outrageously untrue conspiracy claims that the government had gender critical individuals "put in key health positions to produce the Cass Review". The more probable explanation was that GIDS was widely regarded by all sides as a failing clinic and that any government would have commissioned a report and Cass was chosen very explicitly because they had no prejudicial leanings and huge expertise in paediatric medicine.
    FactOrOpinion, there really are activists and editors here who believe with all their hearts that the Cass Review was ghost-written by genspect or some other Sinister Organisation working in collaboration with DeSantis. It is textbook conspiracy theory. -- Colin°Talk 17:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is something of a failure of WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotation from Reed seems to be challenging whether Cass was truly independent or someone who may have pre-judged the outcome of her review. The article says nothing similar to the conspiracy theories you brought up that it was ghost-written by an organization collaborating with DeSantis. The article just notes that Cass downplayed the extent of the communications that they had with the DeSantis-linked officials (i.e. Cass said they met once, deposition in a Florida lawsuit shows that it was repeatedly). You are essentially arguing that because extreme, patently unreasonable conspiracy theories about the Cass Review exists, even mild, good-faith questions about impartiality are conspiracy theories. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    mild, good-faith questions
    As stated in the BMJ, Erin Reed is a prominent activist who has attempted to discredit other aspects of Cass, both the review and the person.
    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. On the Majority Report, a podcast with 1.5 million subscribers, Reed said that Cass represents “the playbook for how to ban trans care.”
    Saying Two years ago, Hillary Cass met with DeSantis picks and collaborated on a trans care ban in Florida. is a conspiracy theory.
    Caveating it with "reportedly" is a weasel-worded conspiracy theory.
    Pretending this is a mild, good-faith question is hard to swallow. Void if removed (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to that piece, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (an SPLC designated hate group known for bullshit and lobbying) thinks the Cass Review the bees knees and the whole article is a long string of complaints that American medical professionals and organizations don't agree.
    Block's reporting has been previously criticized by:
    • the Royal College of Surgeons's LGBT group[21]
    • The UK's Association of LGBT Doctors and Dentists[22]
    • the British Medical Association[23]: We have recently written to the BMJ, which is editorially independent, to challenge its article “Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement” and express our concern, that alongside criticisms made by LGTBQ+ organisations such as GLADD and neurodivergent doctors, in our view, it lacks equality, diversity and inclusion awareness and patient voice. That the article has been used by transphobic lobby groups around the world is of particular concern to us.
    Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to discredit something/someone doesn't inherently make someone a conspiracy theorist.
    Reed cites emails produced as part of the case against the Florida ban showing that Cass met with members of the Florida team and they exchanged information. [24] Collaboration does not require someone to be a co-author, and meeting people and sharing information as Cass did would fit most people's definition of the word. Given that the court challenge (which was successful [25]) received plenty of coverage and none about evidence falsification despite the obvious massive scandal that would be, it seems the emails are legitimate. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Colin, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. That you, personally, believe that it's a good description is not sufficient. Do you have any RS that uses that phrase to describe her? If not, then you should retract your use of the phrase. WP:BLP says "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." The BLP policy applies to RSN discussions. There is some leeway given to editors' statements outside of articles, so that editors can present their arguments (e.g., on talk pages, on noticeboards), but unsourced contentious material doesn't belong on any page. Unless you have an RS that uses that phrase about her, your claim, no matter how strongly you believe it, is contentious and should be retracted. And I join Simonm223. Your last paragraph "is something of a failure of WP:AGF" about your fellow editors. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Em, wrt your and Simonnm223's supposed claim of failure of WP:AGF, my comment in the last paragraph is based on conversations with editors. For example, one summarised my support of the Cass Review as "This is built on or is a systematic review, therefore it is automatically reliable evidence according to MEDRS" and contrasted this with their take on it: "was put together by numerous names listed as major figures in fringe group SEGM who have expressed some wildly bigoted views on trans people in the past and have taken an active role in conservative politics, therefore it is not reliable evidence" and "a theoretically top MEDRS source that was ghostwritten by a fringe medical org".
    Wrt BLP violations, you have been here long enough to know the procedure. If you believe there's a BLP violation on this page, ask an admin quietly to delete it. But I think it probably best if you and I agree to disagree about whether this is one of those conspiracy theories that will turn out to be right all along. You relitigating the "dismissed over 100 studies" trope isn't impressive, as that's been argued to death by reliable sources. I get it you think Reed is a reliable source. The actual health service the report was commissioned for, and the neighbouring one in Scotland, disagree. Me, I'm going with the top UK health professionals being right on this one. You can side with the bedroom bloggers if you want. -- Colin°Talk 16:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest that discussion of other editors happen elsewhere, how editors edit or how editors behave doesn't make a source more or less reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I get it you think Reed is a reliable source." I haven't said anything like that. I haven't read enough of her work to have an opinion about it either way. Best not to assume that people believe things they haven't said or implied. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Reed is a respected journalist who covers the anti-LGBT movement and LGBT rights and has been awarded for her work. California's largest gay newspaper (The LA Blade) and America's oldest gay magazine (The Advocate) both think her work is reliable enough to republish and they aren't in the business of reposting any random blog.
    FactOrOpinion has covered how claims that Reed promoted misinformation are unfounded. The Cass Review isn't a WP:MEDRS as some have claimed. The systematic reviews were indeed MEDRS, but Cass's reports were non-peer reviewed works making false claims written by Cass and an anonymous team. One only has to look at Cass Review#Criticisms to see how suspicious is the claim it's the end all be all of trans healthcare.
    Finally, I find it funny that some are claiming Cass meeting with anti-trans activists is a negligible issue because she also met with 1000 trans kids and community organizations (she didn't say that, she said she met over 1000 people). Of the clinicians she surveyed, 34% said "there is no such thing as a trans child", and she never once noted that this is bullshit.[26][27] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No for the reasons I gave above and because of what Void if removed, Sweet6970 and Colin have said and the evidence and argument they have provided. Zeno27 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in this case. Misspelling the name of the article's primary subject, and copying the article from Substack with no changes at all, are a clear indication that the article did not undergo strong editorial review before publication. The article in question uses the byline "Special to the LA Blade". This byline is used whenever the paper reposts articles from other media outlets verbatim, and even for publishing promotional articles about NGOs that the NGOs write themselves (see [28] and [29], where the authors' conflict of interest is not made clear to the reader). The level of editorial control for these "special" articles is unclear, which makes them plainly insufficient for supporting controversial claims. Astaire (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The article defines Reed's piece as Political commentary & analysis, a section whose bylines are all reporters and journalists.[30] Of the two pieces by NGO's you cited, the first is labelled "viewpoint", not a republication, and clearly attributed to "Amie Bishop and Kendra Hughbanks", about whom it says "Amie Bishop is director of humanitarian and global development programs for Outright International and Kendra Hughbanks is a guest writer for Outright International." [31] The second is labelled "commentary", is not a republication, and says "Written By AIDAN CURRIE and ZEKE STOKES".[32]
      All articles by writers who aren't in-house seem to be labelled "Special to the LA Blade" in addition to having a byline of the author and a description of the article type. You can't compare "commentary" and "viewpoint pieces" that aren't republications and already to be treated with suspicion per WP:RS with explicit republishing of a journalist under "political commentary and analysis" just because both have the "not-an-in-house-writer" tag. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't compare "commentary" and "viewpoint pieces" that aren't republications and already to be treated with suspicion per WP:RS with explicit republishing of a journalist under "political commentary and analysis"
      Well yes, actually we can, because if you go to the LA Blade's "Political Commentary and Analysis" category, guess which article is displayed front and center? (archive)
      So the LA Blade is classifying what appears to be a paid editorial under the "political commentary and analysis" tag, the same tag being used for the article under debate.
      We know far too little about the paper's editorial controls, and what little we know doesn't look good. Astaire (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Where it is labelled "commentary", not "political analysis and commentary" like all the content on the left of the page. The page also includes a section on the right with many newly published/popular stories, none of which are marked "commentary" or "political analysis and commentary".
      Furthermore, if you click the "commentary" at the top of that editorial, you get to "https://www.losangelesblade.com/category/health/commentary-health/opinions/". Meanwhile, political analysis and commentary's page is "https://www.losangelesblade.com/category/news/political-news/political-commentary-analysis/".
      One is marked news, the other is marked opinion/commentary. A link to a clearly labelled commentary on a news page doesn't mean it stops being commentary, or the news stops being news. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If it's a "commentary" piece and not a "political analysis and commentary" piece, then it should not be displayed as a headliner on the "political analysis and commentary" page.
      Either it's an error that has gone unnoticed and uncorrected for the past 4 months, or they're being incentivized to put it there. Neither one speaks well of the editorial team. Astaire (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-ish As I noted above I can see the argument that a SPS, published by a RS would become reliable assuming the RS applied their own editing to the article. My pre-print journal article on some lab work is self published until the Journal of Something publishes it. Then it becomes scholarship. Astaire's observation that the source uses a special byline for these articles as well as when republishing statements from NGOs strongly supports the view that these are not published with full editorial oversite. They would be more like a guest essay/OpEd and should be treated as such. The alternative requires actually scrutinizing the work as Colin and others have done. If we put full editorial ownership on LAB then the serious identified issues with the article/source are now owned by the LAB. As editors have noted in prior discussions, if a RS republishes something from the Daily Wire Wikipedia editors would ask if the republishing source should be viewed as a RS. I would say that is the case here. The issues observed by Colin et al are serious enough that if we are going to assign editorial responsibility to LAB then we should be discussing the credibility of LAB as a source. At this point I would say they are a "use with caution" and generally used for perspectives rather than facts and certainly not for analysis/criticism to MED topics. Certainly they should not be used as a source for valid criticism of the Cass Report which was the original question here. Springee (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes per Your Friendly Neighborhood's point above about the editorial standards of The LA Blade (California's largest gay newspaper) and The Advocate (America's oldest gay magazine). They appear to use Reed as a subject expert and republish her work with occasional editing which indicates her articles are going through their review process. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Once a self-published source is published by another source, then it is no longer self-published for the purposes of WP:BLPSPS, and normal reliability analysis is done on the source doing the publishing. The LA/Washington Blade has a reputation as a reliable source and has explicitly named Reed as a contributor.[33] As for Reed, she has won awards for her reporting. [34][35]. The factual concerns with Reed brought up in this thread, presumably the most damning examples, seem to be extremely uncharitable readings instead of serious factual errors. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Boris Johnson won an award for his journalism. It doesn't make one a reliable source. The misinformation presented here is just a small sample of statements that have required FAQs to counter and even an MP apologising to the house. Many of us are deeply sympathetic to the cause Reed advocates for, but not at all impressed that in the US, activism on both sides has no concern for facts, and quite willing to make false statements and hold to them in the presence of rebuttal. That has no place as a source on Wikipedia. -- Colin°Talk 17:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      constant allusion to how erin reed is spreading conspiracy seems wrong:
      • FullFact [36] confirms that Cass Review said more than 100 studies were not high-quality in its lit review. It also says it was misleading to suggest all the studies are "dismissed", but not far from the truth.
      • One preprint sleighted for publication in Lancet [37] suggests that weighing of studies as high-quality was arbitrary. Other white papers [38] have identified that GRADE was not applied, only terminology was borrowed, in significant departure from other review articles in the field.
      • Criticism of how Cass Review did systematic weighing of literature seems widespread. Attributing criticism should be allowed on wikipedia.
      Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't, but it shows that Reed is not just some random crank as others have claimed (e.g. in the vein of some old Huffington Post/Forbes contributors). Searching for variants of "Los Angeles/Washington Blade" in close proximity with "contributor" shows that the Blade outlets are pretty selective with who can contribute, similar to other reputable news orgs. Others have already addressed the issues with attributing general misconceptions to Reed, so I won't repeat it. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No (with this specific case). They aren't claiming to take editorial oversight for this article, it's not like academia where we know someone peer reviewed it in depth. That someone clicked a button and reposted it does not equate to that, especially since they aren't taking responsibility for the story. It's like an AP/wire story or Yahoo News/MSN, except the original source is SPS so that is inherited no matter where it pops up. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      especially since they aren't taking responsibility for the story Can you explain this? I don't understand how publishing it alongside the rest of their content isn't taking responsibility for it. It's not like this is part of a "posts we like!" vertical or section. They have chosen to publish it without caveat. Parabolist (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Does Yahoo News or MSN take responsibility for what they aggregate? No, because it's clearly marked as a story from somewhere else. The fact that it is not algorithmic makes little difference. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in this case. I think there could be cases where if a reliable source republishes something like this, exercising actual editorial control and fact checking over it, that could count as them essentially "vouching" for it and make it reliable. But in this case, where it clearly wasn't even proofread before republication, that shows that the republishers were exercising minimal if any editorial control and checking on it, so it does not gain any imprimatur of reliability from them. In that case, it's essentially like an uncritical copy and paste of a press release, and that does not make the reprinted press release a bit more reliable or independent than the original. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for the reasons laid out by YFNS, Silverseren, and Bluethricecreamman Bejakyo (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Erin Reed, LA Blade, and Cass Review)

    [edit]

    Making a discussion tab for RFC, also to ask users to avoid WP:BLUDGEONy responses, especially in poll section.

    @User:Void if removed, you added 6,616 words out of the total 20,626 words in this entire section (35%). 28 out of the 132 total responses (21%) in the entire section are from you. @User:Colin, you added 1717 words out of the 11,917 words in the RFC subsection alone (15%).

    Could you please try to avoid repeating and keep responses shorter for readability? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bluethricecreamman, seriously, just drop the RFC. That's well out of line for you to pull out two editors you disagree with and ignore the voluminous contributions of editors you agree with or your own (and no, I'm not interested in the numbers).
    It is ironic that a debate on a source of misinformation about a medical report was from the get-go corrupted by your false claim that Reed's work was "lightly edited" by LAB. It has taken you three days to finally strike that claim. But that vitally misinformative untruth remains repeated and used as evidence for LAB supposedly enhancing the reliability of Reed's blog by Simonm223 and YFNS, who have yet to strike. Ironic that it is this sort of "false claim, highly convenient to the argument and retained in the face of debunking" is what medical editors are facing on Wikipedia, from both sources and their fellow editors.
    Bluethricecreamman, this has no hope of succeeding. Aside from the the blog being a well documented source of medical misinformation about the Cass Review... No admin could close in your favour when your opening claim about the source was in fact false. The truth all along was that LAB copy/paste Reed's work and they have clearly no editorial or fact checking process in place, as laughably demonstrated by the subject of the article being spelled incorrectly multiple times. And given that Reed has herself corrected the mistake on her substack (no doubt after much mocking on Twitter) and the LAB has not, it fails one of the tests of a reliable source that it corrects errors. LAB's reprints of Reed's blog are actually less reliable than Reed's blog. Snowball close. -- Colin°Talk 19:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    responding to me pointing out gigantic bludgeony responses by making another gigantic bludgeony response Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cass Review is a well documented source of misinformation about trans healthcare (such as Cass's repeated unevidenced claim that most trans kids grow out of it, support of gender exploratory therapy, pathologization of trans people, and etc) and Reed's piece has not been conclusively shown to be misinformation as you claim. As one my favorite medical editors, I continue to be at a loss for how you attack every single criticism of the Cass Review as supposed misinformation. Is there a single thing you think the Cass Review did wrong?
    And this obviously shouldn't be snowclosed, it's split pretty evenly. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a single thing you think the Cass Review did wrong?
    A naive trust that evidence-based medicine would speak for itself. Failing to anticipate the ensuing attempts to discredit it from those deeply invested in litigation in the US, and so not planning for a followup to address the pernicious misinformation from those quarters. Void if removed (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the Cass Review evidence-based medicine? It was never published in a scientific journal, or went through peer-review. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, the non-peer reviewed report, written by an anonymous team and Cass, criticized by just about every trans adult and kid in the UK, every trans rights org in the UK, every trans academic in the UK who's written about it, every LGBT doctors group in the UK, and medical groups worldwide - which made objectively false statements like "most kids grow out of being trans", refers to kids 100% sure they're trans as "gender-questioning", and has received it's harshest criticism from trans people in the UK effected by it - has only been criticized because all of them care soooooo much about US politics....
    Frankly, that's ridiculously insulting to all trans people/kids/orgs/academics in the UK. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only is it not peer-reviewed, the Final Report is also self-published (author = Cass Review, publisher = Cass Review), without any clear editorial expertise. Per WP:MEDRS: Ideal sources for biomedical material include (1) literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), (2) recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or (3) medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies. (1) doesn't apply, as it's self-published and Cass' recommendations are ultimately her own opinion. (2) doesn't apply because it's not a textbook and Cass was, intentionally, a non-expert in the topic. (3) doesn't apply because the report is, again intentionally, independent of the NHS, isn't published by it, and doesn't serve as a medical guideline (such as a NICE guideline would). She's also not a "national or international expert body" (although WPATH, USPATH, etc, are, ironically). Lewisguile (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for my part in that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, replying to direct questions from half dozen editors who piled onto my vote isn't WP:BLUDGEON. However, I will note you gave a reply to someone else under my vote on the matter of the reliability of Erin Reed stating i argue the question i pose in the RFC includes that, provoking even more questions asking for my responses, on ever more complex subjects.
    You caused this - and you made none of this scope clear in your RFC, and settled none of this in WP:RFCBEFORE.
    This is why it is a bad RFC. Void if removed (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Brandolini's law. I rest my case. -- Colin°Talk 18:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note that if the discussion keeps growing in the same way it has been, then it will have to be moved off to a separate page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    would like post to remain on RSP\N for a bit longer to see if folks are still interested in responding. Been about 3-4 days so far, would like another few days to see if convo keeps growing too much. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just pre-warning. It's grown to 3/5ths the size of the last Telegraph RFC (which was page breakingly large) in four days and there's still another 30 days left on the RFC, if it keeps growing at that rate it will have to be moved after a few more days. As with the Heritage Foundation RFC notification would be left here as long as the RFC is open. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the time this RFC was opened, it has been reported that a top editor at the LA Blade between June 2022 and June 2024 (the timeframe of this article's publication) was allegedly living under a false identity while being a fugitive sex offender: [39] [40] Sources are unclear about what this individual's precise role at the LA Blade was: Lynne Brown, co-founder and owner of Brown Naff Pitts OmniMedia, Inc.—the parent company of the Los Angeles Blade and Washington Blode—told The Advocate that Levesque was an editor at the publication, but never Editor-in-Chief. However, he was introduced as Editor-in-Chief multiple times by the late Troy Masters, former publisher of the Los Angeles Blade. Looking at the LA Blade masthead (e.g. pg. 14 of this link), it's not clear whether the LA Blade actually has an "editor-in-chief" position, possibly because it is a subsidiary of the Washington Blade. However, the individual in question is the only one listed as an "editor" in the masthead, besides the "national editor" Kevin Naff who is at the Washington Blade. Should this development be seen as a strike against the LA Blade's reliability, at least for this time period? Astaire (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "National Editor" would be the senior editor (and equivalent of "Editor-in-Chief") in this case.
    Ordinarily, the names would appear on the masthead in the order of seniority, but that's thrown off by the "Contributing Writer" coming above the editors. But if you check their online masthead, there's both a "Local News Editor" and a "National Editor". Which suggests "Editor" alone refers to the former.
    As LA Blade is a subsidiary of WaBlade, Naff would appear to have seniority and ultimate editorial accountability. Naff is also one of the founders (LA Blade and WaBlade are owned by "Brown Naff Pitts OmniMedia, Inc").
    Either way, this news may indicate a need to return to the topic of this particular publication in a few months anyway, once there's more info. For now, it's hard to gauge what impact, if any, the alleged criminality would have had on the quality of the news itself during that period. It may prove to have no bearing at all. Lewisguile (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, no? Criminal acts committed by an employee of a publication don't have any bearing on the reliability of the publication unless proven otherwise. Loki (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here[41] is an LA Blade article which has the following in the footer: Brody Levesque is the Editor-in-Chief of the Los Angeles Blade and a veteran journalist.. The Advocate casts doubt on his claimed CV, so "veteran journalist" is probably false. It's only been a couple of weeks since the story broke, so perhaps they haven't got round to issuing a correction yet...
    Some criminal acts may have no bearing on an employee's work, but offences of dishonesty are more damaging to a role where integrity is paramount. A sweeping deception like this is fatal to trust. When we declare a source generally reliable, we are declaring trust in its editors. We have to trust them, because we cannot check their work for them. If the editors are untrustworthy, then yes, it's absolutely a strike against that publication's reliability. Doubly so if it's the editor-in-chief. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If the LA Blade republishes a Substack article with a bunch of typos from the original version left intact, that surely undermines the reliability of that publication, and yes, that is republishing and SPS since there was apparently limited or no editorial oversight.Manuductive (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    More generally, I believe that the Lemkin Institute is unreliable, at least regarding American politics and transgender issues, due to their repeated promotion of baseless conspiracy theories (see my comment on Talk:Cass Review). Partofthemachine (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly I think Lewisguile's reply on that point says it better than I could. Loki (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives is user-generated content. There is long-standing consensus since 2007, and affirmed in 2015, that Encyclopaedia Metallum/Metal Archives is thus unreliable. It nonetheless constantly gets added as a source, including for highly contentions BLP statements (such as this edit to - redundantly - verify a band playing National Socialist black metal). It is sometimes used as an external link, which generally, as far as I understand, possibly acceptable, although other databases - Spirit of Metal, Discogs, etc. - often contain similar information. Also, if you run a search for uses of the site, it also is listed on numerous album cover images as the source for fair use. That is incorrect copyright attribution and technically a copyright violation (the original publisher or media itself should be listed). Essentially, nearly every single instance of this source across thousands of pages is in violation of either consensus against user-generated content or else technically commits a copy-right violation. I've tried to clean this up on some articles, but there's thousands. Over at the spam blacklist proposals page, one editor said that that venue isn't sufficient to blacklist a source used on that many pages, while another editor pointed out the copyright violation issue and said that would be a reason for blacklisting. I'm hoping a stronger consensus can emerge here as to whether or not the source should be deprecated, or even blacklisted.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference it's currently used in a little under 3,000 articles[42]. Blacklisting requires that all links are cleared before the blacklisting, as otherwise anyone editing an affected article will be stopped from saving their edit (until the link is removed). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this new? That is not how I thought this worked. mftp dan oops 18:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was my takeaway from the 'instruction for admins' in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly was referring to the latter portion of your statement. From my previous experience - though it has not happened to me in a while - if a link is blacklisted and remains on the page after listing, it is still possible to edit the page, but never possible to introduce new blacklisted links. This happened to me on Ice Nine Kills last year. An editor made several edits in a row - most of which were inappropriate - but they removed a blacklisted link in the process, so I couldn't revert them with my gadget. Maybe it works differently if you're saving edits in a subsection that doesn't contain the problem link. Or maybe something really has changed. mftp dan oops 19:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange my past experience has been to run into the red warning message, it hasn't happened in a while though so maybe something was changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible your edit appeared to MW as though you were removing the link in one place and adding it in another? There are ways for something to look as though it was being added in the diff when it was really just being “moved” because you changed something upstream. — HTGS (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a neutrally or briefly worded RfC, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. Your opening statement should be something like "Should the Encyclopedia Metallum be deprecated?" You are not allowed to have a long section supporting your opinion as the RfC lead. This is what your response section should be. As such I've removed the RfC tag until this properly formatted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for correcting the formatting. I hadn't originally composed this as an RfC, and didn't manage to correct the wording and formatting completely.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I think the source ought to be deprecated. I'm actually surprised we hadn't done it already, it's grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia trying to be serious. There is nothing I could imagine that it could provide of any value. mftp dan oops 19:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is obviously UGC and should be washed off of WP Zanahary 19:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought we already did this but yeah deprecate it. It's user generated and definitely should be deprecated without any question. —Sparkle and Fade (talkcontributions) 05:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it should be deprecated, but it can be used with certain restrictions. It's not a good source for events or actions of people because of its user-submitted nature. I think it can be used for a band's member list or to determine a band's music genre. TurboSuperA+ () 16:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's any living people in the band, it CANNOT be used even to confirm band membership. But, even aside that, it's still user generated and so even if it's used for a band of now all dead people or being used for music genres, it's not a reliable source.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Encyclopaedia Metallum

    [edit]

    Should the Encyclopaedia Metallum (also known as Metal Archives) be deprecated? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses - Encyclopaedia Metallum

    [edit]

    Discussion - Encyclopaedia Metallum

    [edit]

    Don't have a strong opinion, but I thought it was best to have a properly formatted RfC on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for cleaning up my mess.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I first went to the spam blacklist with this, but they said they need more consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with ActivelyDisinterested Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If the source is blacklisted, I think maybe an exception should be made for the main page url specifically, so it can be linked to from the relevant Wikipedia article. I also think it's fine if that main url continues to be linked to as an external link on the Heavy metal music page. Those are the only acceptable uses that I've encountered.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You're mixing up deprecation and blacklisting. Only blacklisting stops you from adding a url, deprecation just causes a warning message. So any registered editor can still add the homepage url if it's appropriate, a link on its article page would be covered by WP:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. External links have their own guidance (WP:EL) and noticeboard (WP:ELN). WP:Reliable sources only covers sources used for WP:Verifiability. External links from deprecated sources are allowed but somewhat discouraged -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Blacklisting has been mentioned (by myself and others) as a possibility in addition to deprecation, which is why I thought I'd mention it.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 01:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Benzinga

    [edit]

    Is Benzinga [43]:

    Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Benzinga)

    [edit]
    • Option 3 Benzinga is a DBA of Accretive Capital LLC. The site presents itself as a market intel firm a la Bloomberg; it appears to be a combination of original content about U.S. business produced by India-based staff writers [44], press release distribution, sponsored content, syndicated articles, and "contributors" (a la WP:FORBESCON).
      • The site says it sells sponsored content but I can't find any examples of such content, leading me to suspect it's unlabeled.
      • At least one of the "contributors" is also a public relations practitioner (see: [45] and [46]) and the column in question gives very strong sponsored content vibes, though there's no disclaimer.
      • When I run "according to Benzinga" and "Benzinga reported" through Google News, I can find nothing other than articles on Benzinga itself.
      • At the bottom of the website it carries the disclaimer "Opinions expressed here are solely the author’s and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by reviewers." which seems to indicate there's no gatekeeping process.
      • I can find no ethics statement or corrections policy.
    In 2020 [47], Benzinga was sued by GEICO who alleged misappropriation of the GEICO trademark on Benzinga. The case was resolved with a consent decree by which Benzinga agreed not to make "false statements of fact, orally or in writing, about GEICO". (Government Employees Insurance Company v. Accretive Capital LLC, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland). This appeared to relate to a sponsored content or advertising block, as opposed to editorial content. In October [48], it settled a lawsuit alleging it was mass sending spammy text messages (Nichols v. Accretive Capital LLC, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan). Chetsford (talk) Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Benzinga)

    [edit]

    An editor is referencing the Media and Journalism Research Center across Wikipedia to classify news media as state media or not.

    [edit]
    Unresolved

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    @CommonKnowledgeCreator is making edits across wiki to establish Media and Journalism Research Center as a central authority to classify news media as state media or not. We need to discuss first and classify Media and Journalism Research Center as reliable source before making Media and Journalism Research Center as a central authority that tells you which one is state media and which aren't.

    Please see https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Daily&diff=prev&oldid=1270307767

    https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=China_Internet_Information_Center&diff=prev&oldid=1270458534

    https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=TVB_Jade&diff=prev&oldid=1270521962

    https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=China_Media_Group&diff=prev&oldid=1270307086

    https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Oriental_Sports_Daily&diff=prev&oldid=1270461804

    https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Radio_France&diff=prev&oldid=1269532532

    and more Astropulse (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is maybe the wrong place. What is state-run and what isn't is a matter of opinion to a degree. How do we class the BBC, for example? It clearly serves a function for the British state at times but retains a large degree of independence. The MJRC is a serious organisation that gives an opinion on these issues, the question is more whether this opinion, and this opinion alone, is due on every single article regarding a media organisation.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree, reliable for their opinion -whether than opinion should be included isn't a reliability matter. As WP:DUE and WP:BALASP are part of WP:NPOV. For reference see also recent attempted changes to WP:NOT, WP:Independent sources, WP:Advocacy and WP:No disclaimers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say that they do look a lot better than MediaBiasFactCheck or their various ilk. But, yeah, let's keep those statements out of Wiki voice and properly attribute. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get me started on MBFS and such, they are all complete trash. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    GREL Removing MJRC from its rightful place as a respected source on state-sponsored manipulation of information only serves to protect dictators and corrupt regimes who seek to control information to strengthen their power over society. The question of whether a news outlet is state-controlled or independent is not subjective or a matter of mere opinion. MJRC employs a transparent and rigorous scholarly methodology for making such assessments.[52] The fact that an outlet is funded by a government, like the BBC, or NPR, is just one of several metrics considered in assessing its independence. Led by respected expert Marius Dragomir, whose work is featured and been cited in respected books and academic journals[53][54] the MJRC has strong academic foundations, having evolved from the well-established Center for Media, Data, and Society[55]. Its research is widely cited in reputable journals, and its collaborations with universities further enhance its factual credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuductive (talkcontribs)

    • This is a media watchdog, on the left side of the spectrum (supported by George Soros I think). The question is not if they are "respected", rather why this watchdog organization and not others. What is the balance, what is the intention, what is being said in the article. It's tricky to incorporate into an existing article. If someone is simply pasting in a paragraph of canned text, in lots of article, then it's not being done well and will raise red flags, and may not survive the long term. -- GreenC 07:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a good service they're doing. The source is clearly GREL and their findings are due. These diffs are all related to CPC-run media. If there are other sources that weigh against it and somebody feels the need to add those other sources for neutrality then that would be the way to go. Manuductive (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor in question has copied the statement into about 100 articles. I don't consider the Media and Journalism Research Center as WP:REPUTABLE. It’s more of an opinion, but their edits make it look like it’s a fact. Astropulse (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Why do you believe it is not reputable? -- GreenC 17:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Truthfully, given the seriousness of the WP:FAIT issue - if they've really been copy-pasting this into 100 articles without discussion and refuse to revert when challenged, I would actually take it to WP:ANI; FAIT is a conduct issue, not a content dispute. The entire problem is that enacting a change via fait makes it extremely difficult to meaningfully dispute. And at the very least discussion here makes it clear there's not a consensus to have it used indiscriminately in this manner. --Aquillion (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not "massive paragraphs". Here is one of the diffs[56] which renders as:

    As of September 2024, the Media and Journalism Research Center of the Central European University evaluated the People's Daily to be "State Controlled Media" under its State Media Matrix.[1][2]

    I guess the only way to make this even more concise is to start taking out information: The Media and Journalism Research Center classified People's Daily as "State Controlled Media". Honestly, it seems pretty due in that context. Manuductive (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's a reliability issue, more of a WP:DUE one. For instance, this change was unnecessary as the article already said that this outlet is state-owned. At most, it should've been a reference.

    On the other hand, here it adds important information to the article. I'd urge the editor not to make these changes en masse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaexis (talkcontribs) 21:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. This is not the right noticeboard for dealing with an editor who isn't so careful with making sure the sources are weighted properly in the context of each article. Manuductive (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies to all for the delay in my reply. Other than the editor who opened this thread, it appears that all of the editors who have left comments here have expressed the sentiment that this Noticeboard is the wrong the place for this discussion. I agree with this sentiment. As for the question of the MJRC's reliability as a source under WP:RS (since at least one other editor appears to expressed some concern about reliability), this was discussed in an earlier discussion on this Noticeboard. I would reiterate what I said in that discussion (which I was reiterating in turn from what I said in a discussion on the Al Jazeera Media Network talk page that had been opened by the same editor who opened this discussion and a discussion with a different editor on my talk page):

    the "[Media and Journalism Research Center]'s research has been cited in research published by the European Journal of Communication in 2024 and The Political Quarterly in 2024, while MJRC director Marius Dragomir authored and contributed to UNESCO reports in 2020 and 2022 about journalism and editorial independence, and also contributed a chapter in an edited volume published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2024. The MJRC's State Media Matrix research appears to basically overlap with this work. Dragomir has also had academic papers of his own published in Digital Journalism in 2021, in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications in 2024, and in the European Journal of Communication in 2024".

    Per the MJRC's about page, they receive funding from the Open Society Foundations founded by George Soros, but it does not appear that their funding is not exclusively from them. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As such, I think this discussion should be closed and resumed at the NPOV Noticeboard where the editor who opened this thread has also opened a discussion. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "People's Daily". State Media Monitor. Media and Journalism Research Center. September 23, 2024. Retrieved January 18, 2025.
    2. ^ "Typology". State Media Monitor. Media and Journalism Research Center. May 25, 2022. Retrieved January 14, 2025.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Use of US government sources after January 20, 2025

    [edit]

    Given that the Trump admin has now implemented Project 2025 and is in the process of rolling it out, are US government sources still reliable after January 20, 2025? I would like to suggest that they are not. Trump just banned the Associated Press from the White House, and removed factual information from all US government websites that goes against the beliefs of his right wing donors. Furthermore, there is an ongoing attempt to gut all US agencies and destroy their data collecting processes and best practices. I would therefore like to submit the controversial proposal that all US government sources dated after January 20, 2025, that are used in Wikipedia articles be deprecated and that a perennial listing be entered. I realize this is a controversial proposal, but it is best to get on top of things with the AP being banned from the White House. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say that it is way too soon to know whether politics has changed the reliability of US Government sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What would your recommended time frame be to determine this? My take, based on what I've read over the last month, is that we already know that the reliability has changed for the worse. Full deprecation is obviously not called for, but I am calling for an entry over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with at least a yellow-coded warning. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    About 10 years. By then actual historians will be able to assess the reliability of these primary sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of metric might have been true, let's say, in 1974, when the world moved a lot slower. But we no longer live in that world. Ten years in modern time is almost 100 years of compressed data and information, if you compare it to 1900, maybe more. It's cute that you're using an old way to gauge today, but I would like to suggest that no longer works. Also, as we've seen in the Ronald Reagan topic area, "historians" can be compromised, as they spent decades rewriting the history around Reagan and his legacy at the behest of right wing donors. I think the best way to gauge whether US government sources are reliable is to see how academic researchers, disciplines, fields, topics, and data sources are being systemically eliminated in favor of non-academic versions of all of those things. And we already have evidence this has happened, so I argue that deprecation should occur now, not ten years from now. And frankly, there's no field I can think of today that would say "wait ten years" for a similar evaluation. That's a perfectly fine view to have, but as you can see, buggies and horses are no longer on the streets, and the world is a different place than the one you once you knew. Your thinking has to change along those lines as well to accommodate the new world. Nobody should have to wait ten years for anything, and I find the suggestion deeply insulting. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    very concerned about future reliability but we cannot rule out preemptively until significant evidence proves otherwise
    need either exposes suggesting significant hollowing out of all institutions to suggest us gov is unreliable immediately (worse case) or evaluation by historians in 10yrs User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    more specifically exposes suggesting systematic printing of misinformation by an agency. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have evidence of all of those things and experts detailing the evidence. I can name dozens of experts. You can start with Steven G. Brint. We already know about the "systematic printing of misinformation" as its been covered extensively over the last several weeks.[57][58][59] Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest: I think Wikipedia has been too trusting of US government sources for a long time. I would be interested to review the evidence Viriditas provided above. Simonm223 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I've read them. The Reuters piece is particularly damning. Normally when I grumble about US sources I mean intelligence agencies and congressional publications; the idea that the CDC is being subjected to these overtly political censorship measures is deeply alarming. Simonm223 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FEMA too [60]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And OSHA. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You better believe NOAA is under that bold text too. Departure– (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is grim. NOAA is the main pillar holding up every single article about Atlantic hurricanes / Atlantic hurricane seasons. I've been dreading the thought of them being under threat since I first learned that Project 2025 aims to shutter the agency entirely, and it seems like attacks on the organization have already started. Atlantic hurricane articles used to be among the easiest to write — all the meteorological information you could ever need is already provided for you courtesy of NOAA; all it took was enough news articles to demonstrate notability and you could easily turn a section about a storm into a standalone page. If they're censored heavily enough, forced to spread misinformation (not hard to imagine since it's happened before), or worse, subjected to enough attacks from DOGE or executive orders that they're unable to operate as effectively as they used to, coverage of weather events that's as in-depth as we're used to will simply not be possible. I wouldn't downgrade NOAA's reliability just yet, but I worry for the future.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    those are deletions. we can't rule a publisher unreliable (yet) because it tried to unpublish trustworthy info.
    If the CDC starts printing verifiably false info about trans topics, about ivermectin, etc. then we need to reevaluate, but preemptive action is too much.
    I think we can see the start of evidence there is malfeasance though... but smoke doesn't always mean forestfire. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't those primary sources anyway? What would you reference with them, other than "according to the US goverment..." and variants? Cambalachero (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For one, almost all of Wikiproject Weather references NOAA and their sub-branches very frequently, far beyond the light attributed use mentioned here. This is a development I can't say I didn't see coming but one I am still not exactly enthusiastic about. Departure– (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the event there are people here who have been asleep like Merrick Garland for the last five years, this happened. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many instances where primary sources from US political institutions are used to make statements in wikivoice. This has always been something a bit wrong, but until recently it hasn't been a contentious issues (outside of highly politicised house or congress reports).
    I don't think there's anything to be done at this moment, rather it's a wait and see issue that editors should be aware of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would keep it as generally reliable (including for government articles) per the status quo unless info comes out that directly contradicts the reliability. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I suppose stuff from USG would also be used for weather etc? In the UK our main weather service is state run.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    USGS is for geology, NOAA is for weather. They are both state run. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not deprecate sources for lack of information; we deprecate them for misinformation. We are not there yet, that I've seen.... and even when we are, archive sources of pre-2025 government websites are legitimate (the majority are in the public domain, so no conflicts on archives) should still be reasonable for existing references. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Making US government sources deprecated purely because they disagree with your opnions is against wikipedia policies. I don't believe that it has become less reliable(hell, i think it's more reliable considering there is less left wing misinfo on stuff like LGBT topics) solely because there is a new government which is right wing; on the same topic, nearly any right-wing, pro-chinese and pro-russian sources have been called "Misinformation" "propanganda" and have been deprecated(which is causing some issues as russian-ukrainian war related articles are extremely biased towards ukraine and many sources which can improve wikipedia's coverage of the chinese military cannot be used). Now, i'm not saying that some of them don't have misinfo or propanganda, however I believe that maybe we should allow sources of other political viewpoints while staying as neutral as possible, and that sources with different opinions should NOT be deprecated(or at least, allow use of them in some contexts). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing presented here contains even the allegation, much less evidence, that even a single shred of false information was published by a USG source. If a state distorting and restricting access to information means Wikipedia should list them as deprecated on the Perennial Sources page, then maybe we should start with the People's Republic of China who are by several orders of magnitude a more egregious source of disinformation and censorship.[61] Manuductive (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    While I agree with the voices on here that reliability questions cannot be resolved preemptively, if any RS had announced its intention to sack a massive proportion of its staff and underwent the kind of politicised changes that the USG is right now, we would probably be having this discussion. As for China, we are exceptionally careful how we use data generated by states anyway, and we should really only be using any state, including the US, for attributed information on its own opinion and possibly completely apolitical geographical data.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like they have removed information which they perceive to not be aligned to their interests - as opposed to publishing false information. This is how bias works in practice: publish what makes you look good, ignore what make you look bad. It happens without telling a single lie. Thus, this is an issue of bias, not of reliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seconding Barnards and Bluethricecreamman. While everything this regime's doing is deeply concerning, there's no surefire proof that they've published outright falsehoods quite yet; rather, they've removed certain information that defies their narrative, which is moreso severe bias than misinformation. The 10-year timeline is a bit extreme imo, but for the moment this feels slightly preemptive, though worth keeping a close eye on.
    Adding to that, being a primary/government source they should be attributed in 99% of cases anyways, so it's not like their newfound issues should affect anything in Wikivoice. The Kip (contribs) 22:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we can gauge reliability on government sources this broadly. China, Russia, and other coutnries have disputable sources and those have not been censored broaly either. An adminstration is not the basis of reliability either. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't so much reliability, but how they editors tend to use such reports. They are at times (although rarely) used without attribution, and are often given a lot of prominence. This hasn't been such an issue, as most times their use has been uncontroversial. However if the current US administration continues to politicise it's civil service then the use of it as a source will have to be handled as we do with Russia, China or other governments. That is only used for their attributed opinion, and then only rarely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with much of what you mentioned. Attribution should be used either way with any governemnt source. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Government sources always needed to be taken with a grain of salt, this adds a bit of nuance in the context of the US but is not materially different than the challenges we face with government sources in most other countries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • US government sources are reliable sources for the opinion of whoever has database access. They may be used with proper attribution, e.g., "according to BasedBalls42088". XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The crackdown on science reminds me of Lysenkoism under Communism. Today it is just everything they don't like being removed so they can still be considered reliable even if biased like quality newspapers tend to be, but I think we've got to face the very real likelihood of quite bad falsehoods being put out soon. NadVolum (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes it's websites being taken down (not a real issue from our POV for existing articles), sometimes it's information being changed (much more problematic). Fram (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Now they're slapping a banner full of disinformation atop a website they were ordered by a court to restore [71]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    US GNIS whitewashed?

    [edit]

    Today's fractal ugliness in US government information systems: historic (but no longer extant) Native American settlements such as Buldam, California appear to have been removed from the US GNIS online gazetteer of the USGS (should be at https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/1724161); this is not the only one I tried. Non-Native-American former settlements such as the nearby Rockport, California have not been erased (https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/1659534). Unfortunately although the missing page is indexed by archive.org it does not seem to have made a good capture. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still seeing a record in Populated Places delimited text files:1724161|Buldam (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0but not in the downloadable database (which i assume National Map uses). Last modified time showing on both the files is "2025-01-10T19:48:45.000Z", so ugly but maybe not the ugly you are implying. fiveby(zero) 20:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein, although I haven't found anything to help with your specific query, I saw that a variety of places have been attempting to archive government data, some going back before Trump's inauguration; several are listed here and there are more if you click on "Data Rescue Efforts," which takes you to a Google doc. I may share this at the VPM as well. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know a few years ago they removed certain feature classes, including "post office" and I remember several of the GNIS entries for post offices disappearing around that time. I don't know that this would have affected the former Native American settlements, though, but it isn't unprecendented for GNIS to make big drops out of its data system. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried more non Native American former settlements? From the two examples shown, it's strikes me they could simply be removing all historical settlements. The presence of Rockport might simply be because, at least from what I see, it's not clear it's historical from the data they publicly show. (I.E. if they were doing a simple search of their database, they might not find it.) Were any of the other historic Native American settlements similarly unclear that they're historic settlements? Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried all of the places listed as "Former settlements" in Template:Mendocino County, California for which GNIS links were included. All of the ones that were former Native American settlements now are deadlinks. All of the ones that are not former Native American settlements are still live. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I was able to find [72] for Signal Port, California which is described as historical but still extant, so it's clearly not that. However something else struck me which I'll investigate further. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I'm fairly sure I've worked out what's going on. Going by the examples I looked at of Native American settlements from the above template which had disappeared, many of them said the precise location of the place is unknown in our articles. The extant examples I looked at in the US GNIS Map database had geographical coordinates. Going by what fiveby(zero) found, it seemed likely those unknown and/or 0.0 were about the geographical location or coordinates. Sure enough when I downloaded the file I found prim_lat_dms|prim_long_dms|prim_lat_dec|prim_long_dec is the end confirming that Buldam had no coordinates listed as would likely be the case for the other historic settlements where the precise location was unknown.
    Looking in the file I found these consecutive entries:
    42818|Olive City (historical)|Populated Place|Arizona|04|La Paz|012|Blythe|06/27/1984|06/07/2022||||333640N|1143133W|33.6111356|-114.5257879
    42834|Horse Thief|Populated Place|Arizona|04|Yavapai|025|Chino Valley South|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    42835|Branding Iron|Populated Place|Arizona|04|Pima|019|Sells East|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    42837|Crane|Populated Place|Arizona|04|Yuma|027|Roll|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    42842|Tusayan|Populated Place|Arizona|04|Coconino|005|Tusayan West|02/08/1980|06/07/2022|Official|Board Decision|01/01/1915|355825N|1120736W|35.9735954|-112.1265569
    
    If we check these, they are what we expect 42818, 42842 which have coordinates still work. 42834, 42835 and 42837 which don't have coordinates, are gone. Tusayan, Arizona is apparently not historical but Olive City, Arizona apparently is, as we might guess from the name. True, neither of these are Native American settlements and I have no idea if the other 3 are, but I'm also not sure if USGS easily knows.
    Another example:
    62589|Green Plains|Populated Place|Arkansas|05|Howard|061|Newhope|05/01/1992|06/07/2022||||340750N|0935709W|34.1306664|-93.952413
    62593|Harper Springs (historical)|Populated Place|Arkansas|05|Howard|061|Dierks|05/01/1992|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    62595|Henry|Populated Place|Arkansas|05|Howard|061|Athens|05/01/1992|06/07/2022||||341710N|0935638W|34.2862189|-93.9438049
    
    62589 and 62595 with coordinates still work but 62593 which doesn't have coordinates does not. Again no idea if Harper Springs is Native American.
    But I suspect at least one of these isn't a Native America settlement going solely by the names, otherwise chosen at semi random from places which have unknown locations:
    591687|Amberly of Kings Court|Populated Place|Maryland|24|Baltimore|005|Cockeysville|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    598329|Hills Landing (historical)|Populated Place|Maryland|24|Prince George's|033|Washington East|08/01/1992|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    730572|Albany (historical)|Populated Place|Missouri|29|Franklin|071|Union|02/01/1991|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    730582|Bavaria (historical)|Populated Place|Missouri|29|Franklin|071|Union|02/01/1991|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    855224|Williamsville (historical)|Populated Place|Nevada|32|Clark|003|Henderson|07/01/1991|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    863842|Canyon Station (historical)|Populated Place|Nevada|32|White Pine|033|Lusetti Canyon|07/01/1991|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1384127|Tri-Cities|Populated Place|Texas|48|Henderson|213|Athens|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1384129|Camelot|Populated Place|Texas|48|Bexar|029|San Antonio East|07/01/1993|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1435494|East Wellington|Populated Place|Utah|49|Carbon|007|Pine Canyon|02/25/1989|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1448445|Greenfield Village|Populated Place|Utah|49|Salt Lake|035|Salt Lake City South|02/25/1989|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    
    But all have disappeared consistent with the pattern of places without coordinates in the database disappearing. 591687, 598329, 730572 730582, 855224, 863842, 1384127, 1384129, 1435494, 1448445.
    Meanwhile I think these are likely Native America historic settlements:
    42921|Old Shongopavi (historical)|Populated Place|Arizona|04|Navajo|017|Shungopavi|06/27/1984|06/07/2022||||354816N|1103113W|35.8044496|-110.5204121
    1669334|Deertail Indian Village (historical)|Populated Place|Montana|30|Roosevelt|085|Sprole|11/07/1995|06/07/2022||||480511N|1050355W|48.0864078|-105.065254
    
    But as you might guess since they have coordinates, they're still in that map database 42921 (see [73]) & 1669334. I'm sure there are plenty more, but trying to find historical Native American settlements by name is difficult since even when you find candidates it's often difficult to find anything about them and plenty of non-Native American settlements have names that come from Native American languages in some way.
    About my earlier point, USGS clearly has more info on many of these than shown in the populated places text file you can download, e.g. if you compare the extant entries to their database there's more details. They might very well have more than is shown even there. But one thing which strikes me is it's unclear whether they even really have any info in their database marking which ones are Native American settlements. In other words, I'm not sure selective removing Native American settlements would actually be that easy especially done in such a short time since Trump took over.
    What they seem to have done i.e. remove places without geographical coordinates in their database is obviously fairly trivial, I mean anyone with a basic understanding of how to work with their database should be able to do it. Heck I'm fairly sure I could do it with the populated places text files imported into Excel or similar.
    As for why they did this I don't know. It likely disproportionately affected historic Native American settlements compared to others since I suspect it's more likely these will be in the database but with no geographical coordinates. However IMO it would be a mistake to assume this is the reason, it seems to me there are legitimate reasons why they'd want to remove such entries especially from the database used for their maps. Ideally they would keep them in some other publicly accessible database including all the information not in the populated places text file. Ideally also they'd spend further time investigating these and see if they can add geographical coordinates. Unfortunately while there's a reasonable chance these might have been part of the original plan, these might not happen now. (My guess is this is something planned and perhaps even implemented before Trump's second term.)
    P.S. I'm not that used to formatting code so anyone else is free to reformat this without asking if they feel there's a better way.
    Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, the first thing I investigated was the entries around Buldam, and these are consistent with the pattern. These ones are dead, all lack coordinates in the populated places text file. 1723913, 1723914, 1723964, 1723966, 1723969, 1723970, 1723979, 1723987, 1723988, 1724006, 1724010, 1724011, 1724013, 1724015, 1724018, 1724155, 1724161, 1724169, 1724175, 1724196, 1724208, 1724212, 1724233, 1724252 & 1724261.
    Meanwhile these have coordinates and all still work 1723910, 1723939, 1723943, 1723973, 1723976, 1723996, 1724007, 1724019, 1724035, 1724141, 1724158, 1724247, 1724277, 1724314 & 1724366.
    From the extant entries, I've now noticed during this write up that Eskini, California, Michopdo, California, Yuman, California all have info in the extant entries indicating these came from the Smithsonian Institution and are historic Native American settlements, something our articles seem to confirm. So more examples of historical Native American settlements with coordinates which still exist in the database. (I think most or all of the dead entries are all historic Native American settlements.)
    For completeness, here's the populated places text database entries. Note that some of these seem to come from the same source originally but whether they are removed depends solely on whether they have coordinates, although it looks like these also have other stuff which make them different. Again, I'm sure that there's more than we see here, but I'm not sure it will always be that simple to identify programmatically which are historic Native American settlements.
    Extended content
    1723910|Mount Hope House (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Yuba|115|Clipper Mills|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||393101N|1211304W|39.5168329|-121.2177382
    1723913|Bauka (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1723914|Bayu (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1723939|Dodgeland|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Llano Seco|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||393241N|1215428W|39.5446068|-121.9077539
    1723943|Eskini (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Chico|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||393840N|1214804W|39.6443289|-121.8010878
    1723964|Holhoto (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1723966|Hokomo (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1723969|Kalkalya (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1723970|Kulaiapto (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1723973|Lava Beds (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Palermo|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||392827N|1213413W|39.4740536|-121.570248
    1723976|Michopdo (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Chico|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||394355N|1215114W|39.7318277|-121.8538668
    1723979|Ololopa (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1723987|Otaki (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1723988|Paki (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1723996|Roble|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Chico|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||393952N|1214822W|39.6643286|-121.8060879
    1724006|Sunusi (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724007|Swedes Flat (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Rackerby|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||392648N|1212229W|39.446555|-121.3746865
    1724010|Tadoiko (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724011|Taikus (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724013|Totoma (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724015|Tsuka (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724018|Yauko (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Cherokee|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724019|Yuman (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Butte|007|Oroville|03/05/1997|06/07/2022||||393045N|1213329W|39.5123863|-121.5580257
    1724035|Hardin (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Asti|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||385222N|1225339W|38.8726804|-122.8941625
    1724141|Twin Rocks|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Tan Oak Park|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||394922N|1233355W|39.822653|-123.5652976
    1724155|Bokea (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724158|Brooktrails|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|01/18/2011||||392638N|1232307W|39.4437736|-123.3852887
    1724161|Buldam (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724169|Chomchadila (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724175|Dapishul (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724196|Hopitsewah (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724208|Lema (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724212|Masut (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724233|Moiya (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724247|Ridgewood Park|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Laughlin Range|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||391951N|1232029W|39.3307219|-123.3413978
    1724252|Shiegho (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724261|Ubakhea (historical)|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Burbeck|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||Unknown|Unknown|0.0|0.0
    1724277|Wanhala|Populated Place|California|06|Mendocino|045|Northspur|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||392815N|1233242W|39.4707187|-123.5450129
    1724314|Avocado Heights|Populated Place|California|06|Los Angeles|037|Baldwin Park|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||340210N|1175928W|34.0361217|-117.9911765
    1724366|Woodside Village|Populated Place|California|06|Los Angeles|037|Baldwin Park|03/06/1997|06/07/2022||||340115N|1175358W|34.0208448|-117.8995066
    
    Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

    [edit]

    Houston, we have a problem. NHTSA just awarded the Tesla Cybertruck a safety rating. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In case anyone else is interested in getting some context, like myself.
    1. Time How Elon Musk’s Anti-Government Crusade Could Benefit Tesla and His Other Businesses
    2. AP News Key things to know about how Tesla could benefit from Elon Musk’s assault on government
    3. cleantechnica.com Trump & Musk Will Quash NHTSA Investigation Of Tesla Full Self Driving System
    Cheers. DN (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that the NHTSA fabricated data to make Tesla look better? Because there's absolutely no evidence of that. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Musk is, in my opinion, a POS. However, their cars have a long history of doing well in government crash tests. While I would be very concerned for the driver of a Civic who is crushed by a Cybertruck driver using autopilot, this is basic crash testing. If evidence comes out that Musk actually manipulated things (like, in my opinion, he did with Tesla stock) then report it. However, let's not cry about the wolves until they are clearly about. Springee (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Videos by CNET

    [edit]

    From what I read at WP:CNET, CNet is no longer a reliable source it once was. Does this apply to YouTube videos (and other videos) made by CNet? George Ho (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    YouTube is just a host that organisation can publish on, the reliability of any YouTube video is the same as anything else published by that organisation. So the reliability of CNET's YouTube videos are no different from their website. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CNET has been sold by Red Ventures (the whole reason it was declared unreliable in the first place) and is now owned by Ziff Davis, who owns generally reliable publications like IGN. I therefore think its reliability should be reassessed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be reassessed. Also C|NET goes back to the 1990s, before problems noted existed. -- GreenC 07:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I was reading the RSP entry that thought crossed my mind. Given the changes over the years the entry should be updated. I think there was some AI concerns but their AI use policy[74] looks good now. I'd support changing it to "Additional considerations" and noting the period that caused concern. Interestingly the close[75] of the prior RFC details the different periods, but they weren't noted on the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope it's adjusted, before someone finds the hammer and sees nails everywhere causing a lot of damage. -- GreenC 22:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any interested editors can edit it, it's nothing special - normal editing rules apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that crosses my mind is that the reason their recent stuff (after their acquisition by Red Ventures in 2020) is considered unreliable is because of the use of AI to generate articles. Does this extend to video? --Aquillion (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      See the link in my comment, they seems to have curtailed their use of AI to generate content. I wouldn't trust that they didn't generate video scripts with AI under Red Ventures. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a timeline of CNET's ownership:
    • 1992 to June 2008: CNET Networks (formerly known as CNET, Inc.)
    • June 2008 to October 2020: CBS Interactive
    • October 2020 to October 2024: Red Ventures
    • October 2024 to present: Ziff Davis
    The March 2024 RfC on Red Ventures determined that "the online properties of Red Ventures are generally unreliable", building upon a highly-attended February 2023 discussion. which is the sole basis of These discussions are why CNET is currently being listed as generally unreliable in its perennial sources list entry. Because CNET has ceased being an online property of Red Ventures as of 1 October 2024, the "generally unreliable" designation from that RfC should not apply to any CNET articles published since that date, but the February 2023 discussion still currently applies.
    In its current incarnation, CNET's highest-quality content is its Cover Stories, which are originally reported feature stories with in-depth research (e.g. "Inside the Rise of 7,000 Starlink Satellites – and Their Inevitable Downfall"). CNET's full-length technology reviews (e.g. pre–October 2024 link removed) and technology reporting (e.g. "This Company Got a Copyright for an Image Made Entirely With AI. Here's How") seem to be of similar quality to other mainstream tech news sites, and I consider this content on CNET generally reliable. I do not see any evidence of LLMs being used to generate these articles.
    On the other hand, CNET's Deals are sponsored content and should be considered generally unreliable just like sponsored content from other online publications. CNET also publishes a large number of product comparison pages in the style of Wirecutter, such as "Best Electric Toothbrushes of 2025" and "Best Home Equity Loan Rates for February 2025", with affiliate links to each listed product. I consider these product comparison pages sponsored content (and therefore generally unreliable), and I believe there should be a broader discussion about affiliate-sponsored product review sites, whether they are part of a larger publication (e.g. The New York Times's Wirecutter) or not (e.g. Nexstar Media Group's BestReviews).
    A visit of CNET's home page shows that at least half of the content linked from CNET's home page is unacceptable sponsored content, or articles that are otherwise unsuitable for Wikipedia (e.g. "Today's NYT Mini Crossword Answers for Sunday, Feb. 16"). Despite CNET having some high-quality articles, with such a high proportion of unusable content, I believe CNET (October 2024 – present) should be designated as "additional considerations apply".
    ZDnet should also be re-evaluated, as it was reacquired by Ziff Davis in August 2024 and is also no longer a Red Ventures property. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Correct discussion history. Strike favorable assessment of reviews, which are difficult to distinguish from sponsored content. — Newslinger talk 08:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The CNET entries on RSP were not up-to-date at the time of my previous comment. The February 2023 discussion was incorrectly listed as a request for comment, but was actually a standard discussion that was formally closed without ever having the {{rfc}} tag applied. I've re-designated it as a standard discussion in the CNET entires. Also, I've added the March 2024 RfC on Red Ventures, which takes precedence over the February 2023 discussion for the October 2020 – October 2022 period, which I have updated to the generally unreliable designation. The CNET entries now reflect the status quo before the active RfC below. — Newslinger talk 08:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: CNET (October 2024 to present)

    [edit]

    What is the reliability of CNET, following its purchase by Ziff Davis in October 2024:

    • 1. Reliable
    • 2. Additional considerations apply
    • 3. Generally unreliable

    Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses (CNET)

    [edit]
    Seeing the above and the fact that CNET's home page has a high proportion of links to sponsored content gives me the impression that CNET's current incarnation is more of a comparison shopping site than a tech news site. Even though CNET still has high-quality Cover Stories and technology news articles (e.g. "Closing the Digital Divide: Will $90 Billion Actually Solve Our Broadband Gap?"), both of which I consider generally reliable, this type of reporting is not CNET's main focus anymore. — Newslinger talk 10:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (CNET)

    [edit]
    • Absent any further information, I would tend towards the status quo. As far as I am aware, CNET is a reliable source. If you are able to provide evidence to the contrary, I may !vote that it is unreliable but otherwise a change of ownership (to a company I cannot at a cursory glance conclude is inherently unreliable) is not grounds for declaring a source unreliable. It depends on the content output, not the owner. Note: I have purposefully not yet done a deep-dive on CNET or Ziff Davis as I feel it should be up to those looking to have a source declared unreliable to provide a reasonable justification and I think uninvolved editors should go into discussions like this without preconceptions. I will not be !voting one way or the other until additional context is provided. Adam Black talkcontribs 02:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      See the above discussion for additional context. CNET was originally designated as generally reliable. After a highly-attended February 2023 discussion, CNET was designated as generally reliable for the pre–October 2020 time range, marginally reliable for October 2020 – October 2022, and generally unreliable for November 2022 – present. The March 2024 RfC on Red Ventures forms the current status quo, which designates CNET as generally reliable for pre–October 2020, and generally unreliable for the time period after CNET was acquired by Red Ventures (October 2020 – present). Although Ziff Davis purchased CNET from Red Ventures in October 2024, a discussion from later that month did not have a clear resolution, with some editors preferring to wait before re-evaluating CNET. It has been six months since that discussion, and this RfC is the re-evaluation that we have been waiting for. — Newslinger talk 08:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the discussion above says, the status quo is that they are not currently reliable (ie. not after their acquisition), mostly due to their use of AI and the damage that that seems to have done to their reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV)

    [edit]

    Here are possible uses for two depreciated sources that I found

    Baidubaike

    Honestly keep Baidubaike depreciated, as it is also open source just like wikipedia, HOWEVER i found one function that may be useful. When a source is referenced on Baidubaike, that source will be archived with a screenshot for a website(E.g. this screenshot of the Shenzhen municipal public security bureau website https://baike.baidu.com/reference/8484809/533aYdO6cr3_z3kATPKCmKj2O33ENNn4vrSCBrRzzqIP0XOpT4-rSZJ859gpsPRpWwzAvZRydJkWmea-XxUB8fYQbuw1QbMkgjagEHetyL7l-d80mtBa-84eBL4VhvX3tg). This could be quite useful(especially when we discuss law enforcement agencies in China) as there are quite some chinese government websites with dead links which have not been archived on the wayback machine however have archived screenshots for Baidubaike. I would suggest allowing the use of these archived screenshots if the source itself is reliable(e.g. official government sources).

    CCTV

    I believe that CCTV should be allowed in the use of non-controversial cases such as national parks(which they have some good sources on) and Chinese military topics(e.g. equipment or special forces); additionally CCTV7 has it's own youtube channel which can be useful to have more information to add to topics related to the chinese military, as information on english wikipedia is currently lacking in that direction. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as using Baidu Baike links go, using it like the wayback machine is probably OK. CCP controlled outlets other than Global Times and CGTN are generally considered ok as long as it doesn't involve sensitive political topics or is obviously self-serving government propaganda. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ok thanks
    So I can use CCTV after all; that makes improving chinese military related topics much much easier(speaking of which, is youtube allowed if the channel is generally considered ok?) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability is the same whether it's published on YouTube, their own website, or through a news aggregator like MSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Baidu baike links, could there be a disclaimer on the depreciated sources page saying using it similar to the wayback machine is allowed as long as the archived source is reliable? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As Baidu is a major search engine, I see Baidu's web archiving service being usable in the same way the Wayback Machine and archive.today are usable to preserve cited articles, as described in Help:Archiving a source. The fact that the archiving service is on the Baidu Baike subdomain (baike.baidu.com) does not impact the usability of the service, in my opinion.
    I support the proposed exception, and also support excluding URLs beginning in https://baike.baidu.com/reference/ from the deprecation edit filter for Baidu Baike to prevent the filter from triggering when one of Baidu's web archives is cited. — Newslinger talk 07:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only China Central Television (CCTV) channels that have been deprecated are the China Global Television Network (CGTN) (RSP entry) ones, which broadcast to audiences outside of China. Per the List of China Media Group channels article, only 6 of CCTV's 49 channels are under the CGTN (formerly CCTV International) branch. Since CCTV-7 is a domestic channel and not a CGTN channel, it has not been deprecated. — Newslinger talk 08:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've amended the section heading to include the names of the sources and correct the spelling of the word deprecated, which is not to be confused with the word depreciated. — Newslinger talk 08:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ok thank you Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would national parks be a non-controversial case? National parks in China (and to be fair most other places) almost always involve forced displacement and other land disputes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about stuff like the biology and geography of the national park Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And why would those be less controversial? Remember nothing is published by CCTV which doesn't have a propaganda purpose, it is a propaganda organization that just happens to publish news (openly so, propaganda is not a dirty word in China). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean they have published info on which animals are in which national parks, location + size of national parks, and, even as a chinese government supporter myself, i have seen much much more propaganda like chinese sources then CCTV Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Daily Express

    [edit]

    Should we move the Daily Express from "Generally unreliable" on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to "Deprecated"? Helper201 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses (Daily Express)

    [edit]

    Discussion (Daily Express)

    [edit]
    • Is there a new discussion, disagreement, or change that has caused the need for a new RFC? Or is the Daily Express still being commonly used in a way that wastes editors time? (For reference it's currently used in about 6.5k articles.[81]) Although it doesn't appear that there's ever been a RFC on the Daily Express, so it may certainly be due one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally I'm all ready to go to deprecate a tabloid but I'm not seeing an RfC before here and we really should be basing RSP discussions on disputes that happen on WP rather than just deciding that Now Is The Time. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with Simon, Daily Express is a garbage rag but given the seeming lack of WP:RFCBEFORE here this might be a bad RFC. The Kip (contribs) 23:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with everyone else in this section. The Daily Express is clearly unreliable and I wouldn't be concerned about it being deprecated but I don't understand why this is coming up now or why it matters. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue it matters due to the number of sources in which it is used (6.5k, as stated above). I have also myself seen it used as a source in many articles over the years to try and support factual claims. Obviously one or a few people such as myself cannot hope to tackle a backlog of thousands of pages in which it is used and the potential for this to increase in the future. Listing it as "Deprecated" would at least help prevent future usage of it. Helper201 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Basic context:

    We have many (we only use a handful) of extremely trivial [[WP::RS]] sources that say the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) publicized classified staffing data about the National Reconnaissance Office. There is literally no WP:RS that disputes this. For Wikipedia policy purposes, that is utterly non-controversial settled fact in terms of being eligible to include in the article. The various WP:RS cite to intelligence community officials, leaders and professionals.

    A few days after this came out, DOGE Tweeted a claim that the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that said:

    The referenced “classified information” is actually public FedScope data, posted publicly by OPM (Office of Personnel Management) in March 2024.

    Even DOGE does not actually dispute the data is classified, whatsoever, and still has not, nor has any actually valid part of the government to date. NOTE: DOGE did not link to any data/evidence. They only linked to the "top level" URL of that website.

    A user contributed the "Straight Arrow News" source (link) to assert this was not classified, but the source seems to only cite DOGE's tweet which does not dispute the data is classified, and a claimed White House statement which also does not dispute the data is classified.

    Is this site a reliable source here? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No site that advertises itself with the tagline Unbiased. Straight Facts.™ is going to be reliable. They boast of winning certificates from outfits that we, for good reason, do not trust. They spin hiring people from a mix of reputable news media and propaganda shops as a good thing. Their brand is performing a lack of bias. But no, they're not reliable. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I'm a bit concerned that a publication that is actively advertising its relationship to Joe Ricketts is going to be a questionable source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    nope. they don't seem to have a useful editorial control. [82] and [83] is incredibly useless.
    their team looks more like the team for a hedge fund than one that is a real journal [84]
    their leader is billionare Joe Ricketts, suggesting no separation between the owner/founder/etc and editorial team.
    Joe Ricketts, it turns out, is incredibly pro-Trump. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really care one way or the other. Honestly I assumed from context the article was from an anti-Trump publication. But new media orgs that collapse print, online and video and that put their billionaire founder front and center on their "about" page without much detail as to the editorial board make me think non-independent vanity group blog for a billionaire. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "We serve you, not an agenda", the 'when did you stop hitting your wife' of media bullshit. It implies that all other media has a biased agenda, but not Straight Arrow News. This is not true - all media is biased, as all people are biased. Someone trying to tell you what the middle ground is, is trying to get you to accept their opinion of what the middle ground should be. That's a rant about the poor state of media awareness more than it is about this source in particular though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that SAN (apparently pronounded "sane") is generally unreliable for most purposes especially when it comes to American politics. I think that there could be valid uses in WP:ABOUTSELF when it comes to Ricketts himself so deprecation is probably too far. They don't have any of the things we look for (reputation, high editorial standards, editorial independence) and I don't think we can simply chalk it all up to bias. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights)

    [edit]

    The Syrian Civil War was reignited after the start of the rebel offensive in November so people are using SOHR as a source again. From my findings on the internet, their claims are mostly dubious and borderline disinformation at worst. Especially regarding their claims if there is no visual evidence. I talked a bit about SOHR in a talk page.

    "The fact that large (western) news agencies quote them does not make it what they say accurate. For some reason every large (and western) news agency takes what the SOHR says for granted. Here are a couple examples from well known people, with on the ground sources as well, where SOHR reporting is refuted. I expect you to know all these people since you've been following the conflict for so long. But I am happy to give any further information.
    https://x.com/Elizrael/status/1366102139639107586 Elizabeth Tsurkov.
    https://x.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1145332442422743041
    https://x.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1270423630334263296 see whole thread
    https://x.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1843663136588738723
    https://x.com/EliotHiggins/status/988110118809231360 Even Eliot Higgins from Bellingcat.
    Just a few examples of their many inaccuracies. There's also the fact that in this specific offensive the SOHR claims more SNA casualties than the SDF which is frankly absurd if you know how conflicts work. Even with the decently large amount of video footage the SDF are releasing, the battles are still relatively small. Sultan Murad division is not that big. 300 DEATHS (not even casualties) would severely cripple them."
    Ideally they should be classified as "Generally unreliable" as a minimum. I would love to hear your feedback about this.
    I want to clarify in case I make any mistakes, and I appreciate your understanding.

    TedKekmeister (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're right. Of the tweets you linked, Eliot Higgins is an expert and Tsurkov could be argued to be an expert too, but it would be good to have more sources confirming their lack of reliability. Alaexis¿question? 21:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The annoying thing is that no big publications focus on the SOHR inherently as a source. Major publications just take it as truth without verifying it. I managed to find 2 articles from a reputable Syrian fact checking site.
    https://verify-sy.com/en/details/1617/SOHR-Fabricates-News-that-Global-Coalition-Established-Court-for-ISIS-Detainees
    https://verify-sy.com/en/details/1553/Misinformation-about-Clashes-in-Azaz-of-Rural-Aleppo TedKekmeister (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple things I would like to know:
    1. Accurate reporting in conflict zones is notoriously difficult. Death tolls are often revised and preliminary reports of an incident may turn out not to be true. What is the tone with which SOHR is reporting inaccurate information? Are they attributing unverified reports or treating them as fact? If SOHR gets something wrong or if new information contradicts initial reports, do they issue a correction?
    2. Is SOHR's reliability related to its bias or in service of any agenda? Bias does not necessarily equal unreliability, but unreliable sources can be the most detrimental to Wikipedia if they twist the facts to promote their POV. Is there a pattern of over-reporting or under-reporting the casualties, actions, etc. of any particular faction or alignment of factions? Based on the info on their page, it seems the SOHR is relatively balanced in its coverage and criticism of different factions, if a bit pro-opposition, which is probably why they are a go-to for Western outlets. While a pro-opposition bias might warrant some special consideration of claims about government actions, their relative neutrality would be an argument in favor of their reliability imo. Am I missing something?
    3. What are some better sources and why aren't they being used by major media outlets?
    4. What are some examples where the SOHR's reporting is used on-wiki in a detrimental manner? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the questions.
    1: I understand your concerns but in many cases it is frankly absurd what the SOHR does. See the 2018 YPG casualties for instance. Threefold increase in a single day. The SOHR also does not retract any publications nor apologises if it contains incorrect information. Another important point to mention is that the SOHR itself says that it does not reveal the methodology of its information gathering so as to not endanger their sources.
    2: In general they aren't biased in the recording but it their claims are generally unreliable However it seems that in the current SDF-SNA conflict they are heavily biased to the SDF. For instance they claim less SDF deaths than publically available "martyr posters" in this current Manbij offensive. This is blatant disinformation. The SNA casaulties are also absurd but this is more unreliability than disinformation.
    3: That's the problem here. There aren't really any bipartisan organisations gathering all the information. The best thing you can do is rely on local sources but they are mostly on twitter. Hence why major media outlets do not use them. They take whatever the SOHR says as gospel.
    4: Same thing as I said in point 2. They are misinformation at best and disinformation at worst for casualty figures. For non casualty related news they should be seen as generally unreliable and should be mentioned explicitly if quoted. But it is generally better to rely on non SOHR sources. Another huge issue is that many wikipedia pages in the Syrian Civil War overly rely on the SOHR and if another source is used, it is more often than not referring to SOHR as well.
    See Operation Olive Branch and source 274 "Fuel truck bomb kills more than 40 in northern Syria""
    It is especially horrible in the newer articles. Namely East Aleppo offensive (2024–present)
    I hope this answered all your questions. I'd be happy to answer more. TedKekmeister (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think your concerns about the reliability of SOHR are warranted. Not issuing corrections or publishing a methodology can be a reliability issue. I'm a bit unclear on the story about the fuel truck bomb -- how do we know the SOHR's account is inaccurate here? Overall, I'm not sure what the best approach is, as it seems there is a lack of better sources that material supported by SOHR could be replaced by. Reading the description at WP:GUNREL, it does seem as if a source can be designated as such without systematically removing material supported by it from the wiki if we have nothing better to replace it with. I'm generally hesitant to make sweeping designations about sources, and before I would personally feel comfortable voting for SOHR to be designated GUNREL, I'd like some clarification from a more experienced editor on what exactly the implications of doing so would be for its uses on-wiki. What could be even better would be developing a set of procedures to use SOHR alongside other sources in a way that takes them at their best while using our discernment as editors to avoid republishing their most questionable claims. @Bobfrombrockley and I have had some good conversations about triangulating sources on this noticeboard before, and Bob is well versed in the Syrian conflict so he might have a valuable perspective here. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the fuel truck bomb as an example that a lot of times in SCW pages, non-SOHR sources just refer back to an SOHR article without any further investigation from those major publications.
    Retroactively changing every single SOHR source is a huge pain. Not just because of the vastness but because of the lack of many other secondary sources. This is mainly because so much content from around 2013 to 2018 has been deleted. A possible solution would be to add primary sources (if available) next to the SOHR’s and mention something along the lines of “Local sources reported X and SOHR confirmed/denied X.”
    The least that could be done right now is to restrict the use of SOHR sources in new articles. From Nov 27th onwards seems good a start but I have also noticed that during the 4 year ceasefire from march 2020 to November 2024 they are overused as well.
    That’s all I have to say now. I would love to hear Bob’s input as well. Thank you for the meaningful discussion. TedKekmeister (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a quick reply, I strongly think that SOHR is neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable. It is used heavily by others in the absence of better sources, but always with careful attribution and often prefixed by "UK-based" and (in the past at least) "pro-opposition". There have been numerous incidents of them getting things wrong, which they never ever acknowledge or correct. They are not transparent in their methodology, as they rely on sources on the ground who are under threat but also presumably of variable quality. Over time, their bias has shifted, from being pro-opposition to being aligned with the SDF and hostile to Turkish-backed and to a lesser extent HTS-aligned opposition and even sharing a lot of information with pro-Assad regime sources. Of massively lower quality than the very robust Syrian Network on Human Rights and Violations Documentation Centre, as well as Verify-Sy. Finally, it releases information quickly, so almost all of its output counts as WP:RSBREAKING. For all these reasons, it should always be attributed, where possible it should be triangulated with other sources, it should always be replaced with better sources once the air is clear, no article should rely too heavily on it, and if an article more or less uses no other source than it's either not a notable topic or needs a lot of work. Unfortunately, some editors seem intent on using every detail it publishes to create large amounts of non-noteworthy and non-encyclopedic Syria coverage. Articles on recent Syrian issues are particularly bad. Here is one really bad example. And Here are many more. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the issue with the lack of transparency in methodology, but why do you think the SNHR is better? This is another UK-based and clearly biased organization, their bias being pro-opposition and pro-Turkey: their documentation of media workers killed in 2024 made no mention of the two journalists killed in a Turkish drone strike, they didn't report on any SNA crimes in Manbij in December, and they attributed only 8 civilian casualties to all opposition forces (including SNA) in the month of December....I agree there should be cross-checking with other sources whenever possible, but I wouldn't immediately consider the SNHR to be any more reliable given their recent reports. Lyra Stone (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Ive overestimated SNHR! It’s just I’ve never seen them get anything badly wrong like SOHR or fail fact checks or receive criticism from veteran observers, but perhaps it’s because they get a lot less attention and re-use so less scrutiny. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, and I suppose it's also more obvious when something is blatantly false than when something is simply not reported. SNHR just has an issue with not reporting the actions of Turkish and opposition forces. Lyra Stone (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree with the proposal to restrict SOHR as a source especially in recent developments. I understand the criticisms towards the SOHR, but we are talking about documenting casualties and military activity in a war zone where independent reporting is nearly impossible. SOHR is regularly cited by major news outlets like BBC, the New York Times, the Guardian etc. which are all deemed reliable enough for Wikipedia, and they are one of the very few organizations providing real-time casualty counts and conflict reports in Syria. I know Bob mentioned the Syrian Network for Human Rights as an alternative, but they have recently shown some concerning biases as well in failing to report well-documented casualties caused by Turkish and Turkish-backed forces; I noted in my previous reply the two journalists that were left out of their 2024 documentation of media worker deaths, their 2024 documentation of attacks on medical infrastructure & personnel also left out Turkish drone strikes on ambulances and the looting of medical centers and killing of of health workers by Turkish-backed forces, all of which was reported by local rights organizations, the SOHR, and the Kurdish Red Crescent.
    I'm all for cross-checking sources when possible and using a diverse range of sources in articles (rather than solely relying on SOHR), but restricting SOHR ultimately limits access to crucial information about the conflict in Syria. This is one of the only independent sources providing real-time casualty counts, troop movements and human rights violations in Syria. It's not perfect, it sometimes gets things wrong and should do a better job of correcting itself when it does, but it provides documentation that is otherwise hard to obtain and I really worry about the consequences of restricting such a major source of information especially at a time where misinformation is rampant and independent reporting is hard to find. Lyra Stone (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I commented above already but these are good questions and hopefully this helps shed some more light on the issue:
    1. SOHR usually reports unverified claims as “according to SOHR sources”; vague, but not quite reporting them as facts. Contrary to what some people are saying here, SOHR does in fact issue corrections and updates when new information becomes available or the reports are contradicted. Here are some examples: Correcting misreported death toll for church attack: SOHR retracts claim that drone belonged to Turkey ; SOHR issues correction for Idlib post (facebook) SOHR issues correction for Idlib post (X) They also constantly update death tolls as more information becomes available (for example: updated death toll from previous report).
    2. I would agree with your assessment of the SOHR being relatively balanced. While they’ve been accused of overestimating civilian casualties caused by Syrian government forces, their numbers align closely with numbers reported by international organizations like the UN and Amnesty International.
    3. This is the hard part—if you want real time data for the conflict in Syria, I’m not sure there really is a better source, and that’s why they’re used so often by mainstream media. You would undoubtedly find more accurate reporting in UN reports, Human Rights Watch, etc., but these aren’t going to give you real time data or the level of detail that SOHR provides. A study by ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data) on the reliability of data on the Syrian conflict examined 13 prominent organizations providing data on the Syrian conflict, and found that SOHR is “undeniably the most comprehensive source as it has the highest number of unique locations, event-types and actors" (see pg 17). This is why they are so frequently cited by the media—it's one of the few sources providing independent, real-time reports on the conflict in Syria. The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) is the other leading source of reporting on the Syrian conflict, but it has a much smaller footprint in real-time reporting, especially on ongoing, detailed field events than the SOHR. And if the concern is about accuracy and bias, I would argue the SNHR's pro-opposition bias is far stronger; for example, their 2024 report excluded journalists killed by Turkish forces from their documentation of media worker deaths, excluded Turkish and SNA attacks on medical infrastructure (Kurdish Red Crescent statement, RIC) and severely undercounted civilian deaths by opposition forces.
    4. Perhaps some of the more recent articles rely too heavily on SOHR data, but that’s largely because they are about recent and ongoing events and the SOHR is the one providing detailed, real time data. That’s another reason I think restricting the use of SOHR on recent articles would be detrimental to reporting on the conflict in Syria—there is no source you can substitute for SOHR that will give you detailed updates on what’s happening in detail the way that SOHR does, you’ll be left with a major information gap. If anything the use of SOHR data should be limited for older claims, which you may be able to support with more accurate information from UN reports, but not for recent events which require real-time reporting from sources on the ground which SOHR consistently provides.
    Sorry for the long response, I just think this is a very important decision that could have serious consequences for reporting on the conflict in Syria. Lyra Stone (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a RS?

    [edit]

    Can anyone verify if this is a reliable source or not? Someone has already provided sources confirming that the author is a historian, (Talk:Bahmani–Vijayanagar_War_(1443)#c-Mr.Hanes-20250217182100-ImperialAficionado-20250217180700) but I still want to confirm it here. Koshuri (グ) 11:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I see on the article talk page use of this book is disputed for a statement about outcome of some old war (caste related? muslim vs hindu empire). Are there any reviews of this book (or book series, or older books by the same author) in journals about Indian history? These would certainly help to ascertain reliability of the author and his work. Pavlor (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You rarely even find book reviews of even authoritative sources. Maybe it could help to establish notability but in this case I can't find one. But yes the author has written a whole book series [85]. Note that his book is also used in the National library of Australia [86]. Koshuri (グ) 09:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also found his books at Scheltema Koshuri (グ) 09:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, history journals usually have a review section. If no history journal has any coverage of this author, I wonder how due for inclusion his opinion really is. Note library catalog entry is not a measure of a reliable source. scheltema.nl is a bookstore, again not a measure of a reliable source. Same applies for other sources used in this dispute. Pavlor (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't. Vij Books is a commercial popular press not an academic publisher and has no peer-review. The book has no academic reviews to make up for it either and the "historian" tags are from bios, i.e self-descriptions of the author. There is no evidence that he has any qualifications or recognition in this topic area, according to the his linkedin he has a PhD in international politics. These kinds of "history books" are dime a dozen and none of them are reliable, at a minimum one generally needs books published by academic publishers or articles in reputed academic journals which go through peer-review in this topic area. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thanks Tayi Arajakate. Koshuri (グ) 07:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have observed that certain Wikipedia pages cite this website as a reference. I would like to inquire about the trustworthiness and legitimacy of this site for use as a reference. In my view, the website appears to resemble a blog more than a credible source.

    I'd like to see that website to be included on this list WP:RSPSOURCES Newpicarchive (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t about reliability but it based on what’s been presented it should not be on the list suggested since according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources sources need to be repeatedly discussed to be placed on the list and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that is the case.--65.93.194.126 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC Jerusalem Post

    [edit]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    The RFC on the Jerusalem Post has been closed with the consensus of "The Jerusalem Post is generally reliable but should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israel Palestine conflict", see the closing comment for full details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is global times banned in ALL contexts or can it be used in some cases

    [edit]

    Currently I'm editing the article Chinese icebreaker Haijing 1411 on it's history in the China Marine Surveillance. I have found many sources saying that between it's service in the chinese navy and it's acquirement by the Chinese coast guard in 2013, there was a brief period of time where it was used by the CMS(and named Haijian 111), however when i tried to find the date it was acquired by the CMS was this article by global times, which claims it was acquired by the CMS in November 2012. Only other sources i can for the date the CMS acquired the ship were blogs, however good news is this article by BBC that Haijian 111 was seen in 21 December 2012 which means it was definitely acquired prior to 21 December, sort of backing up the global times claim.

    I honestly think global times can be used in this context for several reasons:

    1. I am purely using it for the date it was acquired and nothing else
    2. No sources that I could find contradict it at all, rather the BBC article shows that it was acquired before 21 December
    3. It is the only source I can realistically use
    4. The claim that it was acquired November 2012 is not an exceptional claim nor is a controversial one(more controversial stuff in the same article i will not be using as i have better sources for them)


    Anyways pls check out #Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV) and update guidelines for Baidu Baike and add a disclaimer that only CGTN channels are not allowed and non-CGTN CCTV channels are allowed per discussion. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ABOUTSELF is an exception that applies to the use of generally unreliable sources, including deprecated sources such as Global Times (RSP entry). One of the concerns the 2020 request for comment noted with the use of Global Times under WP:ABOUTSELF is the uncertainty of whether content published in Global Times actually represents the views of the Chinese Communist Party.
    For this particular case, the Global Times article in question was republished by China News Service, which gives me the impression that the article contents are state-approved, and can therefore be used within the limitations of WP:ABOUTSELF for citing the month that Haibing 723 was repurposed as Haijian 111 (November 2012). However, I would cite the China News Service article instead of the Global Times article to make this situation clear to readers.
    In response to your final paragraph, I'm not aware of any page (including the perennial sources list) which claims that CCTV channels other than CGTN are deprecated or disallowed as sources, so I don't think there is an appropriate place for such a disclaimer. — Newslinger talk 05:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks; I tried citing the China news service in a previous version of the article, but it was reverted because it was republished. I will add WP:ABOUTSELF in the edit summary so that it does not get reverted again.
    For the last paragraph I think there should be a disclaimer on the perennial sources list saying that non-CGTN CCTV channels are allowed so that other editors do not mix them up. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Irish Star

    [edit]

    Should the Irish Daily Star fall under WP:DAILYSTAR? MB2437 10:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking in the archives this has been asked before, but never answered. The Scottish and Irish editions of the Sun and the Daily Mail are covered by the deprecation of those papers, which would point to the same applying to the Daily Star. I think it would be on the editor wanting to use the Irish Daily Star to show it's actually an entirely seperate entity, and so shouldn't be covered by DAILYSTAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The Irish Daily Star began life as the Irish version of the UK Daily Star, it is owned by the same company and shares a name and logo. We should assume that WP:DAILYSTAR applies unless given a reason to believe otherwise. (Even if deprecation didn't apply, it's a tabloid on the British model with approximately half of its Wikipedia article devoted to its decision to nonconsensually publish topless photographs of a celebrity; we would normally consider such an outlet generally unreliable by default) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There seem to be another outlet of the similar name and publisher on the url Irishstar.com.
    [87] Ca talk to me! 04:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to be the US version of the same outlet, with similar content to the deprecated dailystar.co.uk. MB2437 04:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say much about the site generally, but while I was trying to GA Skibidi Toilet, I noted how Irishstar.com was the only outlet that got Alexey Gerasimov's nationality right. It was fascinating how the media telephone game turned "Georgia-based" to "Georgian" and then "of Georgian nationality". Ca talk to me! 08:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    times now news

    [edit]

    someone used this source to try and support that dandy’s world is notable for inclusion in the List of Roblox games. Source here: [88]

    a bit unsure if it is reliable or not brachy08 (chat here lol) 11:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    They are the digital arm of the Times Network part of the same group as the Times of India and the Economic Times. As an India news media group the advice of WP:NEWSORGINDIA seems appropriate. The author usually reports on US political and culture war issues[89], so it is a little odd to see him doing a puff piece on a Roblox game. I would suspect this is an advertorial and shouldn't count towards notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Times Now is a broadcaster not a digital arm. Its the flagship broadcaster of Times Group (BCCL) while Times of India is the flagship newspaper of the same. TNN is just a tag they use for their combined network. But otherwise yeah. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Times Now is the broadcaster, Timesnownews.com as being discussed here is the digital arm of the Times Group as per their own description [90]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the digital arm of the Times Group (the company). The description/about us on the website is a about us of "Times Network". It says "Times Network is the television division" and that "Timesnownews.com (is) the digital arm of Times Network". The term network means a television network; Times Now has a number of derivative channels under it. The same description is copy-pasted on the web-addresses of all their other channels.
    Or in simple words, Timesnownews.com is just the web-address of Times Now. It is the same relation that the timesofindia.com has to the newspaper, you wouldn't call the website the digital arm of Times Group. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unreliable: It's parent company BCCL is considered to have pioneered paid news in India (see [91], [92]) and Times Now is peppered with obvious undisclosed advertorial articles (see for example, [93], [94], etc etc). It also had a well documented history of publicising misinformation (see for example, [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], etc etc) and conspiracy theories (see [100]). The article in question here is also likely an example of undisclosed advertorial. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Times Now is a very appealing source because they are often one of the first to cover new Internet culture phenomenons. However, I've seen them publish articles that are clearly assisted with ChatGPT with no disclaimers. I'd say it is only useful as a last-resort source for non-controversial facts. Ca talk to me! 04:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the Cass Review a reliable source?

    [edit]

    The Cass Review is a comprehensive review commissioned by the National Health Service in the area of transgender medicine. In my view, that puts it near the top of WP:MEDRS.

    However, many editors in the transgender topic area believe it promotes misinformation.[101] For instance, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist argues that:

    Cass repeatedly endorses the desistance myth, supports a form of treatment, gender exploratory therapy, which is a form of conversion therapy, pathologizes trans people such as by labelling trans kids "gender questioning" despite them not actually questioning their gender, proposes that social transition only be allowed with medical guidance (which is bullshit as social transition is a human right), and more.

    Simonm223 argues:

    Anti-trans medical misinformation and worse have been running rampant in the topic area. This is just an attempt to clean up misinformation from providers of such like SEGM and Hilary Cass

    Void if removed consistently argues the opposite stance, that this is just an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as it excludes sources because they advocate opinions that argue against a transgender point of view.

    I received advice from someone once telling me a good way to resolve disputes is by breaking them into smaller ones, so I'm starting this thread to discuss whether the Cass Review is reliable as this has come up in multiple discussions at WP:FTN. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unreliable the Cass Review is bad science for all the reasons Chess attributed to YFNS. It is also bad medicine because its recommendations ignored how denial of services to trans youth led to an increase in suicide rates. [102] It isn't just an unreliable medical report, it is an actively harmful one that has almost certainly led to preventable deaths. Simonm223 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that people like to come to this Noticeboard and ask about the general reliability of a source, but the Noticeboard also clearly states "ask about reliability of sources in context! ... Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Can you give a couple of examples of specific articles / specific content where an editor tried using the Cass Report as a source for specific content, and editors challenged it as not being a reliable source for that specific content? For example, I just searched for "Cass Review" in the history of the Conversion therapy article (since one of your quotes refers to conversion therapy), and couldn't find an example of anyone attempting to source anything in that article to the Cass Review. The Puberty blocker article cites it a few times, but that would be a counterexample to assuming that it's not a reliable source for anything. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The context is whether or not the Cass Review counts for WP:DUE weight when discussing WP:Fringe theories at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You presumably know that that's not what's meant by WP:RSCONTEXT. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. I still think if there's arguments on the Cass Review going back to January of 2024[104] that boil down to whether the Cass Review is WP:MEDRS for the purpose of fringe theories, it's better to get that resolved. Heck, I've cited the Cass Review in the WP:TELEGRAPH RfC last year.[105] If we have a WP:RSN thread saying the Cass Review is unreliable, I will stop citing it in discussions and expect others to do the same. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For example, I just searched for "Cass Review" in the history of the Conversion therapy article
      Really? There are multiple discussions about this on talk, which prompted YFNS' original accusations it was FRINGE over a year ago. Void if removed (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, really. My claim was not about Talk page discussions, which is why I said "Conversion therapy article," linking to the article. Despite being asked, Chess is unwilling to provide examples of someone adding content to an article and sourcing that content to the Cass Review, and another editor removing it from the article on the basis that the Review is not a reliable source for that article content. Can you provide such examples, or is all of this only about Talk page discussions? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a strange standard to apply. GENSEX is a contentious topic and it is pretty common (certainly on my part, as I'm usually in the minority) to raise a topic on talk first, seek consensus and attempt to find compromise, before applying changes. That's just sensible editing. As you can see from the discussion, there was vehement argument against inclusion, which I obviously disagree with, but that's all there is to it.
      Making changes against consensus on a CTOP is the sort of tendentious behaviour that is a swift path to a topic ban. The right thing to do in that situation is drop it, not pigheadedly press ahead and add content, only to be reverted - especially when YFNS then took the discussion onto the FRINGE board, claiming the source itself is espousing a FRINGE POV.
      The "exploratory therapy" material added by YFNS to the Conversion Therapy article around a year ago is basically ground zero for these discussions. Its all there on talk.
      But if you want only narrow examples of article reversions, here's one for starters. YFNS insists that "desistance is a myth", and removed a 37% persistence figure sourced to the Cass Review, which I had added as a secondary source for this figure from Steensma et al (2013). YFNS justification included direct attacks on its reliablity, as well as bringing up the American College of Paediatricians for some reason. Void if removed (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's a strange standard. I seldom edit GENSEX articles, but I frequently edit other CTOP articles, and I don't start with a discussion on the Talk page. I attend to the actual restrictions for a given page (e.g., does the page have a "consensus required" or "enforced BRD" notice? is there a WP:0RR or 1RR rule to prevent edit warring?), and I attend to whether my edit is consistent with policy (e.g., supported by an RS). I just looked at the edit notice for the Conversion therapy article and at the top of its talk page, and although it's identified as a CTOP article, there are no "consensus required" or "enforced BRD" notices for that article. I'm not going to invest time in reading the talk page discussions; it's sufficient to note that there is no FAQ for that article referring to an RfC constraining people from appropriately using the Cass Review as a source on that page (and again: appropriate use depends on things such as whether it's an RS for the specific text introduced into the article). And yes, I do think introducing text that you believe is consistent with policies (e.g., is DUE, is sourced to an RS) and then discussing it if someone challenges the edit is just as appropriate as starting with a discussion. I'm not aware of any policy that requires talk page discussion first, but if you know of such a policy, please point it out to me so that I can read what it says. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CONSENSUS actually suggests that edit first is the correct path, and then through discussion if there is disagreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @FactOrOpinion let me let you in on something that may come as a surprise. I am not a popular editor. Shock, I know. I edit in GENSEX and (IMO) I argue in the best possible faith for a neutral position, and in doing so I come up against a whole lot of resistance and outright hostility because this is not a popular thing to do. I've been dragged through AE, and there are any number of editors and admins that would like to see me banned I am sure.
      So forgive me if I have little patience for being lectured on what policy is, or what edits you think I "should" have just gone ahead and done a year ago.
      I work the way I work - conservatively, and invariably on talk first - because anything else would be futile and short-lived, and I have found it to be the safest and sanest way for me personally, avoiding inflaming edit wars on the articles themselves as far as possible. If I cannot make a case on talk, there's no point. You don't have to work that way, but that is how I work, on these articles, knowing that I am in a minority.
      This is all a massive derailment. The attempt to edit the page is all on talk. You can read the talk discussion. You can see the objections and all the arguments. If you have any comment to make, make it about that talk discussion, but don't pretend no attempt was made when it is all documented there, in painful, tedious detail. Void if removed (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that you've been taken to AE. To clarify: when I wrote "I do think introducing text that you believe is consistent with policies ...," "you" was also meant in the sense of "one," not just you personally. I did not "lecture" or "pretend no attempt was made." You said "This is a strange standard to apply," and I explained why I don't think it's a strange standard to apply. You, of course, are free to edit more conservatively if you want. It actually sounds to me like your concern is less about WP:RS and more about WP:NPOV — "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Up to you whether you want to raise that at the NPOVN. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Poorly defined question - the Cass Review's commissioned reviews are WP:MEDRS, the Cass's self-published reports are not and make multiple WP:FRINGE claims
    1. You trimmed my quote which began with See Cass Review#Criticisms - Cass repeatedly... - you should acknowledge that per our own article, the Cass Review has been widely criticized for a range of reasons. That was not my opinion, but a summary of how we already cover it.
    2. This question is incredibly vague. What part of the Cass Review? Reliable for what? (As this page says, Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!)
      • The Review commissioned systematic reviews which most people concur are broadly reliable (hell, I've cited some in articles before) The Review released 2 self-published reports, which were written by Cass and an anonymous team, received no peer review, and peer reviewed literature and WP:MEDORGs have been heavily critical of (including for making claims not backed up by the systematic reviews it commisioned).
      • Again, reliable for what? Consensus has been already that there are claims the Cass Review is plainly not reliable for. For example, Void if Removed tried to add into wikivoice that the majority of transgender children "desist" (AKA, suddenly stop desiring to transition during puberty, a piece of misinformation called the Desistance myth) citing Cass [106] - Cass said this based on a single 2013 paper (Steensma et al., 2013), whose own author noted multiple caveats to that finding in that paper, and in 2018 noted this was based on outdated and overly broad diagnostic criteria that conflated gender dysphoria with gender nonconformity of any kind [107], citing that 2013 paper and also the Endocrine Society's statement to the same effect.[108] We have a systematic review (aka, top tier WP:MEDRS) in 2022 calling BS on the claim (which Cass conveniently completely ignored)[109], and Cass Review#Desistance noting multiple MEDRS have critiqued Cass for this claim.
    3. WP:MEDRS states Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers, and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies - The Cass Review's reports are none of these things. Not a review article, not a book (and besides, Cass was explicitly chosen for not being an expert in trans healthcare), it is not a guideline, or a position statement, even ignoring the fact that the review team is not a national or international expert body. The Cass Review's reports are not WP:MEDRS.
    Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, Void if Removed tried to add into wikivoice
    This is a gross misrepresentation and you should strike it. I tried to re-add well-sourced, longstanding consensus material (that had been there in some form for years) with additional citations after you removed it. You removed sourced material, and then created a page that describes it as a myth, and now use that page as justification for excluding the contrary sources in the first place.
    And you continue here your misrepresentation of the section in question, as I pointed out to you last year. Void if removed (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I remember correctly didn't one of the systematic reviews research into persistence rates and find nothing. If so the fact that the report ignored it's own review seems quite damning. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page consennsus was to remove it and focus on better summarizing better quality sources such as the 2022 systemic review of desistance literature.[110] In that edit, you reinstate a 2019 narrative review (not as strong as systematic) and remove sourced issues the review noted such as the claim being based on studies where conversion therapy was performed.[111] You then toss in a superflous reference to Cass to try and launder weak primary sources over the systematic review noting just how problematic that claim is. [112] Then, bizarrely, you try and cite the Cass Review glossary for the definition of gender dysphoria to override what the APA, who created the diagnosis, said about it.[113]
    As Luna points out, and as I noted in my reply to your comment[114], the Cass Review commissioned a review to look into desistance, which did not report a persistence rate (or if it did, found it about 92% as opposed to 30%) and Cass cites her desistance statistic from a 2013 paper whose author has for years heavily caveated that data in a way that Cass completely ignored.
    The article transgender health care misinformation is a good article. The reason it says the desistance myth is misinformation is because we have dozens of RS saying so. You restarted the debate there making the same disproven talking points and bludgeoned the multiple editors saying you were wrong.[115] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you've done here:
    • Void if Removed tried to add into wikivoice that the majority of transgender children "desist" (AKA, suddenly stop desiring to transition during puberty, a piece of misinformation called the Desistance myth)
    Is present this exchange as if I, out of the blue, added a load of obviously contentious material. This is a direct accusation that I am knowingly spreading misinformation.
    I did not. What I did was argue for retaining the existing, well-sourced consensus material, which you removed, and which you subsequently started presenting as a "myth" on a page you created two months later.
    So I ask again that you strike this personal attack and gross misrepresentation of the chain of events.
    Also, this:
    we have dozens of RS saying so.
    Is an exaggeration. Your relevant citations for that section are:
    • A sociology paper by Natacha Kennedy (one of the critics of the Cass Review, not MEDRS)
    • Two papers by McNamara, Allsott et al (authors of the Yale amicus brief attacking the Cass Review, one social science, the other law, neither are MEDRS)
    • An SPLC report (definitely not MEDRS, partisan, and co-authored by one of the authors of one of the McNamara/Allsott papers)
    • A systematic review that says the best quantitative estimate of desistance is 83%, which is only there on the page because I pointed out you had left out this highly relevant figure, which kind of undermines the whole idea it is a "myth".
    The discussion on talk is an absolute textbook example of you and other editors refusing to cite the Cass Review's perspective on desistance, because you think it is unreliable, because you think desistance is a "myth", therefore the Cass Review is unreliable. This is circular.
    The right way to do this is to present all significant points of view neutrally, but what you continually do is argue the Cass Review is wrong and exclude it. Void if removed (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You tried to reinstate content that talk had already agreed to remove. You then tried to add a citation to the Cass Review that cherry picked a single study (which the systematic review already discussed and noted was severely flawed).
    I don't think you're knowingly spreading misinformation. I truly believe you edit in the best of faith and believe the things you write. I will say I deeply wish you were more knowledgeable about trans healthcare and the history of it. Like with this whole argument, you seem to fail to grasp the basic concept that studies that didn't track trans identity or dsm-5 gender dysphoria are not actually predictive of dsm-5 gender dysphoria or trans identity, which the literature has noted for years.
    The RS on the article are only a subset of the literature calling it misinformation, or noting it's flawed.
    The Cass Reviews perspective on desistance was not cited because higher quality sources disagree, the author of the single study Cass cited for her claim disagrees, Cass neglected to mention several issues with the claim sources like the Endocrine Society have pointed out nearly a decade ago, and RS and MEDORGs have specifically called out the Cass Reviews claims on desistance as bullshit. Cass correctly identified the issues with the pre-2000s literature, then ignored all criticism of the post 2000s lit and presented it as settled.
    A systematic review that says the best quantitative estimate of desistance is 83% - it absolutely did not...
    The systematic review said Quantitative studies were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting. Thirty definitions of desistance were found, and From all of these collections of studies emerged the commonly used statistic stating that ∼80% of TGE youth will desist after puberty, a statistic that has been critiqued by other works based on poor methodologic quality, the evolving understanding of gender and probable misclassification of nonbinary individuals, and the practice of attempting to dissuade youth from identifying as transgender in some of these studies and concludes The definitions of desistance, while diverse, were all used to say that TGE children who desist will identify as cisgender after puberty, a concept based on biased research from the 1960s to 1980s and poor-quality research in the 2000s. Therefore, desistance is suggested to be removed from clinical and research discourse
    The myth is not that these studies existed, or had these findings. The myth is that based on these old studies that neither tracked 1) DSM-5 GD diagnoses or 2) trans identification (and often included conversion therapy) one can confidently claim that the data shows the majority of trans kids / those diagnosed with GD "desist". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't comparing the same thing. As Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist notes above, what is being discussed at FTN are the separate self-published opinion parts with no review or oversight that make several claims that discussion at FTN is agreeing are FRINGE stances. You seem to be trying to avoid that resulting consensus by coming here and using a misleading summary of the subject at hand. SilverserenC 23:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As an uninvolved and trans editor can I just say it would be nice to not have POINTY things like this brought up to remind me every time I check out the dashboard that I am up for debate on this website Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not. It ought to be treated as anything else directly published by a government, ie. it might at best be a WP:PRIMARY source for the official positions taken by the government, but it wasn't published via any form of reputable fact-checking, so it isn't even a primary RS. Even when cited via a secondary source, it definitely shouldn't be used for anything but the attributed positions and opinions of the British government. This makes it mostly useless for the things people would want to cite it for; in the vast majority of circumstances it should only be cited via a secondary source, and even then only in places discussion the political controversy, never the medical or scientific questions involved. Your question focused on what it says, but that's not really the issue - the issue is that it was not published by a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. There are ofc cases where a government-funded and notionally government-controlled source has enough editorial independence and a strong enough reputation to be a WP:RS, but that doesn't apply here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion: Regarding your comment: “Even when cited via a secondary source, it definitely shouldn't be used for anything but the attributed positions and opinions of the British government.” Which British government? The review was not done by ‘the British government’, it was done by Dr Cass. And the government has changed since the Review was commissioned and published. Your comment makes no sense. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS isn't (generally) about who wrote something, it's about the publisher - about whether the publisher has proper editorial controls and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The publisher in this case is the British government, which doesn't lend the report any reliability. This is standard for how we handle government reports. The fact that there was an election since then doesn't change that, obviously. If you want to argue that it could somehow be a RS, you'd have to explain what editorial controls it went through, and demonstrate that the publisher had the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that RS requires. --Aquillion (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cass Review was not published by the government – it is published by the Review. [116] Sweet6970 (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cass Review was published under auspices of the NHS, and it's contents is owned by the UK government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure you understand what "published" means on Wikipedia. The report was commissioned by the NHS, an arm of the British government; Cass herself was selected by the government to head it, and therefore was working at their behest. Anything they publish derives whatever reliability it might have through that chain - from the NHS, and through that from the British government - which makes them obviously unusable for statements of fact. This is not unusual or strange in any way; governments often such commission such reports, none of which are ever reliable sources for anything remotely controversial or contentious due to the obvious lack of independence such reports have from the policies of the government that established them. As I mentioned, there are occasional exceptions, but only for long-standing organizations with established reputations for independence, fact-checking and accuracy, which "The Report" clearly lacks; the idea that a government could commission a report, assign whoever they please to produce it, then say "trust us, it's independent of us" is obviously absurd and would allow a government to turn anything it pleased into facts. A report gets its reliability not from having a fancy website or calling itself "The Report" in big capital letters, but by being published through a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. How could you possibly assert that a group the government established specifically to produce a single report could meet that standard? --Aquillion (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Much like reports by US governmental institutions it use should be attributed. Reliable yes, but only with attribution. As to whether it's due inclusion that's not a reliability question but one of NPOV. I would suggest not splitting the discussion that is already occurring on WP:FTN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's complicated - The underlying reviews are generally high-quality WP:MEDRS sources but have received some criticism by other WP:MEDRS sources and so some attempt should be made to situate them in the context of the rest of the field instead of relying solely on them for controversial claims. The report is a government report that has received quite a lot of criticism by other sources including some WP:MEDORGs. So its reliability is much more complicated and context-driven than most other sources: there are some cases where it summarizes the underlying reviews in a straightforward way (and there it's clearly reliable), there are cases where it claims to be based on the reviews but goes further or is more opinionated than them, and there are cases where it's not directly based on the reviews at all (and often those are the most controversial bits). It should be treated like any other government report written by experts but which has also been the target of significant criticism by experts, which is to say, it's complicated.
    If I had to give these a color rating I'd say the reviews are WP:GREL but with the caveats listed above, and the report is WP:MREL: it is sometimes reliable for some claims but significant skepticism is warranted. Loki (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was interested to see if the Cass review had an error corrections process (like one would usually see in a modern paper in a journal) and found this page where a number of changes (both documented and undocumented) have been made. Not sure where this lies (and how often something like this would be done) but it is something to note. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    excludes sources because they advocate opinions that argue against a transgender point of view.
    @Chess I take issue with this framing somewhat, because I don't hold with this pro/anti framing. What I am arguing for is proper, balanced representation of sources which contain different clinical perspectives. This is a difficult subject with significant conceptual disagreements between clinicians, and our job is not to pick winners but to neutrally present all significant points of view.
    The Cass Review started from the position that children and young people were being referred to clinical services in distress over their gender in increasing numbers, and to evaluate the level of care they received, and the evidence base this care was based on. It found the evidence base was poor, and there was little-to-no followup to see if there were any benefits. This is not arguing against a transgender point of view - it is arguing for a cautious, evidence-based medicine point of view in a vulnerable population. It is also a significant, well-sourced point of view that's been accepted across the political spectrum and by all the medical bodies that actually matter, as well as being independently assessed and endorsed by Scotland's health service.
    The controversy now is that the model prevalent in the US in particular is the affirmation approach, which takes the position the clinician is a facilitator of the child or young person's gender identity. Cass notes a tension between exploratory approaches which might explore the underlying reasons why a child is experiencing gender distress, and the affirmative model, which starts from the position that the child is the gender they identify as, and that to ask why is pathologising. This is why advocates of the affirmative model insist any other approach is "tantamount to conversion", since any therapeutic approach that might lead to a child "desisting" is seen as conversion (whether it was in fact coercive or not).
    This is the issue. One clinical perspective says a child is presenting in distress, and we have to ask why, because sometimes things like autism, trauma, depression, internalised homophobia, may be manifesting as distress about their gender, and unpicking those reasons can alleviate the distress. The other says that the distress is often a symptom of an unaffirmed gender identity, and that to suggest it is arising from, say, internalised homophobia is pathologising a trans identity. Likewise, that comorbid conditions like autism and self-harm should not be barriers to transition, but managed in parallel.
    Both of these are well-supported in the literature. Saying one is definitively right and calling other perspectives FRINGE to exclude them and any related issues is not at all the way to go, and is a misuse of FRINGE IMO. We should admit what we don't know and explain it neutrally to the reader.
    In the ordinary run of things, the Cass Review would obviously be a reliable source. However, because trans healthcare for children and young people is currently facing legal challenges in the US from the right-wing, and because the Cass Review found the evidence base was actually weak, its findings have been drawn into the toxic legal/political battle in the US, and those currently fighting against those bans have submitted amicus briefs in various legal cases (including the supreme court) attempting to pick holes in it. Which means that such criticism is not independent, has a major vested interest, and has to be taken with a big pinch of salt. Void if removed (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Void, you have spent the last year repeatedly crying "US activists!!!!!" any time there is any criticism of the Cass Review. Are you actually, seriously, unaware, that trans people in the UK have been the most vocal critics of the review and recommendations since it came out?
    Both of these are well-supported in the literature. - no they are not. If a kid says "I am trans and want to socially transition", the claim that a therapist must [unpick] those reasons why and argue the desire might be caused by autism, trauma, depression, internalised homophobia is actually incredibly FRINGE and there's never been evidence it's necessary. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • A non-point - this is a government commissioned review, and as such published under the NHS.
    WP:MEDRS reads:
    Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, to public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.
    The fact remains that this is a statment commissioned by the NHS, includes a systematic review, is referenced in UK guidelines, and there is no reasonable debate that it is allowed by WP:MEDRS.
    However, just as the MEDRS-guidelines says:
    Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with "however", "this is not supported by", etc. The image below attempts to clarify some internal ranking of statements from different organizations in the weight they are given on Wikipedia.
    The fact that a MEDRS source is controversial favors attending to statements from it with potential counterpoints from other literature - in an unbiased way.
    WP:MEDRS also reads:
    Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review.
    This is exactly what is attempted to be done here - we dislike the source - so we reject its findings. This is not congruent with WP:MEDRS, WP:RS or frankly any of WP:PILLARS.
    I implore any editors that take offence to the views of the Cass Review to treat it as a controversial publication by a major national health organisation, that was put forth through commission (as most reports by the National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization among others and that make up a cornerstone of referenced literature on Wikipedia) - and thus treat it in the way Wikipedia should treat it - by referencing its findings, and referencing high quality opposing findings side by side in a WP:NEUTRAL manner.
    I reiterate from WP:MEDRS:
    Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review.
    Now, let us move on. CFCF (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All your argument really suggests is that WP:MEDRS is not presently equipped to handle state capture of governmental healthcare bodies. Will we be including anti-vax stuff as WP:MEDRS when the United States starts producing it at the behest of their new Secretary of Health and Human Services? Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that the Cass Review was somehow ‘captured’ by the Conservative government? If so, why have the current Labour government, and the current SNP Scottish devolved government all endorsed it? There’s not much all 3 of those political parties agree on. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm suggesting that the Cass review represents the introduction of transphobic misinformation into the corpus of formal UK healthcare. I should have said capture of the state rather than capture by the state. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are you talking about? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I sympathise ideas of state capture aren't policy based arguments, or you at least need to show strong RS to back it up. If you believe MEDRS needs to be updated you need to take it to WT:MEDRS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is that, if MEDRS automatically assumes government sources are reliable we're going to have a rough four years. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe it does, but discussions on MEDRS are complex and can't be reduced to simple claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How about everyone who has already discussed this at length on various talk pages takes a few steps back and allows other members of the community to discuss this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (IMO this is already happening, there are lots of people in the discussions on FTN that don't normally edit WP:GENSEX.) Loki (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem here is that it can't just be ignored, but neither is it always due for inclusion. I suggest that unless it is going to be discussed in WP:RSCONTEXT the question is just to broad to be given anything but the most broad answer. It's a govermental report, and if it is going to be included, it should be used with attribution as with other such reports. Whether it should be included is a matter of NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a governmental report. It is an independent review, commissioned by NHS England. It is independent of both the NHS and the Government. That's the point of an independent review - to be independent.
    The Review is independent of the NHS and Government and neither required nor sought approval or sign-off of this report’s contents prior to publication.
    Void if removed (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That may very well be that it was created independently, but it is still a goverment report. If I run a business and hire independent consultants to do a report on the operations of my company, that report is still one of my business's reports.
    An organisation can't disclaim the report it caused to be created. To accept that would be a very bad precedent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is WP:DUE requires a source to be reliable for it to factor in. If other editors are saying "the Cass Report can't be WP:DUE because it isn't reliable", is that a WP:DUE issue or a reliability issue? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would appear to be near circular in logic, and wrong. Unreliable sources shouldn't be used, if the source is unreliable why is a discussion on it's inclusion happening at all. As I've said the report is reliable for what it is as such reports are, but that doesn't mean it gets a pass against offer reliable sources.
    I can only again say it should be used with attribution, and may not be due. If other sources are discussing it in a particular context then it's likely due, if it's in relation to trans health care in the UK it would definitely be due. Where it's used it should be in context with all other significant view point from other reliable source, but that is deeply into NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not level 1 reliable—Use with caution and with regards to WP:WEIGHT. A lot of other MEDRS have made strong points against some of the reports findings — it is best as a primary source for itself and I would never support using as a pure citation without describing the full context of its release and responses, at minimum give it an in-text citation eg “according to the Cass Review,” and avoid using the original reports (stick exclusively to the review elements). The context of its political motivations and the responses from other medical organizations impact its reliability, as in other cases where different government or medical bodies disagree on medical recommendations. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarifying—i agree with CFCF’s point that it belongs in discussion alongside other high quality opposing sources and with context ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask Malvoliox what you mean when you say it is not WP:TIER1 reliable?
    This terminology isn't really used when it comes to WP:MEDRS where government reports are at the top tier of reliability (see quotes above, and the MEDRS-page).
    I think your interpretation of my comment is that the source is both WP:RS, but also WP:DUE in many contexts. Is that right?
    And, just so that we, and everyone else here can be on the same page, and to square the tiering you refer to: the fact that the source is both "reliable" and "due":
    1) In no way endorses its findings as truth
    2) Nor does it negate the need to also present what is a preponderance of opposing views.
    Do you agree?
    I think this is a very simple take and frankly the only viable position that adheres to both WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:DUE, and WP:PILLARS.
    CFCF (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I’m not deeply familiar with the specifics of MEDRS. I meant that I would agree to the relevance of MEDRS guidelines where government and scientific perspectives differ. I would only advocate inclusion in a context that acknowledges its presence in a field that disagrees with its claims more than it agrees—the one piece you brought out that I was referring to was this piece of MEDRS:
    ”Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with "however", "this is not supported by", etc. The image below attempts to clarify some internal ranking of statements from different organizations in the weight they are given on Wikipedia.”
    This is a case of needing to demonstrate the ways in which the overall field scientific literature differs from this review, which was created in a politically motivated context in order to achieve a particular result.
    It’s a good source on itself, and it’s notable in its impact, but it differs from most literature and has racked up a lot of criticism in the medical community. That’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with what the findings are so much as one of acknowledging the context of its commission & responses by the medical community. I lean towards not reliable in contexts purely about what is medically viable/reliable in the context of government recommendations as it is the basis for some.
    ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not reliable A quick glance at the page for the Cass Review shows the medical fields of pretty much every country outside the UK ripping its conclusions and recommendations to shreds. It’s a non-peer reviewed government report from a government with a long and well documented history of targeting trans people, and should be treated as such. Snokalok (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument has nothing to do with whether it is a WP:RS. Rather it highlights the need to present the results of the report in a neutral and unbiased manner - with corresponding findings from other high quality sources next to it. CFCF (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it matters; WP:RS is about whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Heavy criticism is one indicator that it lacks such a reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fox in news articles

    [edit]

    Just drawing the attention of the community to a user using Fox as a source for a story that's not currently being covered by more reliable sources. Is it best for us to wait for anothe source or is this acceptable as a placeholder in the meantime? 2A02:8084:4F41:B700:E4C8:1537:A57F:B4E9 (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    include a link? see also WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, generally dont use fox news in political stories User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The context is at Portal:Current events/2025 February 21 - the IP above is attempting to remove a FOX citation to a story of a geopolitical nature. 14:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Departure– (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a good removal. It's a US politics claim. Additionally, it seems undue even if it wasn't from Fox but was instead from a single other new source. Springee (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:FOX the consensus is that Fox News is not reliable for reporting on politics or science. Also AOL acting as a news aggregator and reposting the same Fox report doesn't mean it's no longer a report by Fox.
    The issue has been solved by using a different source, always using the least controversial source for any particular piece of content is a good way to not waste editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RBC Ukraine source is also a news aggregator unfortunately. It's just quoting from Fox again. I've started a conversation topic at the associated article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this source which is independent of the Fox News source - but it looks a bit like WP:EXPERTSPS so I'm ambivalent about usability. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:notnews if RS do not care neither should we. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fox should NOT be used, it does not qualify as either WP:V or WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.161.228 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Observervoice.com

    [edit]

    Seems to be used on several dozen articles about prominent people, often to source that they were the subject of a google doodle: e.g. J._M._Barrie#cite_ref-81, Ludwig_Mies_van_der_Rohe#cite_ref-49, Django_Reinhardt#cite_ref-87, but occasionally attached somewhere else (e.g. here's one I removed). To me this looks like churalism spam basically; I see no indica of reliability. Is "was the subject of a google doodle" a thing that should even be in articles of genuinely significant people? I am skeptical, but I thought it would be good to check with others before doing any substantial cleanup. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles relating to Google doodles have the appearance of AI generation, and at least the article on Django Reinhardt (link) is based on a copy of the Wikipedia article at the time[117]. They don't appear to have credited Wikipedia in the article, and even if they did they would still be WP:CIRCULAR and so unusable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks -- that was the vibe I got but I hadn't found an example as concrete as that. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like most of these were added by User:Vimal256, who probably has a COI. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like there was a mass removal of content here. I was concerned about the removal of sourced information but luckily, there was an informative edit summary that led me here. It's too bad that more editors don't take care of details like that. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I've been working my way through [118]. The vast majority of the uses were added by the user I mentioned above; mostly, it was added to source the claim that someone was the subject of a Google Doodle, which in my opinion is unencyclopedic trivia; in a few places it was attached to information that already had a better source. I have received good advice about edit summaries in the past, I'm glad it was helpful in this case! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikepedia Media Rating Bias?

    [edit]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Moved from WP:VPM

    I was looking through the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and I noticed that you rate Fox News in three different categories, two are red and one is yellow. I agree with those ratings. Then I looked through and I noticed that MSNBC is only rated once and it is considered green for a reliable source. Come on, MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right. If Fox has three different ratings so should MSNBC and their ratings should be identical. Their opinion pieces skew so far to the left that I go there for entertainment value when Fox isn't entertaining enough. Their coverage of politics has never had a good word to say about Republicans. Now, I'm not saying Republicans are the bee's knees, but I'm guessing they have done something that was okay, even our current President. But according to MSNBC he is Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Attila the Hun all rolled into one, except worse. And yet you rate them as green.

    I'm not sure who you use to rate these media providers, but whoever it is definitely skews to the left if they consider MSNBC as reliable. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that any action is required here. This could be the writing of somebody who's Overton window is so off-centre that they genuinely interpret centrist American media as far-left or it could just be trolling. Either way, they have completely misunderstood our concept of Reliability, which has nothing to do with left or right but with factual accuracy when covering events. It is not an endorsement of anybody's opinions. Opinion pieces are not used to source facts here so whether those are right or left doesn't matter. Fox has form for reporting known falsehoods, as facts, in its coverage. That's what renders it unReliable. MSNBC does not. We are not using any outside agency for these decisions. These decisions were all made by Wikipedia editors after discussions on noticeboards such as this one.
    BTW, if our anonymous friend sees this, and wants to take their idea of reading left wing media for entertainment a step further, I recommend reading a little actual left wing media. It probably won't change their opinions but it could help to provide context leading to a better idea of where the centre really is and some of their writers are undeniably entertaining. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would very much like to know who rates MSNBC as more factually accurate than Fox. Mind you, I'm not defending Fox, In fact, I specifically said I think your rating for Fox was accurate. Rather I believe MSNBC is just as factually inaccurate as FOX regarding politics. I ask this because if the 'editors' you cite tilt one way or another they would be suspect. Also, why aren't MSNBC's talk shows rated similar to Fox? They have them and they certainly don't report the news without a severe leftward bias. Notice if you visit this site: https://makingsociologymatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/media-bias-chart-9.0_jan-2022-unlicensed-social-media_low-scaled-1.jpg you'll note that MSNBC's Reid Out (an MSNBC talk show) is rated more poorly (untrustworthy) than Fox's The Five and nearly as bad as Fox's Hannity. Also, you may note that Fox.com and MSNBC.com are rated similarly for trustworthiness. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an aside but all talk shows would be covered by WP:RSOPINION, so they would be reliable for stating the opinion of the host but not for stating fact. That applies to all sources, left, right, US or international. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, but if you look at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources it breaks out FOX talk shows and rates them as unreliable, which is accurate. It does not do that same for MSNBC talk shows, which are rated at least as unreliable according to the site I sent. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list is a log of discussions that have repeatedly happened on this noticeboard. The list is not a list of all sources, just ones that have been repeatedly discussed. So I'm guessing that Fox talk shows have been discussed multiple times, probably because editors where trying to use them as a reliable source, and the same hasn't been true of MSNBC talk shows. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, let this be the first time someone talks about the unreliability of MSNBC talk shows and present a chart that detail exactly how unreliable they are. :) 192.26.8.4 (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's covered by WP:RSOPINION, actually Wikipedia handles them as being less reliable than the chart. It still won't be included in the perennial source list as perennial means happening repeatedly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear if editors repeatedly try to source fact to MSNBC talk shows I'll happily slap them with a trout. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One source being the same as another because they have opposing political opinions is a none starter. Each source should be evaluated on its own merits and it's political leaning should never be a factor in that judgement. Bias does not make a source unreliable, Wikipedia even has policy saying so (see WP:RSBIAS). MSNBC saying bad things only about replublicans, or Fox only saying bad things about democrats, is bias not being unreliable.
    Personally I don't think much of MSNBC, but if you want to show they are unreliable you need to show that they are knowingly publishing lies or misinformation, that they are not correcting mistakes when they are made aware of them, or crucially that other reliable sources are reporting that MSNBC is not reliable. Note it can't just be stuff you disagree with, or that might be open to different interpretations, but things that can be provably shown to be wrong.
    So MSNBC can say that Trump is a big meanie, as that is a matter of opinion and bias. They can't say that Trump eats babies, as that would be a lie. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They're probably including talk shows, and as the entry says they should be treated as opinion pieces. Anyway if the poster points to a couple of actual examples that would help, otherwise I don't think anything more can be done here. NadVolum (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I believe in trying to explain the difference between bias and reliability in these situations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See above where I provide a chart that highlights the general unreliability of MSNBC talk shows. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSOPINION per my reply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their coverage of politics has never had a good word to say about Republicans. Yes MSNBC leans left. But stating the network never has a good word to say about Republicans is a bit odd considering each day starts with four hours of Morning Joe, hosted by Republican Joe Scarborough who received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union during his congressional career. But as said by others, what matters is the reputation for reliability. That of Fox was poor even before they paid a $787 million settlement for spreading misinformation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe of differing reliability, but it's not wrong to say they're similar. MSNBC is quite frequently compared Fox in research. Take a look at the first couple of Google Scholar results, for example. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not an appropriate comparison and Google Scholar results do not come out the same for individuals. LifeIsPainHighness (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Search results aren't going to be the same for different individuals. You need to cite the comparisons (quotes will help as well). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. The first couple of related results that show up for me are:
    Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC "liberals and Democrats prefer CNN and MSNBC to Fox News, with the reverse true for conservatives and Republicans"
    Changing channels? A comparison of Fox and MSNBC in 2012, 2016, and 2020 "Some 93% of those who identify Fox News as their main news source identify or lean Republican, while 95% of those who primarily rely on MSNBC identify or lean Democratic"
    Cable News Use and Conspiracy Theories: Exploring Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC Effects on People’s Conspiracy Mentality "Republicans tend to consume Fox News while democrats opt for CNN and MSNBC news instead"
    On a side note, my reply was to Special:diff/1276984180, which seems to have gotten removed for some reason. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those show anything about reliability, just that particular people watch particular channels. Neither a channel being more left wing than another, or the reverse, nor people watching channels that share their politics have any bearing on reliability. Sources are needed that compare their reliability (or analysis MSNBC's reliability separately). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're having a misunderstanding. When I say MSNBC is quite frequently compared Fox in research, that's in reference to the (now deleted) comment from Life I was replying to, which said "Come on, MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right." - Only to delusional individuals. The sources are meant to refute that. MSNBC is the left's equivalent to Fox. Not in terms of reliability, sure, but in terms of who's watching, which is what I meant when I say they're similar. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is RSN not a forum so I would assume any comment relates to the reliability of the source. This includes Life's comment. Do you have some reason to think Life was talking about who uses the source rather than it's reliability or at least generally? Because in both cases Fox News and MSNBC are not equivalent even if they are equivalent in targeting or at least being mostly consumed by certain audiences. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the claim "MSNBC is the left's equivalent to Fox" isn't true unqualified. There isn't really any left equivalent of Fox News in a general sense. In some sense MSNBC is. In some sense something like Jacobin or GrayZone is the left's equivalent. Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    More clarity on Frontiers Media, particularly Frontiers in Communication

    [edit]

    We have no RSP listing for Frontiers Media, but they were marked a potentially predatory publisher on Beall's List and are highlighted in the cite script. Our article on them recounts a history of concerning editorial and publication decisions that make me think it is not an RS. This specific posting follows an addition by @Veg Historian to Raw Egg Nationalist (an article I wrote, very strange far-right influencer person) using content cited to an article in Frontiers in Communication. I have little objection to the specific content added, and the cited article seems... fine, but it is in Frontiers in Communication, this is a BLP, and AFAIK our general ethos is "no predatory publishers ever".

    I saw the article while writing the entry, but chose not to use it as I was under the impression that Frontiers is a predatory publisher. Searching the RSN archives I found a bunch of contradictory advice, some is declaring them wholly unusable, some is more disputed. After talking with Veg Historian, they argued that it is only an issue with MEDRS stuff, while I think the editorial problems are probably bigger than that. We both agreed we should probably get more clarity on Frontiers Media - does anyone else have any thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Some stuff on Frontiers is good, some of it is quite bad. I think declaring it completely unreliable would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and is a bad idea. I think Frontiers papers on paleontology topics are quite usable (often published by eminent experts in the field) for example, so it should be considered on a case by case basis. So much biomedical literature gets published that there's basically no point citing anything in frontiers in that topic area when there are always going to be more reputable alternatives. In this case I think that the use is probably fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of their problems seem to stem from non biomedical journals of theirs, in which case I still think there is an issue. How do we know this journal doesn't have the problems it seems all the rest do? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do they, looking at Frontiers_Media#Controversies and Retraction Watch [119] 90% of them seem to biomedical related. I should have said more forcefully that Frontiers is basically worthless for biomedical topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of the psychology one. Looking at their list of journals it seems mostly medical and I assume (I could very well be wrong, I don't edit biomedical anything) that there is a lot more publishing going on in that field than some of the others. So I'm not sure if that's a great sign for the other ones, in lieu of other evidence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Psychology is at the forefront of the replication crisis just like biomed and the topic areas have many of the same issues. If you look at retraction watch both topics come up pretty frequently. Any area that gets a lot of retractions is an area that you should really avoid citing frontiers for, because it attracts the worst slop. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, I'm not well acquainted with this field. So what would you say is a sign a Frontiers journal is fine? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess a better question is there any better guidance on determining when Frontiers is fine to use? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the author has an established reputation I think it's OK. For example this paper is published by well-regarded experts, and paleontology papers often tend to be published in low-impact journals anyway, so it's taken more on the authority of the authors than the journal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Finland just downgraded this journal (along with another 270 Frontiers journals) to level 0 on their quality scale (ref). Level 0 is equivalent to no peer review at all. MrOllie (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the 271 count also includes MDPI? Or at least from how I'm reading it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My take on this is that Frontiers Media outside of human biomedical content do publish a lot of mainstream science and many Wikipedia articles cite them. The article in question on Raw Egg Nationalist published in their Communications journal is well written [120]. Frontiers publish the journal Frontiers in Animal Science which nobody would call predatory or quackery, its just standard stuff in its field. There are many other Frontiers journals like that.

    The only issue I have seen on Wikipedia regarding Frontiers is their Nutrition journals. Basically, they have a long history of publishing very poor quality WP:BMI papers or reviews. What I mean by this is that they make biomedical claims about anti-disease effects from very weak In vitro studies or those done on animals WP:MEDANIMAL and try ad pass them off as legit review papers. There are many examples of this. They often put out papers claiming all sorts of foods have anti-cancer properties then in the conclusion section they will admit more research needs to be done and there are no clinical trials. It's pretty much the same thing every-time and I have had many chats about this which experienced medical users. Such papers are removed off-Wikipedia for failing WP:MEDRS. However, occasionally they do put out a good review. MDPI have the same bad track record of doing this on nutrition articles, however they also publish legit science. I think Frontiers Media should be judged individually on which journal it is, who the editors are and the quality of the papers. Veg Historian (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I just don’t see why their obvious quality control problems would not apply to non BMI things. Frontiers in Communciation was one of the journals downgraded in Finland for having a lack of adequate peer review, when some of their journals were kept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all new to me. I am trying to trace articles that mention the history of this online. So far the earliest I found was this [121] which talked about 60 journals being downgraded in Finland by JUFO (hardly any of these were Frontiers). Someone has put the original list on Google spreadsheet [122]. A different list was to include 271 journals mentioned here [123] which are nearly all Frontiers and MDPI. The full list of 271 journals is online [124]. In response an open letter to JUFO has been filed [125]. It seems this has only happened in the last 2 months and there is still a debate about this. I am surprised to see Frontiers in Insect Science on the list. We have cited this journal on articles like Bulimulus bonariensis. This looks like normal non-controversial science to me. I would be interested in knowing what users suggest. If there is going to be a consensus vote here and we get to WP:GUNREL does that mean a complete removal of Frontiers? A lot of good content from articles will end up being removed and probably not replaced. Veg Historian (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]