Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#False unsourced information on MLB umpire Phil Cuzzi page

So, there's a debate on Cass Review about the reliability of this source, which is a published piece in the Archives of Disease in Childhood that looks at the extensive academic and medorg criticism of the Cass Review outside the UK, and rather than seriously debunking the criticisms, instead often just rebukes it with the authors' uncited personal views. Now, it was co-authored by Zhenya Abbruzzese, co-founder of SEGM, an anti-trans lobby group that was found at FTN to overwhelmingly qualify as WP:FRINGE and that sources from the organization generally couldn't be considered MEDRS.[1] Additionally, she listed SEGM as her organization for the paper, meaning it was done as part of her work at SEGM - and therefore it's a paper that came from SEGM. Certain editors, however, contest this, saying that because it got past peer review and was published, we have to treat it as an MEDRS regardless of all else.

Tagging @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist @Samuelshraga @13tez Snokalok (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok, thank you for opening the discussion, but there's no need to caricature the opposing view.

The fundamental contention here is that we have a source that we would otherwise take as reliable, published in one of the world's top journals of paediatric medicine, but that because one of its five co-authors is affiliated to SEGM, it is unreliable.

FTN did find that SEGM is a WP:FRINGE organisation, but there is no suggestion here of citing them or anything published by them.

The closer of the FTN thread said explicitly: Do not treat the close as a universal blacklist. Affiliation is not an automatic failure. If a mainstream peer reviewed article happens to have a SEGM coauthor or quotes a SEGM spokesperson then the source/content must still be evaluated for it's own reliability (emphasis mine).

Snokalok claims here and in the original discussion that the paper was part of Abbruzzese's work or official duties to SEGM because it is listed as her affiliation. This is unsupported speculation. We have no reason to believe that the paper is part of Cheung (the lead author's) work for Evalina Children's Hospital or King's College London, which are his listed affiliations. The same goes for the other three authors and their affiliations. The work did not receive external funding, from SEGM or anyone else.

The information for which this source has been cited (and debated) concerns the role of Independent Reviews in the NHS and inaccuracies in grey literatures sources cited by the British Medical Association in its initial response to the Cass Review. If we do as the FTN closer says, and evaluate this source using normal methods, there is no case here for unreliability - other than an "Any touch by SEGM = automatic fail" argument. Samuelshraga (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the source/content must still be evaluated for it's own reliability seems to be what we do on this noticeboard, unless I am very mistaken. Now, I'm sure it's on the talk page somewhere but since this has come here can someone actually copy here what the content people want to use this source for is? Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what OP is asking for. They're basically saying "because this has a coauthor affiliated with SEGM, it's unreliable, right?" Someone is free to ask for a reliability evaluation if they actually think one is necessary and have concrete, articulable reasons they think it's not reliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031, I agree that that's what this noticeboard is for (I was the one who suggested bringing this discussion here, rather than simply disqualifying it). The reason I raise it here is to forestall the FTN close being used as an argument here for automatic disqualification.

I think the specific content that triggered this discussion was:

"In the UK, independent reviews and public inquiries are often used to inform healthcare when current clinical practice may result in poor care quality or patient safety. Both are subject to stringent controls, such as a requirement to engage multiple and diverse stakeholders, to ensure their output is able to help identify and find how to solve any issues in the area they examine.^[1]}} which made policy recommendations for services offered to children and young people questioning their gender identity or experiencing gender incongruence in the NHS.^[2]"

"Following an open national procurement process, the CRD was commissioned to produce the systematic reviews to build upon previous findings by NICE and provide the best possible evidence for the review to use to determine its findings."^[3]

"Where it made sense to do so, the systematic reviews evaluated the quality of the studies they were examining with tools such as the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and modified versions of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale.^[4][5][6]"

@13tez can advise if there was more, there are a lot of diffs. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see the irony at all in saying there's no need to caricature the opposing view and then in the same comment suggesting that editors opposite will argue that any connection equals automatic fail without any of those same editors making that argument, under the auspices of forestalling that argument? Can we try this again without the aspersions? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031, I'm responding to an argument that has been made. For example Snokalok on the talk page said Consensus at FTN is clear, pieces produced by SEGM are not MEDRS. Snokalok evidently still believes that SEGM affiliation of an author is equivalent to being an SEGM publication in toto, and that this holds true even when 4 other co-authors are listed (including the lead author). I think that neither of these steps are valid. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aspersion is specifically related to editors and their caricature [of] the opposing view, for which, if you do not consider it to be an aspersion, I expect you to present diffs of at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement instead of at a content related noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Snokalok, in the line Certain editors, however, contest this, saying that because it got past peer review and was published, we have to treat it as an MEDRS regardless of all else provided an inadequate summary of mine and 13tez's views. I think Snok would have done better to omit the summary altogether and, having pinged us, let us present our view on the reliability of the source. That said, I have no plans to report Snokalok for this, I do not think it was done maliciously and I don't think it was a behavioural issue. This whole sub-thread about aspersions is a digression and I'd be happy to hat it from your comment of 05:36 (or any other comment you choose), and if you want to continue it you're welcome to do so on my talk page. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to evaluate the reliability of the article (or any source) based upon the specific content you want to include from it. However, the issue we're having isn't editors who oppose specific content from it being included, they oppose any content from it being included because one of the co-authors listed her affiliation as SEGM. Therefore, so we need to form a consensus on if the article is reliable and a MEDRS source in general, especially since the suitability of this article has not only been debated in the context of the changes I made.

However, in short, the points I included from it are descriptions of the methodology of the Cass Review, including the systematic reviews it commissioned. Specifically, I used the article as a reference for the following points in my reverted edit:

• "In the UK, independent reviews and public inquiries are often used to inform healthcare when current clinical practice may result in poor care quality or patient safety. Both are subject to stringent controls, such as a requirement to engage multiple and diverse stakeholders, to ensure their output is able to help identify and find how to solve any issues in the area they examine." (see page 252)
• "The Cass Review was an independent review which made policy recommendations for services offered to children and young people questioning their gender identity or experiencing gender incongruence in the NHS." (see page 251)
• "The Cass Review commissioned several systematic reviews to "ground" the evidence base upon which it would make its findings." (see page 252, note "ground" from reference to p47 of CR's final report)
• "Following an open national procurement process, the CRD was commissioned to produce the systematic reviews to build upon previous findings by NICE and provide the best possible evidence for the review to use to determine its findings." (see page 252)
• "Where it made sense to do so, the systematic reviews evaluated the quality of the studies they were examining with tools such as the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and modified versions of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale." (see supplemental data appendices 2 and 3 and my other reply discussing "Where it made sense to do so" in detail below)

13tez (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Abbruzzese's SEGM affiliation does not automatically mean that this article is unreliable, and it should instead be assessed by the wider editor community, because (note this article was peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal):

• The FTN summary said that though "SEGM is a fringe organization", "peer reviewed papers funded by SEGM...can still be cited and should be handled on a case by case basis".
• The FTN closer later added: "Do not treat the close as a universal blacklist. Affiliation is not an automatic failure. If a mainstream peer reviewed article happens to have a SEGM coauthor or quotes a SEGM spokesperson then the source/content must still be evaluated for it's own reliability".
• In the previous discussion about this article on this noticeboard, some editors concurred with this view, saying:
  • "Short answer on the specific question of whether one odd ball amongst the authors immediately disqualifies a source, no it doesn't"
  • "No, this is not a fringe source. As others have pointed out, the contributions of one questionable author, who isn't even the lead author, do not invalidate the contents of a paper, particularly when it is published and peer-reviewed in a mainstream journal."

13tez (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what was feared by basically everyone with reason who said it was a bad RfC or !voted for no such thing. People are now going to use it to deem anything that has even come close to SEGM with a 39.5 foot pole "fringe". It passed peer review. It does not matter that one of the authors is affiliated with SEGM - it may matter if they were the only or primary author... maybe it would matter more. There is zero policy or guideline basis for saying "any work touched by someone who has ever worked for or done research for a 'fringe' organization cannot be reliable". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question does appear to be peer-reviewed, but it also doesn't actually appear to be new research. It seems like it's just the expert opinion of the authors defending the Cass Review against criticism. But that begs the question of "are the authors experts?" So here's my attempt to answer that question:

1. C Ronny Cheung: I believe this is Ronny Cheung, a pediatrician who works for the NHS and who appears to often be consulted to give opinions on NHS research. Needless to say, his opinion is in fact an expert opinion: though he's sort of representing the NHS here, who are not independent of the controversy the article is commenting on, he's a doctor who doesn't appear to be known for anything controversial. He did work at the same hospital as Dr. Cass, which does also increase the possibility he's not independent here, and he appears to be a trustee of the organization she was president of, which also increases the possibility he's not independent here.
2. Evgenia Abbruzzese, also known as Zhenya Abbruzzese, is definitely the most controversial person here. She's a healthcare researcher for SEGM. According to SEGM's own bio of her, she appears to have been an analyst for US insurance companies, not a doctor or scientist. I really don't see any evidence that she's any kind of expert, and I do see strong evidence she is not a reliable source in this area.
3. Elaine Lockhart, a Scottish psychiatrist who appears to focus on pediatric psychiatry. Like Dr. Cheung she appears to have been an advisor for the (Scottish?) NHS. Again, seems like she is obviously an expert, though again might be representing the NHS here, who again are not independent of the underlying controversy.
4. Ian K Maconochie, a pediatric emergency medicine doctor at Imperial College London. No sign that he's not a legitimate expert. Seems like he might be the same sort of NHS consultant as Cheung and Lockhart but this is much less clear here. Basically I don't see any reason to suspect his opinion is not an ordinary expert opinion, and of the authors he seems to be by far the most independent.
5. Camilla Kingdon, a neonatologist. A former RCPCH president, like Dr. Cass, who also worked at the same hospital as Dr. Cass. While she's obviously an expert, in fact she's probably in terms of pure experience the most experienced, I do think the independence issues are also high here.

TL;DR: while many of the doctors here are not fully independent of the report they're defending, everyone but the SEGM representative does appear to be a legitimate expert. I think that if we're using this as a "here's the NHS defending itself against criticism" sort of source, it's totally fine and obviously appropriate. I do think we should avoid using this as if it was a neutral independent source, because it really doesn't seem to be. Loki (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think saying that anyone who works for the NHS is not really independent on the topic of the Cass Review is a very broad net. I think similarly with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. If we say anyone who works in the NHS is not independent on the Cass Review, we exclude almost anyone who works in UK healthcare. Similarly with the RCPCH, we'd basically be excluding all UK paediatricians. NHS employees and RCPCH members are free to oppose or support the Cass Review, including publicly. The authors, as far as I can see, are contributing in an individual capacity. I don't see any conflict of interest here. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear I'm not saying that anyone who works for the NHS in any capacity is not independent. Nearly every doctor in the UK works for the NHS, so that would be obviously absurd.

I'm saying that anyone who is an academic consultant for the NHS is possibly not independent, because they might be representing the NHS here, and that the two authors that are likely long time co-workers of Dr. Cass (because they worked at the same hospital and are also board members of the RCPCH) are almost certainly not independent. Loki (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might misunderstand the word "consultant" in the NHS - consultant is NHS-speak for senior doctor. I don't think this is referring to academic consultant. Consultant (medicine) might clear this up. Being board members of the RCPCH is, in my mind, not a factor either. This basically just means they are very senior paediatricians. Would the same apply to anyone who has held a role in WPATH/USPATH etc.? The question about the same hospital is more substantial, and I'll think about it, but it doesn't appear that they're co-workers now, the Cass Review is not a product of the Evalina hospital either. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this is definitely the case. A "consultant" is a senior doctor, not an outside expert who advises the NHS. Content produced by consultants should be considered independent of the NHS.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, because as I explained below, "consultant" was my word, not their word. Loki (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find your justification below very convincing. It looks a little a posteriori.--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't agree with my full reasoning that's fine, I'm just correcting this particular misconception since many people have had it and it was ultimately my fault. Loki (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of the authors - but I'm a bit confused why you're saying this is not a "neutral, independent source". Merely working in healthcare doesn't mean someone isn't neutral or independent - nor does merely having worked at the same facility as someone being discussed. If anything, the fact that this article has four very advanced/senior pediatricians as authors is in favor of it being a good neutral source. Merely working for the NHS does not impact neutrality/independence any more than working for a hospital in the US makes you non-independent when discussing a Medicare policy just because you may treat Medicare patients sometimes.

I guess my concern here is that this is a very slippery slope - and it's very close here to being "any doctor that uses a guideline in their practice can't be considered independent of that guideline if they criticize/evaluate it". Even contributing to a guideline doesn't really remove independence - there's dozens, if not hundreds of people who are asked for input on clinical guidelines, and no part of any guideline is based on one person's view. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not saying that anyone who works for the NHS in any capacity is not independent of the Cass Review, because that would be absurd.

I do think that at least two of the authors have clear reasons to want to defend the Cass Review against criticism that are unrelated to whether or not those criticisms are factually sound. First, they worked with Dr. Cass for a long time, and likely know her well personally. And second, because they're NHS academic consultants and the Cass Review was an NHS report in their specialty, it's fairly likely that they consulted for it. That very clearly would impact their independence the same way a co-author on an academic paper is not independent when they defend the paper.

A third author is possibly not independent for reason 2 but not 1. A fourth author is independent but highly unreliable, since they're an activist not an expert. That leaves one author that is both independent and reliable. Note that that author, Maconochie, does still work for the NHS and even is a researcher, but since he doesn't seem to be any sort of official consultant for the NHS it's unlikely that he directly worked on the Cass Review. Loki (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they worked with Dr. Cass for a long time, and likely know her well personally...it's fairly likely that they consulted for [the Cass Review]

Just because I think these would be important factors if they're true, do you know that they are as a matter of fact? Or is it speculative? 13tez (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood what a consultant is. Void if removed (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view better now, User:LokiTheLiar - but I can't agree with it. Being a "consultant" in the NHS is akin to being a Medicaid/Medicare contracted physician in the USA - as has been explained. A "consultant" in the UK is just a MD (medical doctor) who has accepted a contract with the NHS to treat NHS patients.

Furthermore, I disagree with you that merely working with someone makes you involved for the purpose of an academic paper. Many undergrads take part in research with half a dozen or more professors - does that make them involved with respect to everything those professors do, past, present, or future? No - it doesn't. If they were directly involved in the research in question, sure - I would say that regardless of field. If someone took part in a research study on the study side - even a minor part such as doing an analysis for it as a student - I would agree that they are not independent of that topic in the future. But no evidence of such has been provided. But that's not what your argument is - your argument is that some of the authors are "activist"s, and that they may have "known her ... personally". Ultimately, that's clear attempt to push your POV. There is no valid PAG to refuse a source that's peer reviewed in a reliable journal just because some of the authors are what you call "activists".

Ultimately, merely knowing the primary author of a study in question is nowhere near enough for them to not be independent. If it is determined to be so, then sources need to be re-evaluated across multiple topic areas, including multiple CTOPs such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, for one. And if you continue to push this idea that anyone with an idea you don't like is "involved" with the topic area, I intend to insert these comments of yours as evidence in the ArbCom case that appears virtually certain to be accepted. To be fully clear Loki, I do believe you're mostly here to improve the encyclopedia. But comments like this are not possible to assume that you aren't trying to right a "great wrong" in your mind. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I'm way more positive on this source than many editors here, and that my analysis is being cited mostly by people who are positive on the source because I (correctly) called most of the authors experts, I think the idea that I'm POV-pushing against the source is very strange and I'd like you to strike those WP:ASPERSIONS.

As far as your actual objections:

1. Consultant isn't a jargon term in this instance, because it's my word, not their word. So for example, if you look at the bio of Cheung I linked, you won't see any mention of the word "consultant" at all. Instead you'll see:

... Outside of paediatrics, he chairs NICE's Indicators Advisory Committee which develops and curates healthcare metrics for NHS providers (primary and secondary care) and population-based health services, and he is also a Senior Associate at the Nuffield Trust health thinktank.
He has previously been a clinical advisor to Public Health England and to the English Chief Medical Officer at the UK Department of Health, and was also seconded as a health advisor to the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit in the Cabinet Office.

This is what I'm summarizing as "academic consultant".

2. I think that in addition to the major misrepresentation of what I'm saying when you call me a POV-pusher, you also appear to have moderately misunderstood something I was saying. The only activist author on this paper is Abbruzzese, and this is fairly blatant since she's not an expert of any kind but she is the founder of an activist organization. The other four authors are all genuine experts.

3.

If they were directly involved in the research in question, sure - I would say that regardless of field. If someone took part in a research study on the study side - even a minor part such as doing an analysis for it as a student - I would agree that they are not independent of that topic in the future. But no evidence of such has been provided. But that's not what your argument is

...but it is what my argument is, though. I want to believe this is another misunderstanding, but I did say this very clearly above: And second, because they're NHS academic consultants and the Cass Review was an NHS report in their specialty, it's fairly likely that they consulted for it.

See point 1 above, I think it's pretty likely that people Dr. Cass worked with, who share her area of expertise, and who are academic consultants for the NHS may have contributed to the Cass Review in some capacity. But it's hard to say this for sure because we don't really know who did other than Dr. Cass herself. Loki (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really would take care with the word "consultant" with the British health system. Cheung is a consultant, ie a Consultant (medicine) - a senior doctor, not an advisor. I would find another word for what you want to mean.OsFish (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with avoiding that word in the future, I didn't initially realize it was confusing.

FWIW he is definitely also an advisor and the source you link says so explicitly. Loki (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Loki here. This isn't a neutral or independent source. It's reliable and peer-reviewed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the proposed changes is from the quality of studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a modified version of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale to Where it made sense to do so, the systematic reviews evaluated the quality of the studies they were examining with tools such as the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and modified versions of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. based on Cheung et al.

• Multiple MEDRS/MEDORGS have criticized the modifications to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale
• This change argues in wikivoice that the changes were when it made sense to do so based on citing this piece

The SEGM RFC close at FTN found SEGM's publications or views can not be used to contradict well sourced scientific information in other articles as per WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Editors can remove or challenge the addition of any SEGM based evidence in a medical topic citing consensus both here and in the previous RfC. This is supported by both WP:VERIFY and importantly WP:MEDRS.[2]

This is trying to say in wikivoice a bunch of top-tier MEDRS / MEDORGS are wrong based on a single paper by a group of authors with no expertise in trans healthcare and the head of an organization known for pushing bullshit in the field. It flies in the face of the RFC Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that change as phrased is inappropriate, because I think this source should be attributed.

I don't agree that it's inappropriate to use this source at all, because despite the one activist author (admittedly worrying) I don't really think it makes sense to call this a publication by SEGM. It's mainly a publication by a bunch of NHS doctors. FWIW, I also think it's likely some of the authors do have experience in (pediatric) trans healthcare. It's not certain, and it's certainly none of their main area of expertise, but I don't think they're clearly unqualified either. Loki (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So to give some context on the specific phrase "Where it made sense to do so", seen in in one of my reverted edits:

• the phrase was referenced to the appendix 2 of the Cass Review's final report, which states: "Where appropriate, the quality of studies included in the individual reviews were appraised using the most appropriate method. The tools used included the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), modified versions of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument."
• the phrase was also referenced to Cheung et al., which states: "two more additional appraisal tools were added, the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and AGREE II. Both represent well-established and widely used tools in evidence appraisal, and are appropriate choice for the included study design in the systematic review work."
• my intent was to reflect and rephrase my understanding of these quotes, which is:
  • it will depend on the exact context of a systematic review (e.g. the nature of evidence it is examining), whether it makes sense to use any evidence appraisal tool and/or to use one of the specific ones listed
  • in light of this, some of the systematic reviews did use these tools, while others did not, but they all used the appropriate choice of such a tool (or none) depending on their individual context

13tez (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are reliable sources criticizing the choice of tools, I think we should not take a clear side about whether the tools they used were appropriate. Loki (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem with using this source is the phrase "When it made sense to do so", then the problem is with that phrase and not the source. Alternative phrases, or different views based on other sources can be discussed at the article talk page.

This is trying to say in wikivoice a bunch of top-tier MEDRS / MEDORGS are wrong based on a single paper. This is an argument about WP:DUE rather than unreliability. It would be perfectly consistent to find that the source is reliable and still oppose the phrase "When it made sense to do so" on the basis of your comment.

a single paper by a group of authors with no expertise in trans healthcare and the head of an organization known for pushing bullshit in the field this is the argument about reliability. I don't see a single claim cited to this source that the non-SEGM authors are unqualified to make. I'd welcome being pointed to the specific citation you object to, from any of the discussions of this source. I don't claim that Abbruzzese contributes in any way to the reliability here, but the four other authors who signed on to this do, as does the journal and its peer review process.

It flies in the face of the RFC as shown above, your interpretation of close of the FTN RfC differs significantly from the closer's. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Transgender health care misinformation#Legislative impacts - UK section several claims from that paper which better MEDRS consider wrong were pointed out to you. It was also pointed out the only sources that cite it positively are those written by other SEGM members and etc, while independent authors are immensely critical. You were trying to use it to one-up better MEDRS. As 13tez is doing here.

as shown above, your interpretation of close of the FTN RfC differs significantly from the closer's - no. Read this slowly: "SEGM coauthorship isn't an automatic blacklist" does not mean "SEGM coauthorship is not a mark against reliability and can be hand-waved away"

• Discussing the close, Dr Vulpes said Addition or use of material from or sponsored by SEGM should go under greater scrutiny as exceptional or controversial claims require strong sourcing WP:RS[3]
• The close says SEGM's publications or views can not be used to contradict well sourced scientific information in other articles as per WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Editors can remove or challenge the addition of any SEGM based evidence in a medical topic citing consensus both here and in the previous RfC.[4]

I think the easiest thing is to ask @Dr vulpes directly if a source by a SEGM author which contradicts top-tier MEDRS/MEDORGS should 1) be used to claim those MEDRS/MEDORGS are wrong in wikivoice or 2) be used to present a "balance" between top-tier MEDRS/MEDORGS and a single paper. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to use it to one-up better MEDRS

Please could you clarify:

• which sources you believe are better as MEDRS sources that you think the Cheung article contradicts
• the specific points on which you think the Cheung article contradicts them
• if you think we can include anything from the Cheung article (i.e. if, in your view, it's reliable enough and/or a sufficiently suitable MEDRS source to be able to take and reference any information from it at all)
• if you think we should include material from both sides of the disagreement on the credibility of the Cass Review per BALANCE

Thanks! 13tez (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like like the AWMF international Clinical Practice Guidelines[5], produced by dozens of MEDORGS. The tip-top of MEDRS.

At the Talk page for trans healthcare misinfo I note examples

• It says the lack of transparency in the Cass Review is a problem. The Cass Review article notes multiple MEDORGS concurring. Cheung et al say it isn't.
• It says the explicit exclusion of trans healthcare experts is a problem. The Cass Review article notes multiple MEDORGS concurring. Cheung et al say it isn't.

The example I keep noting is you tried to put in wikivoice that the search was modified where it made sense to do so. We have MEDRS by actual experts in the field that heavily disagree[6]

There are few things in it that aren't 1) factoids we could source to anything else or 2) undue opinions which contradict MEDORGS/MEDRS. So far, you've suggested that 2 main changes. 1) That change which is completely undue. 2) A large chunk of text on the history of independent service reviews.

• For 2, a brief footnote explaining what independent reviews are could be useful. It would ideally be sourced to anybody else

if you think we should include material from both sides of the disagreement on the credibility of the Cass Review per BALANCE - We have dozens of MEDORGS/MEDRS from around the world calling bullshit on it. We don't have anything close to MEDRS which defend it (we do have lots of opinion pieces by SEGM members, and one or two things like this bordering on MEDRS). The SEGM RFC is clear - when MEDRS and MEDORGS overwhelmingly agree on something, we don't put in SEGM for "balance" because that would UNDUE. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the AWMF guidelines are not the "tip-top" of MEDRS. These are S2k guidelines, which means they are consensus-based, not evidence-based. As such they are further down the WP:MEDRS tree. From here:

S2K guidelines: S2K guidelines are developed by a committee of specialists in the medical field in question. The recommendations made are consensus-based. Because medical information isn't systematically collected and assessed here either, the information that the recommendations are based on isn't very reliable.

If I had to rank things, I'd probably go: S2k, systematic reviews, S2e, S3.

Void if removed (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is trying to say in wikivoice a bunch of top-tier MEDRS / MEDORGS are wrong based on a single paper. This is an argument about WP:DUE rather than unreliability.

ECREE issues fall under both V (and through it, RS and RSN) as well as NPOV (and through it, NPOVN, FRINGE, and FRINGEN). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:ECREE applies to all of the claims cited/citable to this source, and so the question of whether it's reliable is one that should be examined on its own merits. That doesn't presuppose anything about which particular claims are WP:DUE, if any are contradicted by other/better sources or any other content discussions. All those discussions presuppose reliability, so I think focussing on the reliability question first is the way to go. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for starting discussions on this noticeboard explicitly requires people to supply the specific claim and article that it's used in (Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.) because we can't discuss every single one of the claims citable to a source. There are claims we can cite to even the Daily Mail, and claims that we can't to the best article by the best authors in the best journal out there, which is why specific reliability discussions ask for the specific claim and specific article, so that the discussion is limited to a reasonably precise scope. Otherwise, your answer is simple: as it says in the instructions, whether the paper is reliable or not depends on context. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the RfC you mentioned, we had a discussion (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 108#Guilt by association) about whether SEGM affiliation impacted the reliability of a peer-reviewed source. You eventually agreed it did not.[7] Many editors alleged I was making false accusations of disruptive editing when I said that editors would call sources less reliable because of association with SEGM.

I would consider that a very firm consensus against making the argument that "this peer-reviewed source is unreliable because of SEGM affiliation",

And yet, here we are. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source you discussed at FTN was not written by a SEGM member, it just positively cited them. You strawmanned that people argued "likes SEGM = unreliable". I pointed out that source was marginally reliable but 1) if a RS says a fringe organization doesn't like a real MEDORG's, that details still undue in every article except those about the organization per FRINGE/ONEWAY and 2) that's a journalist who's been criticized by 3 other MEDORGs for bias against trans people and misrepresentations.

This is the founder of the organization, putting forward arguments that top tier MEDRS are wrong. It is a stretch and a half to lump together as "affiliation"/"association" the founder of the organization and a journalist who cited them credulously - those are a world apart.

Does or does not WP:V/WP:SOURCE say the author is a factor in reliability? In the abstract, when the founder of an organization known solely for bullshit in a field says better sources (like MEDORGs and MEDRS and other RS) are wrong in a peer reviewed essay - should we equate their one paper with the rest of the field? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original question I asked: Does the designation of SEGM as a WP:FRINGE organization mean that an academic article published by a member of or based partly on content from the SEGM can also be WP:FRINGE?

You are currently declaring a peer-reviewed academic article as unreliable because it was authored by a member of SEGM.

@Simonm223 and Choucas Bleu: what do you think? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YFNS's response to that original broader question was much more negative than the response you linked, which was to a much narrower question.

I think you're being clearly deceptive here in a way that is very WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, frankly. You're clearly trying to catch another editor in a lie when it's just the case that they have different positions on different questions. Loki (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YFNS did not actually answer the question in the initial response. That is why I had to ask several follow-up questions, and my understanding was that YFNS argued SEGM affiliation doesn't impact a source. The reason why I'm speaking like I'm doing a cross examination is because I've learned in this topic area, I cannot leave any room for ambiguity.

Please give me quotes from the FTN RfC that support your belief that a source can be declared unreliable due to "guilt by association". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you could produce a comment from YFNS that accurately reflects your claim about what YFNS had said, that would help. Your original link to a comment was not about articles authored by unequivocal SEGM members.OsFish (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the comment you linked, I said a source was not particularly reliable for many reasons, citing SEGM credulously was one of them but not the main one, but may be used in context in some articles.[8]

My earlier comment in that thread[9] was "Is an article (of any type) written by a member of ... SEGM also WP:FRINGE?" - Can you find a single one about trans healthcare that isn't? I have seen many and every single one promotes one or more FRINGE theories. Please keep in mind SEGM has been called out for writing op-eds, letters to editors, editorials, primary pieces, and etc where they can make FRINGE claims without much oversight.

• You never provided one - you just kept doubling down on your example of a BMJ piece which credulously cited them.

If you read the close it says SEGM's publications or views can not be used to contradict well sourced scientific information in other articles as per WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Editors can remove or challenge the addition of any SEGM based evidence in a medical topic citing consensus both here and in the previous RfC.

• Some editors trying to cite this piece to contradict top-tier MEDRS is exactly the kind of nonsense the RFC was meant to avoid. But alas, Wikipedia is apparently doomed to have monthly threads on "can I use this paper by the founder of a hate group we agree is known for bullshit to contradict better sources".
• This source, for the record, even if not authored by SEGM - still couldn't be used to supplant top-tier MEDRS.

Your "guilt by association" subthread had the same issue then and now - your definition of association ranges from "credulously cited" to "founded it". My answer then and now is the same - those are different cases with different answers.

Now, please answer my question: Does or does not WP:V/WP:SOURCE say the author is a factor in reliability? And are you arguing that the founder of a group we agree is known for bullshit is a reliable author? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this interpretation that - If you read the close it says "SEGM's publications or views can not be used to contradict well sourced scientific information in other articles as per WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Editors can remove or challenge the addition of any SEGM based evidence in a medical topic citing consensus both here and in the previous RfC" - should mean that papers authored by members of SEGM should not be used to contradict other RS scientific information. That was ultimately the crux of the RfC. The RfC closer made a caveat on if a peer reviewed paper is ONLY "funded by SEGM", that should be handed on a case-by-case basis. But that doesn't automatically extend if it's co-authored by the organization/members, advisors, or otherwise directly affiliated with them. Raladic (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC closing was clear that material published by SEGM or statements by the group are not considered reliable. That did not apply to peer reviewed research published by affiliated authors. Springee (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, go re-read the close - it was clear that it didn't necessarily automatically apply to studies solely funded by them, with similarities such as tobacco companies hiring some external researchers to produce a study - but they do so in such cases to hire other "independent" researchers to be able to claim independent research supporting their views, not their own, even though as the closer also noted - typically we still don't give such studies much credence in most cases since the companies hiring people for such studies typically also reserve the right to publishing and chose to only allow publishing if the outcome of the study actually supports their efforts and withhold publishing if it didn't. If you want a crash course on this practice, I can recommend the books Bad Science (Goldacre book) and Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. Raladic (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading of the close neither aligns with the discussion nor a reasonable reading of the close. Springee (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the close was that clear on this issue either way, actually. The closer was clear that it wasn't meant to be maximally broad or maximally narrow, but didn't otherwise define exactly how affiliated with SEGM a source has to be for that to affect its reliability.

Which makes sense, because the underlying discussion was even less clear about this. Loki (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone asked the closer how their close would apply to this situation? Having re-read the close I don't see anything specific to this situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr_vulpes/Archives/2025/May#c-Dr_vulpes-20250527001600-Samuelshraga-20250526101100 Void if removed (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd asked a week or so ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr_vulpes#c-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250702230600-RSN_thread_of_interest

Per what VIR linked, How does this close affect sourcing? Review the cited policies from the close WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. I said in the close that the "Addition or use of material from or sponsored by SEGM should go under greater scrutiny as exceptional or controversial claims require strong sourcing WP:RS."

Per MEDRS/FRINGE, we should not be trying to debunk top-tier MEDRS/MEDORGS with any piece like this. We definitely don't contradict them in wikivoice, and should make sure we aren't doing a false balance between this paper and the all the other RS. The fact it's written by the founder of an organization known for bullshit is the cherry on top. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The part that seems specific to the original question is "Do not treat the close as a universal blacklist. Affiliation is not an automatic failure. If a mainstream peer reviewed article happens to have a SEGM coauthor or quotes a SEGM spokesperson then the source/content must still be evaluated for it's own reliability."
Other questions may remain about the source, but that one coauthor is associated with SEGM isn't a disqualifying factor, at least according to that close.
Obviously that doesn't mean it's immediately reliable, and still needs to be assessed per all other medical claims, but I think it's time to move on in regard to that particular point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think given that, it's reasonable to draw negative inferences about a source because of SEGM affiliation but not to immediately discard it. (But I may be biased because that's also the conclusion I'd come to just by myself.) Loki (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think having an author associated with SEGM adds to it's reliability, but I don't think focusing on it helps the discussion. It weighs against the paper, so the question is does the publisher and other authors counter that or not. Moving the discussion to those factors might help move things along. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that material published by SEGM (the organization) is not reliable, and even if they were, it's not WP:DUE based on the fringe policy.

This does not extend to blackballing authors who are affiliated with SEGM when they write peer-reviewed articles. You cannot exclude otherwise reliable peer-reviewed sources solely because of SEGM affiliation. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it's not an automatic blackballing. I think everyone agrees with that. But what if they're being used to challenge multiple MEDRS?OsFish (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The affiliation of the author is immaterial. What matters is that the piece isn't a systemic review or a standard of care. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I wpuld rather not be tagged into arguments about whether it's OK for Wikipedia to make use of transphobic sources.Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you linked to the right comment by YFNS? The one you link to is not about an article by an SEGM author. It's about an article that cites the views of SEGM people. OsFish (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint only makes any sense if you equivocate "cited SEGM" and "written by SEGM" to "involved with SEGM". In your link, YFNS agrees that citing SEGM does not make a source unreliable. But this paper doesn't cite SEGM, one of its authors is the co-founder of SEGM. Loki (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the part of that discussion where you said being involved with SEGM would make a source unreliable? Because I asked that question. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's that "involved with". You're clearly putting words in people's mouths, and I'm not sure if you're doing it intentionally or not but I'd like you to stop. Loki (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI here is the previous discussion on RSN from October 2024. Void if removed (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To provide further context, aside from the previous RSN discussion, this source has also been discussed in:

• an ongoing thread in the talk page for the Cass Review article
• another past thread in the talk page for the Cass Review article
• a thread in the talk page for the Transgender health care misinformation article

I think that since this article has extensively been debated multiple times over (I'm probably missing other discussions I don't know about), it's in the interests of enabling productive editing to get a definitive consensus on its reliability (preferably in a summary of this thread when it closes). 13tez (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a formal WP:RFC on the articles talk page, informal discussion like this rarely get a formal close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that's a good idea. Hopefully, an RFC would be able to definitively resolve this debate. 13tez (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested why at the article talk page? If it's a reliability discussion, I would think that here is a better venue. It also has the benefit of getting more eyes on this and a broader consensus. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the discussion is more about whether to include the article than about reliability. More eyes are best achieved by notification, regardless of the location you can notify any noticeboard or project as long as the notification is neutral. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article was also suggested (by me) for use at Transgender healthcare misinformation and the thread there covered much of the same ground, I think this is a better forum. It's also likely to draw participants beyond the "regulars", which I would welcome. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that you can discount an article because of the affiliation of one of its five authors, and the affiliation of one author doesn't make it the work of the organisation that that one author is affiliated to.
That's not to say that there couldn't be other reasons to decide not to use it, but just that this one appear to be a stretch. If repeated discussions have failed maybe a RFC on the use of the paper on the articles talk page is the next step. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we not judge a source by who writes it, not who publishes it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been used to discuss reliability in the past. There have been instances where the quality of the author was the deciding factor, even if the work was published by a generally reliable publisher. A similar situation to sources being generally reliable, but that doesn't preclude specific instances of being unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those specific instances would be based on something like an opinion/interview piece posted in the news section (whether by mistake or as part of a larger article). Not just because someone doesn't like the views of the source/one of the authors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wanting a breakdown of the article's authors, see Loki's previous comment. 13tez (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:V all four of the usual characteristics of a source (publisher, publication, authors and the work itself) can affect reliability. I don't really see where MEDRS comes into things though unless people poor care quality or patient safety is the part under dispute. Also, yes the claim being made is relevant to discussions on this noticeboard, and Samuelshraga hypothetical problem is with that phrase does not mean that it would be out of scope for this noticeboard. There is a reason the instructions for posting on this noticeboard require the claim the source supports, and that reason is obviously not that as soon as the issue is with the specific claim the issue is removed to a different venue (though I suppose if anything that follows the instructions get automatically removed from our scope that means less work for us). Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: No, not normally? It's irrelevant which of the NYT staff wrote a particular news article (i.e. not opinion piece). What's relevant is that the NYT, through their established editorial policies, has vouched for its reliability by publishing it. Likewise, if something has been peer reviewed in a reputable journal, it's not important who wrote it. The sole exception would be if there's actual evidence of the specific individual in question committing academic/other dishonesty - and if they're the only author. But those sorts of articles are generally quickly retracted, so that is very rare. Of course, it also would matter who the author is if the publisher does not have any editorial policy at all - such as a book publisher - but that's not applicable here.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that no, for sources that have editorial policies such as news organizations/journals, it doesn't usually matter who wrote it. If a reliable source is vouching for it by passing it through their editorial policies and/or review processes, then we accept it as a reliable source. Attempts to focus on the author rather than the fact that it passed the editorial policies of the reliable source is an attempt to push a POV by refusing to accept and report on all viewpoints in reliable sources in line with due weight. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is a reliable source and a suitable MEDRS source because:

• For reasons I have previously stated, Abbruzzese's SEGM affiliation does not automatically blacklist the article or make it unreliable or unsuitable as a MEDRS source.
• As discussed by Loki, the four other co-authors besides Abbruzzese all appear to be legitimate experts. Although they all have worked in the NHS (like practically all doctors in the UK) and some have worked at the same hospital as Dr Cass or been a member of an organisation she was the president of, in my view, there's no concrete evidence that shows they lack sufficient independence from the subject matter to be used as a source.
• The article was published in Archives of Disease in Childhood, a reputable, peer-reviewed medical journal. It is the official journal of the RCPCH, the UK's main paediatrics WP:MEDORG, and (I believe) the biggest paediatrics journal in the UK. It is also one of the top 5-10 paediatrics journals in the world.
• Archives of Disease in Childhood is published by The BMJ, one of the world's oldest and more reputable medical journals, which is listed by WP:MEDRS as one of the core clinical journals from which to source biomedical information. Furthermore, the BMJ is owned entirely by the British Medical Association, a key MEDORG in the UK.
• The article was subjected to, and passed, peer-review before being published and has not been retracted since being published.
• I believe that it is overwhelmingly unlikely that the peer-review process of a reputable journal like this would have been compromised to allow a biased or otherwise erroneous article to be published, especially without it having been retracted after it was published.
• Therefore, I believe it's practically certain that the article is scientifically credible, which would make it reliable and a suitable MEDRS source.
• Furthermore, since it's examining and analysing other sources, it is a non-primary source, the importance of which is set out in MEDRS.

Given my belief in the article's reliability and suitability as a MEDRS source:

• I believe it is in the interests of maintaining WP:BALANCE to add information from the article (which largely agrees with the Cass Review) alongside those from suitable MEDRS sources which are largely critical of the Cass Review.
• I believe this because there is disagreement on the Cass Review that exists and, per WP:NPOV, we should seek to represent all the main views on a topic rather than deciding ourselves which one is correct and only presenting that view.

In the previous discussion about this article on this noticeboard, some other editors concurred with this idea:

• "This also makes Cheung et al part of a broader consensus rather than a single fringey source: it's concurring with and defending a very large and high profile scholarly work in the field...the field of youth gender medicine is in the midst of deep, genuine controversy among the best reliable sources. That controversy should be presented neutrally to readers; the effort to decide which side is 'fringe' and suppress all sources favourable to it is highly inappropriate in this context."
• "This subject is in the midst of a paradigm shift from consensus-based to evidence-based medicine. As of right now there are two competing mainstream POVs. Both vigorously attempt to refute each other, but NPOV demands our articles represent them both. It is not the role of editors here to pick the correct POV."

13tez (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reliable to me. Published, and passed peer review in an reputable medical journal, from a reputable organization. As outlined above, most of the authors do seem to be experts. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with peer reviewed sources we should be looking at the quality of the journal, not the authors unless a specific author has been shown to have falsified research (presumably that isn't the case here). Above it was suggested that part of what establishes the reliability of a source is the author. That is true but not a complete picture. If we are looking for a book on the history of the Ford Mustang we aren't likely to find it in a peer reviewed source. Thus in that case we would pay attention to if the author has a good reputation among people who publish in that field. In this case most authors are unknown to us the readers and likely many of the professional readers as well. In this case the credibility comes from the journal publisher and it's peer review process rather than the reputation of the individual authors. Springee (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree fully. The journal is usually the biggest factor, sure, but if the paper itself was the same (or at least of the same type and quality) I think I would usually trust it more if it were published in Nature Communications with a well established author than someone who has never published in the field in Geophysical Research Letters (or, idk, Nat. Geosci. or Nat. Clim. Change if we want to hold the publisher constant as well) even though I would probably normally prefer a field specific journal over a (roughly) equally prestigious broad OA journal. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case editors are trying to claim the inclusion of an author they don't like justifies discounting the source. If that author was magically replaced with a different, non-SGEM related author and the article content was otherwise unchanged (this is a hypothetical) would we be discussing it? Yes, the quality of the journal can be considered but association of the author shouldn't. Also, one needs to be careful about saying "not in their field" when discounting author credibility. It is quite common to have co-authors who are in other disciplines. Fundamentally the problem here is editors want to discount a journal article that says something they don't like based on author affiliation. This discrediting affiliation is not one recognized by the journal but rather created by Wikipedia editor opinion. Springee (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think in my analogising something got lost in translation here, so I'm going to try again:

If that author was magically replaced with a different, non-SGEM related author and the article content was otherwise unchanged (this is a hypothetical) would we be discussing it? Yes, the quality of the journal can be considered but association of the author shouldn't.

I am precisely disagreeing with the second sentence of the quoted point. Specifically, while they are both in most cases generally reliable, I would (and my example is going to be a climate paper both because I think abstracting from this specific CTOP distances it from conflict, as well as because I have climate in the mind right now)

a) usually consider Nat. Clim. Change slightly better than Nat. Comm., for papers in the relevant field, holding author, publisher and content constant;

b) however, still, if the authors look more qualified, prefer the Nat. Comm. paper over the same paper which was in some alternate universe published in Nat. Clim. Change (so again with content and publisher held constant) with less qualified authors.

I don't think the opposing viewpoint to your own as a reaction to says something they don't like is helpful here. The difference between analysis and opinion is also a legitimate distinction to draw, if editors wish to make such a case it probably would have helped to explain reasoning in a bit more detail. I'm also not quote sure what you mean by discrediting affiliation is not one recognized by the journal. If you mean that the peer review process will typically filter out bad authors, it is true that there is evidence single-blind reviewers (such as in ADC) do tend to be positively biased towards authors that have a good reputation, it is not really an intended part of the process and I don't think we should rely on it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern along with Abbruzzese, who is writing as a representative of SEGM, is that these people do not appear to be experts specifically in the area of transgender health. If we were talking about oncology, and it was a paper written by a group of people who had never practiced in the area of treating cancer or published any previous research on it (as far as I know), and included one person representing a group that was known for fringe ideas on cancer, I think we'd be rightfully cautious of using that source specifically to contradict multiple sources and evidence reviews written by experts practicing in the field of oncology. I don't see why that would be dissimilar here. I don't know if it's worth mentioning that ADC also published the reviews commissioned by Cass that have come in for a certain amount of criticism. In terms of independence, Kingdon works with (at Evalina) and now publishes with Cass, for what it's worth. OsFish (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the claims cited to this paper were biomedical claims about transgender health, I would understand this concern. However, they're not. Claims concern the role of Independent Reviews in the NHS, about the proper evaluation of studies in systematic reviews and factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations in non-peer-reviewed literature.

The closest two things to biomedical information about transgender health that I see in the article are:

1. The article categorises as erroneous the Yale white paper's "claim that the audit data reported by the Review demonstrate a detransition rate of 0.3%." This isn't actually a biomedical claim about transgender health. Cheung et. al. are saying that Mcnamara et. al. made an unsupported inference from the data, they are not saying that the given rate is erroneous or correct.
2. They attack the contention that transgender paediatric health is held to a higher evidentiary standard than other areas of paediatric healthcare. These writers collectively have ample expertise to make this claim, as well as the fact that they are publishing it in a peer-reviewed article in a high-ranked journal of paediatric health.

If there are biomedical claims beyond this that you think they are not qualified to make then let's have that discussion. I don't think there's any problem with doctors critiquing the scientific practices and standards in adjacent fields. It's also worth noting that they explicitly aren't critiquing published peer-reviewed research from transgender health journals. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The detransition claim - the total dismissal of McNamara's calculation - is a problem because a) it does involve understanding transgender health services, transgender life patterns, and the interaction between the two that produces data and b) McNamara's approach is the same as multiple MEDRS, as McNamara points out in the paper. If McNamara is wrong, so is other MEDRS literature on this question. It honestly appears to be an error in Cheung, which doesn't go into any detailed discussion of the transition literature whatsoever. One must presume an unfamiliarity with it, which isn't great. (I note that their sources for these claims are the blogs of two somewhat controversial non-medical writers, which again, really isn't great.) There is, of course, nothing wrong in principle with doctors critiquing areas outside their own expertise. However, if those criticisms are not supported by people with direct expertise and/or clinical experience in the field, it's a problem. Those involved in transgender health come from a variety of medical disciplines, so it isn't as if there aren't diverse standpoints contributing to the in-field research.

The claim made by McNamara et al is not that "transgender paediatric health is held to a higher evidentiary standard than other areas of paediatric healthcare". The claim is "The [Cass] Review's desire to see only high-quality evidence dominate this field, however, is not realistic or appropriate because no other area of pediatrics is held to this standard." ie it's not about what actual standards transgender health is held to, but specifically the standard demanded in the Cass Report. Again, Cheung's response seems muddled. They seem to take this as McNamara saying the current quality of evidence is fine (which is not what McNamara et al say), by describing how the quality of evidence could be improved with more cohort studies - but that's not the point that McNamara et al were making, which was about RCTs. So do we include a claim that says McNamara et al is wrong, but which is based on claiming McNamara et al were saying something they weren't?

The more I look at this paper, the more it seems to have problems that present challenges for how Wikipedia might use it. OsFish (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are sourcing claims to the blogs - I think they are pointing to extensive non-peer reviewed online critique of factual errors in the Yale paper, and then Cheung et. al themselves point to two specific factual errors.

On the detransition rate issue, no familiarity with the literature is required, as they don't make a case on what the rate for detransition is or isn't. The issue is simply this: Mcnamara et. al. (p.22) say that Cass is wrong to say that the detransition rate is unknown, pointing to the audit of GIDS patients, and positing that it shows a detransition rate of 0.3%. Cheung et. al. say that this is incorrect, because the GIDS data is insufficient to make the detransition rate known. Cheung aren't actually positing or rejecting any given detransition rate. They are saying that Mcnamara drew an unwarranted conclusion about the detransition rate based on the cited data. This is easily checkable. Since Mcnamara is a self-published source and Cheung is a peer-reviewed one in a high-quality journal, it seems to me that precedence should be given to the latter - unless and until better sources say that the data cited in the GIDS review is sufficient to make a detransition rate known.

On the comparison to other areas of paediatric healthcare, I do not think Cheung et. al. are muddled. The comparison of standards and the RCT issue are both treated in both documents (Mcnamara and Cheung), they're not fully overlapping issues and I think you've misread either Mcnamara, Cheung or both. They seem to take this as McNamara saying the current quality of evidence is fine (which is not what McNamara et al say), by describing how the quality of evidence could be improved with more cohort studies Leaving aside what they seem to say, what they actually say is that Mcnamara attributes the low quality of evidence to the lack of RCTs. This is something clearly visible on Mcnamara p.12, so I don't think you have reason for concern about Mcnamara being misrepresented. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, McNamara doesn't say that. McNamara isn't describing the state of evidence, but the standard of evidence Cass imposes in writing the review - as my direct quote from McNamara shows. As for detransition, to say no familiarity with the literature is required is really not a supportable statement, especially given that McNamara compares the calculation they make with other papers in the literature. OsFish (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Mcnamara reaches a conclusion based on flawed evidence, and then defends it by saying that the result is really similar to what is found in the research literature, it is not a criticism of the research literature to point out that Mcnamara's calculation is based on flawed evidence. Much the same as if Mcnamara had posited a detransition rate through astrology, the accuracy or otherwise of the number would not be the point of the criticism. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the flaw? Cheung et al say:

The audit included in the Review was of treatment at point of discharge from the Gender Identity Service, so did not include any follow-up data. Hence, no conclusions about detransition rates can be drawn.

Yet precisely such a detransition rate (at point of discharge from youth services) is produced in Cavve et al cited by McNamara, with van der Loos et al, also cited by NcNamara, doing something very similar in capturing treatment immediately after exit from youth services. This sort of measurement is clearly a thing in the MEDRS literature. So familiarity with the literature really does matter. This is why I raised the issue of the authors not being any kind of recognised specialists in trans health. How do we include material that says something is a fatal flaw when it isn't a fatal flaw in other papers on the exact same topic? OsFish (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that analagous calculations to the one made by McNamara is made in other, reliable sources ignores caveats made by Cavve et al and van der Loos et al but not in McNamara. You conflate two things: whether the data on desistance/detransition during the period of treatment in youth gender clinics is useful information that needs collecting, and whether it amounts to a detransition rate. Cheung criticises the second conclusion, which is made explicitly by McNamara. Cavve, for example, sets out to "explore the frequency of reidentification with birth-registered sex for pediatric gender service patients" and makes clear that its findings apply within the study period, not beyond. Cavve stresses the importance of longitudinal studies into pathways of gender identity beyond this point. Cheung's criticism clearly wouldn't apply here. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To try and extract that analysis of these sources from half a sentence in Cheung that references neither as a basis for the insertion of content is quite clearly OR. Anyway, McNamara is also clear that it isn't a lifelong detransition rate, so your OR analysis doesn't hold anyway. OsFish (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're applying WP:OR to discussions of the reliability of sources, then your whole line of argument that McNamara's calculation is analagous to Cavve's and Van der Loos' is equally OR (unless a reliable source says as much). I don't think that the policy applies in this context, but if it does I don't see why it would apply exclusively to my refutation of your argument, but not your argument itself. This is RSN, so, I'm clearly not making my argument as a basis for the insertion of content, I'm making an argument about reliability on exactly the same terms as your argument about reliability.

If you want to discuss issues of content insertion (i.e. saying in an article that McNamara made an error in asserting that Cass'/GIDS' data made the detransition rate known), we can have that discussion at the relevant article's talk page - I won't be attempting to make those kinds of insertions while this discussion at RSN is ongoing though. Samuelshraga (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Er... McNamara et al make the direct analogy with those studies. It's literally part of the point McNamara makes about detransition rates. That other studies do the same calculation, and plainly they do. That's not OR. That's from the source. All we have is Cheung et al, people who are not experts in the field, and not independent of Cass, saying, in effect, "Nah" with no explanation at all. OsFish (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

McNamara is not a reliable source, and citing it to say that its own calculations are analogous with those done in the rest of the literature would be questionable even if it were.

It's also the case that McNamara doesn't even say, as you claim, that they've done the same calculation, they say that The Review's data is consistent with robust, long-term studies on regret, medication discontinuation and re-identification with birth-assigned sex. Saying that the conclusions McNamara has drawn from the Review's data are consistent with the conclusions of studies doesn't mean they've used the same methodology.

Furthermore, given that Cheung is a source that includes two eminently qualified paediatricians, they are more than capable of saying that "data X about the effect of treatment Y is insufficient to draw long-term conclusions since it ends at the point of discharge from youth services". This statement doesn't apply to Cavve, who qualifies that "this methodology is not able to capture identity development that occurs after discharge or age older than 18 years" and calls for "Adult follow-up of all former pediatric patients" and "Longitudinal follow-up studies". McNamara omits to mention these caveats when discussing Cavve.

It seems to me that your argument is this:

1. The trans healthcare literature contains examples of studies into the rate of detransition/reidentification.
2. McNamara says that they use "the same calculation" as those studies.
3. Cheung's critique of McNamara is therefore a critique of the trans healthcare literature.

The problem is with point 2. McNamara doesn't say this, even if they had said it they're not reliable for the statement, and inasmuch as the methodologies are the same McNamara goes far further in their conclusions than Cavve does meaning that the criticism can apply to one and not the other. But other than that, sure it's "Nah" with no explanation at all. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you concede the methodology is the same as that used in MEDRS. You concede there is no explanation whatsoever from Cheung, in the one sentence they address the matter, about what is wrong about what thus happens in MEDRS, except to source the claim to two controversial (to say the least!) medically and academically completely unqualified bloggers, something you say we should ignore. It comes down to the same thing: how are we supposed to say that McNamara did something wrong when MedRS published by people with in-field expertise do the same thing? This is the problem with the source as you want to use it: to make very strong but unsupported claims against accepted practices and findings in multiple MEDRS written by experts from within the actual field. OsFish (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: What Cheung actually say is "there is no follow up data". So it isn't about the calculation. It's about the time frame. And the time frame is one used by other MEDRS. OsFish (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the time frame is one used by other MEDRS. Do the other MEDRS claim that it makes a detransition rate known, with no caveats as to the applicability of that detransition rate?

there is no explanation whatsoever from Cheung - expecting Cheung to refute a contention that this line also attacks the transgender healthcare professional literature, when it only does so by implication and the only person who has drawn that implication is you, is rather a lot. Given Cheung didn't actually attack or even mention the sources you're saying it does, the authors presumably didn't feel the need to explain how they weren't attacking those sources.

medically and academically completely unqualified bloggers The claim isn't cited to the bloggers and doesn't appear in the blogs. This shows that the blogs are mentioned only illustratively. The claim is original to Cheung et. al. We've already disputed whether those authors (ZA aside) are qualified to make it, I doubt we'll make progress there.

the source as you want to use it: to make very strong but unsupported claims against accepted practices and findings in multiple MEDRS written by experts from within the actual field - I've never suggested making any claim relating to the detransition rate in Cheung in article-space. Maybe address the actual claims I or anyone else would cite this paper for, rather than other claims that you find overblown. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say I've never suggested making any claim relating to the detransition rate in Cheung in article-space. Maybe address the actual claims I or anyone else would cite this paper for, rather than other claims that you find overblown. However, on Transgender health care misinformation you justified this edit to add the text

Proponents of gender-affirming care in the United States have misrepresented the Cass Review's purpose, processes and findings, in order to support ongoing legal cases against bans on gender-affirming treatment there.

based on Cheung et al, citing as part of the justification Cheung's criticism of the detransition rate calculated by McNamara et al. The other main justification was Cheung's defence of the evidence reviews, criticism of which YFNS has already noted above, appear in multiple MEDRS in addition to McNamara. There was an fact a whole section in the talk devoted to your defence of citing Cheung's criticisms of McNamara in article space. It's because of that specific conversation in which I highlighted how Cheung et al is being used to condemn viewpoints supported by multiple MEDRS that I brought up the issue again here. OsFish (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text you've quoted me as adding does not contain any content about detransition rates, or unsupported claims against accepted practices and findings in multiple MEDRS. McNamara is not a MEDRS. Yes, of course I think we should cite Cheung's criticisms of McNamara (principally at the section devoted to McNamara at Cass Review.

This has now strayed quite a long way from the topic of reliability of this paper, so I'll just reiterate. I think that I summarised your argument correctly (in the end of this comment), and I still hold to my criticism of that argument. I don't see us making progress on this point. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is about reliability for claims. You have agreed that the detransition claim is not appropriate for changing article content. So therefore, if one also considers the other main grounds is likewise contradicted by multiple MEDRS, the claim that McNamara is spreading misinformation should not be there. Cheung et al is not a good source for such a claim because it goes against multiple MEDRS that actually lay out the evidence for their position rather than assertions made by people from outside the field.OsFish (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have agreed that the detransition claim is not appropriate for changing article content.

I didn't say that. At all.

Cheung et al is not a good source for such a claim because it goes against multiple MEDRS

According to you. My reading is that it makes no judgement on those sources, nor is any contradiction of them implied. Cheung says that McNamara draws an unsupported conclusion from data. You say that other sources like Cavve use similar data to McNamara. The point is that McNamara and Cavve don't draw equivalent conclusions!

We're going round in circles here. Perhaps editors will be convinced by your reading and I'm mad. But seemingly we're not going to convince each other of our incommensurable readings of the sources, or indeed of our incommensurable readings of what I've said in this thread. Best leave it at that. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, they're not. Claims concern the role of Independent Reviews in the NHS, about the proper evaluation of studies in systematic reviews and factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations in non-peer-reviewed literature.

Yes, this is all claims about biomedical research, which is in fact WP:BMI.

It also strikes me as very silly to claim that a paper in a medical journal which defends a medical report against medical criticism and all but one of whose authors are doctors is not about biomedical information. Loki (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think, based on WP:BMI, that the role of Independent Reviews in the NHS is an example of general information and not biomedical information. Perhaps that needs a separate discussion to sort out. Looking at WP:YESBMI on biomedical research specifically: Information about clinical trials or other types of biomedical research that address the above entries or allow conclusions to be made about them. Other information about research, such as funding information, is not biomedical. To my mind, questions about the role of the Cass Review in relation to the NHS are similar to questions about the funding of biomedical research, which is general information. Claims about the methodology of the Cass SRs would be biomedical information. This source does contain both types of claims. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Abbruzzese, who is writing as a representative of SEGM - is the suggestion also that Cheung is writing as a "representative" of Evalina Children's Hospital and King's College London? I think any inference beyond that the co-authors wrote this individually, and listed their institutional affiliations as they thought them relevant, needs to be evidenced. We don't tie the paper to any of the other institutions to which the co-authors are affiliated. If I were to write in article-space: "Representatives for King's College London, Evalina Children's Hospital, the University of Glasgow and SEGM said in a joint paper" and then add a claim from Cheung et. al., I think that statement would be removed as simply false. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SEGM is a FRINGE org. We're having this whole discussion because of that. OsFish (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some foresight from @WhatamIdoing: from back in February:

My bigger concern about this is that I expect it to be stretched from:

• SEGM is bad, so let's not cite their website

to:

• SEGM is bad, so let's not cite their website
• or research they've funded
• even if it appears in prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals
• or articles that quote them (unless disparagingly)
• or papers written by anyone who has ever belonged to them
• or reference works that cite them
• or politicians that approve of them

and so forth.

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how this discussion is going, it seems likely we'll want to conduct an RFC on the Cass Review talk page. So, here's my attempt at laying out questions for an RFC:

A. Is Cheung et al a reliable source for biomedical facts?

1. Yes, it's generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. No, it's not reliable

B. Is Cheung et al independent from Dr. Cass and the Cass Review?

1. Yes, it is independent
2. It's complicated
3. No, it's not independent

These are both based off the normal 4-pronged structure except without "deprecate", which IMO doesn't make any sense in this context. Loki (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early to identify what the best RFC questions are, but I notice YFNS raised it as say in wikivoice a bunch of top-tier MEDRS / MEDORGS are wrong so we have to consider whether the question should be about reliability for Wikipedia:Biomedical information, or instead reliability for contested assertions. I see attribution was also raised, how people want to attribute it also seems a bit tricky, so ideally should be workshopped before any hypothetical RFC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar I think this is a good start. One issue is that Is Cheung et al a reliable source for biomedical facts? is that I don't think anyone has proposed citing them for biomedical facts. Suggested citations about the role of Independent Reviews in the NHS, the methods used by the York SR team, the purpose, content and accuracy of the Yale white paper are all general, rather than biomedical information. There might be specific claims that are closer to the border, and I think their section on standards of evidence in paediatric care definitely contains biomedical claims, but for the most part the question is whether this source is RS rather than MEDRS. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are claims about biomedical research, which is in fact WP:BMI. Loki (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing how that doesn't ammount to a biomedical claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I'd say information about the methods used by the York SR team is biomedical information. Some points about the accuracy of the Yale white paper might be biomedical information, that should be considered case by case. Information about the Refer you to this comment. Information about the role of Independent Reviews in the NHS, the purpose and content of the Yale white paper are not biomedical information. Basing this on WP:BMI. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just now seen this, but I agree that this is a good start for the RFC before if an RFC is to be held. That said, I do think that it should focus on the source itself, rather than calling it "Cheung et al". I understand why you chose that term to refer to it - and I don't think you're wrong for doing so - but I think it would be better if the "Cheung et al" in both was replaced with "this source". Simply because I don't think there should even be the potential for respondents to be prejudiced based off a name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 09:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue, why would we conduct the RfC on the Cass Review talk page? It's not the only page where this source has come up, and it's more normal to conduct reliability discussions at RSN. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors are insisting that because the piece is peer reviewed, it must be an RS. This betrays a complete misunderstanding of how MEDRS/FRINGE work. They key question is can we use this to say, in wikivoice, that higher quality MEDRS/MEDORGS/RS are wrong.

WP:MEDRS/WP:MEDDEF says that we use the best sources. Clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, etc. Primary sources such as initial studies are peer-reviewed. They are not MEDRS. Generally - MEDRS does not say "it passed peer review, you can use it for whatever statement you want and contradict better MEDRS with it"

• WP:MEDASSESS: Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not given equal weight. Studies can be categorized into levels in a hierarchy of evidence,[6] and editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews. Low-level evidence (such as case reports or series) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided

WP:FRINGE explicitly talks about peer review, with a section called Peer-reviewed sources help establish the level of acceptance which says Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources.

So both WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE are explicit that "it passed peer review" doesn't mean it's automatically a WP:MEDRS or isn't WP:FRINGE. I'd hope some here can drop the stick on insisting "it's peer reviewed" is the ultimate gotcha, and stop accusing editors of bad faith for arguing one paper written by the founder of a hate group doesn't trump 1) the better MEDRS, 2) the MEDORGS and 3) all the other peer reviewed RS on the topic.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is obvious that some of you have been arguing about this topic and the related sources for a while. However, for the benefit of those of us who are coming into this for the first time, I have to ask for additional context.

Could you perhaps phrase the question as: "Is Cheung et al (link) reliable for saying "text blah blah text" in article XYZ? Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One instance would be whether the source is reliable to say "The Yale Integrity Project's white paper on the Cass Review was not peer-reviewed, and a disclaimer that it has no official endorsement from Yale University was eventually added to its text." This information would be added to this section: Cass Review#Yale Law School Integrity Project. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was that something in discussion or a new idea? We already say it's a "white paper" (ie not peer reviewed) there. And that statement is false.

We already cite ABC for details on the report, which says Editors note: This story previously stated the new report as a Yale study. The study was performed in part by Yale researchers and is not affiliated with the institution. ... A new report released by researchers from the Yale Law School, Yale School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Northwestern University and others[10]

Cheung et al says It should be noted, though, that a disclaimer clarifying it had no official endorsement from Yale University was eventually added. The report actually says This work reflects the views of individual faculty and does not represent the views of the authors' affiliated institutions without mentioning Yale (and only 2-3 authors were even from Yale).

If we want to neutrally note in wikivoice that it was done by a bunch of researchers, some from Yale, but not officially a Yale publication - we can. We do not need to cite a FRINGE activist and non-WP:INDEPENDENT source (The Yale Integrity Project has heavily criticized SEGM's bullshit before) to misrepresent a general disclaimer as about Yale specifically. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't currently state that the paper is not peer-reviewed. I don't know if this content has been discussed previously - Cheung et. al. has been discussed previously. It is stated explicitly in the source. Given you and other editors have seen fit to state in wiki-voice that the Cass Review is not peer reviewed (even though it's an independent review and there's no expectation that the report's text would be, and that the research it commissioned which is taken to comprise part of the Cass Review is very much peer reviewed), it seems odd to me that we would elide this fact about a paper by academics, discussed under the topic heading: "Reception by academics and researchers". The statement it's a "white paper" (ie not peer reviewed) presumes a knowledge by the reader that I don't think is warranted. But I still think this fulfills @Blueboar's request for an example of a concrete textual addition that would be proposed to a specific article if this source is found to be reliable.

Of course this isn't an exhaustive selection. There are plenty of citable claims in Cheung et. al. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue is that it would be being cited for several different pieces of text. Since it's written by a bunch of NHS doctors defending the Cass Review against criticism, it makes a bunch of claims defending the Cass Review and criticizing its critics from the position of an academic paper. So for editors interested in defending the Cass Review against criticism it's useful basically anywhere a critical claim appears.

I feel like the most sensible thing to do here is to treat it as a sort of unofficial NHS response, and therefore include its claims but attribute them. Loki (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... let me see if I have this right... The article is the main Cass Review article, and you want to use cheung et al to rebut criticisms of the Cass Review? Essentially you want to cite cheung as a primary source for that rebuttal? If that is the case, I would say that it may be reliable for some statements, but not others. At a minimum, in-text attribution is required. What we are presenting is opinion, not fact. For that reason, it is also important not to interpret what cheung et al says, but to present what it says precisely (indeed, I would prefer using direct quotes). Blueboar (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Loki wants to use it to rebut criticisms of the Cass Review - quite the opposite. Of those who agree it can't be used to rebut the criticism in wikivoice, Loki is just perhaps the most open to mentioning the rebuttal at all (attributed). for editors interested in defending the Cass Review against criticism it's useful basically anywhere a critical claim appears was not a statement of intent from Loki to defend the Cass Review but an explanation of why so many editors are pushing so hard to get this source declared reliable and dancing around the specific use-cases. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this, yes. I personally think the criticisms are more convincing than Cheung et al. I'm trying to describe why other people want to use it a lot, not what I would use it for if I could write the article alone. Loki (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key problem is the amount of heavy lifting some editors want Cheung et al to do despite it being a single paper written by people from outside the specialism (except for a member of a FRINGEORG), at least one of whom has a direct personal working relationship with Cass. They want to use single sentence claims made in Cheung et al for content that appears to overturn mainstream research in whole areas of study. The example I looked at above is whether it is valid to calculate detransition rates over the period from admission to youth services to exit from them (ageing out). This comes out of a comment by Cass that detransition rates cannot be known, that McNamara et al criticise using Cass' own numbers to produce a rate with a method used in multiple peer reviewed MEDRS, which NcNamara et al cite. Cheung et al say in a single sentence without further explanation or analysis or reference that this calculation is not valid. Yet, there are published peer-reviewed MEDRS that do this, as McNamara makes abundantly clear. So the current proposition from one editor is that it's valid to make such calculations except when McNamara et al do it to criticise Cass, which seems really very silly to me and very much POV. As far as I can see, no other independent MEDRS has taken up Cheung et al's claim on this.OsFish (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's valid to make such calculations except when McNamara et al do it to criticise Cass This is an obvious and blatant misrepresentation of my argument. The only people saying that McNamara's use of the data is analagous to Cavve and Van der Loos are: McNamara (2024) and OsFish (2025). Neither of these are reliable sources.

My position is not that such calculations are valid or invalid, but that we should follow what reliable sources say. OsFish brought this up as evidence of unreliability, and it's fairly clear that Cheung's criticism doesn't apply at least to Cavve (haven't read Van der Loos yet), because Cavve makes similar caveats about the data that Cass does, and that McNamara is attacking. The catastrophising about editors seeking to overturn whole realms of scholarship based on single sentences from Cheung is overblown. Cheung's critique is applied by Cheung to McNamara, and the "implied" critique of other scholarship is not an issue because:

(a) there's no reason to accept that this was in fact the implication made by Cheung, other than that OsFish says so.

(b) we can only cite sources for things they directly say, not implications. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that it would depend on the criticism being rebutted, and what I'd introduce to that analysis how well sourced the criticism is. Inasmuch as what we're dealing with is opinion, not fact, that would depend on the particular claim. Cheung's contention that "McNamara et al state the Cass Review ranked WPATH guidelines among the top five of 23 guidelines" and that this is an error of fact is not a matter of opinion, it's trivially verifiable. Cheung's rebuttal of McNamara's criticism about the use/misuse of the GRADE approach in the Cass Review is perhaps more a matter of opinion. I think that in the former case there is no need for attribution unless there is disagreement among reliable sources. In the latter case, I can see that attribution would be more appropriate. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is disputing this. The source doesn't trump better MEDRS but it also isn't unreliable or MREL. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable academic journal is unreliable simply because it was authored by a member of SEGM or includes a SEGM member among its authors. While proper attribution may be necessary, affiliation alone should not be grounds for dismissing a peer-reviewed paper. At the very least, it could be cited for statements of opinion, as this is a highly contested topic with a range of diverse perspectives. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, again, I do see a couple of people, both supporting and against the source, have brought up attribution. What information to inculde in the attribution sees like it could use workshopping and discussion though, since the usual form of attribution (either Author/s et al or Author, short description of author) seems like they might be a difficult (the first option seems not very informative, the second might be excessively long for multi-author works). Do we want to do that here or wait till it comes up on an article talk page and address each separately? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an essay written by professor of modern German literature Claudio Magris, first published in 1990 in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, that is used as a source in at least 8 articles. The essay claims "The Italians (...) were for centuries no less than fifty percent of the total Istrian population". The source for this number is not cited. This "for centuries" says little about "when": we don't know when it started, we don't know when it ended. We don't know who counted the people, how they arrived at their nationality (when nationalities may not have existed yet). It is known that the first official census was during the Austro-Hungarian period in 1857. Personally, I would consider Magris's article, at best, a primary source that has not undergone any academic review, but would like to hear your opinions on whether it should be used, and in what way. Ponor (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, please note that there is a page Claudio Magris. Now, the page for Istria has info on that subject and it may conflict with the statement by Magris. The Istria page is pretty much a translation of the Italian Wiki page. But the sources there seem WP:RS.

Now, please also note that Magris used to be a senator and has clout. So the Corriere people would think twice abut questioning his statements. That is how things work there. The Corriere is generally reliable and along with La Republica one of he best two papers in Italy. It is not what it used to be 20 years ago, but still generally good. However, the Magris statement is questionable and is best avoided. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magris had not yet been a senator when he wrote that article in 1990, so I wouldn't let the clout issue carry too much weight. On the other hand he was already a highly respected scholar so prima facie he'd be reliable but if better sources suggest otherwise go with them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He'd be reliable for what he does - German literature, no? Not history, not geography, not mathematics. Since some people find this issue very important, I think I'm gonna have to ask for a stronger, academic, secondary or tertiary source, with its own sources. If Magris knew the exact number, he'd have said it. "No less that 50%" sounds like guessing. Ponor (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't do German literature. He does the history and culture of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Habsburg heartlands. He's most known for his history of the Danube, and he's written about the Adriatic. So the ethnic history of Istria is well within his field. However, obviously an unsourced number in a column by him doesn't have the same status as a number in a scholarly book with a footnote, so if there are better sources use them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Visaches 37, you had some sources for Dalmatia. Is there anything similar for Istria? Where did Mr. Magris get his estimate from, any idea? Ponor (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the earliest Austrian census (1880), there were 178,381 persons recorded in Istria, of whom 79,155 (44%) spoke Italian. Every subsequent census shows a lower percentage, with of course a dramatic fall after WW2. So presumably Magris is referring to the Venetian period, when a majority of the population would have been Venetian-speaking. If pre-modern Venetian-speakers are "Italians", the claim is true. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1880 is still not "for centuries", and it's hard to guess where you got those numbers from. They don't seem to match the table at Istria#Austro-Hungarian_census. The source for that table argues that the Venetian authorities manipulated the numbers for 1880 (!), and that italianization of the Slavs was at its peak. Table 2 on page 649 in that source says: Croat(ian speakers) 106k (38%), Italian 112k (40%), Slovene 43k (16%). Now, this is a secondary, peer-reviewed academic source, by Vladimir Žerjavić, a demographer, based on Austro-Hungarian census data and other published literature, unlike Magris's. Ponor (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical Italian irredentist article. Magris and others probably think that if they repeat a lie 100 times, it will become the truth... There is no reliable data, nor a census, that would confirm that Italians have made up over 50% of the population of Istria for centuries. The text states that the coast from Koper to Pula accounted for over 50% of the population, which is not true. The text also states that Italians lived on the coast while Slavs lived in the rural hinterland. Apart from the fact that there were Slavs and even majority Slavic settlements on the western Istrian coast itself (Funtana, Peroj, Štinjan, Banjole), almost the entire coast from Medulin south of Pula all the way to Rijeka was predominantly Slavic. It also mentions 300,000 refugees from Istria, Rijeka and Dalmatia after WW2, although that number did not exceed 200,000. Such an article full of irredentist lies and half-truths should have no place on Wikipedia. Visaches 37 (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it has some good material in it if you have access. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponor The 1880 census is missing from the table at Istria#Austro-Hungarian census. I don't read Croation but it seems that Table 2 on page 649 refers to population movement. The figures I quoted appear in a different chapter in the same issue of that journal: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/52744 p. 623. The original census publication is here: https://sistory.si/media/legacy/publikacije/1-1000/834/Poseben_krajevni_imenik_za_Primorje_1885.pdf although it looks like you'd have to do some addition to replicate these numbers. In any case my point was that in 1880 it was less than 50%. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GordonGlottal: Table 2 on p649 shows data for "population trends" (population growth) over the years in "Croatian and Slovene Istria" ... "in thousands". GS means "annual population growth rate". Only the last two columns are relative numbers: there were 47,000 'Italians' less in 1945 than in 1910, and 59,000 'Croats' less in 1921 than in 1910 (for many different reasons). Nothing in these sources suggests Magris is right. Ponor (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not disagreeing. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion and edit war in Olenivka prison massacre, can we get a consensus about using Centre for Human Rights in Armed Conflict given thaty it seems to have been used as part of a hoax? Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to say unreliable. I only see some partisan sources that cite this investigation without any correction, while some others have already corrected themselves e.g. this. The website has no other investigations and was created in May 2025. Mellk (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable / deprecate. From the New Voice of Ukraine article provided by Smeagol: Journalists drew attention to the fact that the site on which the report on the terrorist attack in Yelenovka appeared was created only on May 22 of this year - just a few days before the publication of the document itself. There are no other materials on the site. and "After identifying the unreliability, the publication was deleted. We thank you for your attention and concern. We apologize for the mistake,” the Human Rights Ombudsman said in response. So Ukrainian journalists and the Ukrainian Human Rights Ombudsman have said the source is unreliable and removed it. In addition, the website's contacts page is just a single gmail address and there's no information on who the "staff" are. It is someone's blog/self-published site. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 08:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a search and the source is used in one more article. It is in the last paragraph of this section: 155th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade#War crimes. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 10:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also incorrectly links to Centre on Human Rights in Conflict (maybe this confusing name was by design?). Mellk (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this deliberate? resemblance in name lends credence to the idea that this “Centre for Human Rights in Armed Conflict” was created as part of a hoax. Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure yet if it can be called an outright hoax (I have only glanced at the report). I have seen other "war crimes investigations" from questionable sources that only get picked up by pro-Russian sources. But it is a bit concerning when you have websites like The Insider that refer to this as "UN analysis".[11] It does not seem like they have corrected this. Mellk (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not referring to the content (I have not read it), but to the use of it as “an UN report”. The site, if not the report itself seems to likely have been created to facilitate this. Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for clarifying. Mellk (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be have been a honest mistake between Centre on Human Rights in Conflict and "Centre for Human Rights in Conflict". I've removed the paragraph. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the report is by an unknown group, it shouldn't be considered reliable. Whether it's a hoax or not is unclear, and unimportant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, if this report is done by an unknown group, it shouldn't be considered an RS, plain and simple. Analysis on whether it contributes to or is part of a hoax is irrelevant to assessing whether or not it is an RS. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per the disclosure on my page, I'm the PR Manager for CNET. I have no intention to make any edits myself, just bringing this to the Wikipedia editors' attention for discussion. I'm starting this discussion to reevaluate CNET's reliability status. It has been ten months since the publication was acquired by Ziff Davis (October 1, 2024). Since its acquisition, CNET has maintained public editorial policies and standards to ensure its content is fair, credible and relevant.

• CNET's AI Policy
• CNET's Editorial Guidelines
• CNET's Hands-On Review, Affiliate Disclosure, and Sponsored Content Standards

CNET Public AI Policy (Updated December 2024 and July 18, after Ziff Davis acquisition): In the past nine months, CNET has publicly affirmed that it does not use generative AI to write content for the site or platforms while adhering to high and transparent standards of editorial integrity. In fact, under Ziff Davis ownership, CNET updated its public AI policy:

• CNET does not use generative AI to write content for our site or its platforms. Our words are human-written.
• As a team, we may use AI tools to help us with tasks like transcription or note-taking, but never to generate advice, reporting or recommendations.
• In all cases, we have rules in place to ensure high editorial standards, trustworthy recommendations and proper sourcing.

CNET's Sponsored,  Affiliate and Testing Standards: In a Feb. discussion, Wikipedia editors reviewed CNET's reliability rating. The forum included a few misunderstandings around CNET's sponsored and review content that I'd like to clarify. Sponsored and affiliate content practices are common media practices in place at most publishers.

1. Affiliate Content: In the Feb discussion, Wikipedia editors said that content such as "Best Teeth Whitening Kits in 2025" and "Best Nanny Cams" is "sponsored" and "irrelevant" content. This is editorial content, written by an expert reviewer in that particular topic, that includes affiliate links, a standard media practice at most publishers. Those affiliate links are disclosed in a trust statement. Many publishers categorized as 'generally reliable' have similar affiliate-linked content on the same topics. Wikipedia editors can reference the Wikipedia definition of sponsored content to re-evaluate this discussion.
2. Sponsored Content Standards: CNET is transparent about paid and sponsored content. As stated on its public editorial guidelines page, "sponsored" content on CNET is clearly labeled. From time to time, CNET publishes paid content that is creatively directed by a partner. This is always labeled prominently as "paid content" across all platforms.
3. CNET Testing Standards: CNET tests over 1,000 products annually, exceeding 10,000 hours of testing in a variety of categories. These tests are done by experts in that given field. See here for CNET’s Hands-On Testing Standards. More info:
   1. Independence: The products, services and deals we recommend are independently, editorially chosen for evaluation, review and recommendation. When links generate revenue the page is labeled to explain this. The links are available for all products we review and are a service to the reader so that they can act on an independent recommendation; they are not chosen by an advertiser.
   2. Expertise: Our team of experts has decades of combined experience in their specialties. They write about products and services they know well, and their work is subject to discussion and editorial review by other expert editors for accuracy and relevance.
   3. Hands-on tests: We unbox, touch and test the products we cover whenever possible. For services, we subscribe, test and use them ourselves. This hands-on approach applies whether the review appears by itself (standalone), part of a best list or both.
   4. Research: When we can't test a product or service hands-on, we make recommendations based on reporting and research. We also consider experiences from industry experts and customers.
   5. Value: We take pricing into account and focus on finding the best option at the most affordable cost.
   6. Lab Testing: For many product categories, we capture performance data in a lab using standardized tests. For example, in our New York lab we test battery life and screen brightness for laptops and measure color and gaming lag for TVs. And in our Louisville facility, we created a specialized testing platform lab to compare how much dirt a vacuum picks up -- up to and including tracking the cleaning trails for robot vacuums, too. But whether that testing happens in Manhattan, Kentucky or at myriad off-site locations, we store our data for future comparisons to other products. We also use that data to better identify long-term trends within categories.
4. Reviews
   1. See here for the full repository of CNET’s Reviews
   2. In the February discussion, Wikipedia editors said "No detailed reviews linked" as a strike against CNET. This basis should be re-evaluated. Many of CNET’s best lists include this hands-on evaluation within the list itself, rather than as a separate standalone review, but the information is still available (and often extensive). This approach provides readers extra context to make comparisons and evaluate use cases without having to click back and forth to a separate review. And there are also many examples, such as Best iPhone Cases, where a full review for each isn't editorially appropriate and doesn’t serve the consumer. CNET still publishes numerous standalone reviews as well.

Thanks for your consideration,

Ioneal123 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really disagree Ivey, but abstractly, it's much easier to ruin a reputation then it is to rebuild one, and even then it took 3 years after Red Ventures acquired CNET before there was enough consensus to downgrade the source. It's great if ZD is taking the publication in the right direction, but it's most likely going to be a while before people start treating it the same again. Maybe not a whole 3 years, the fact that it has already been discussed twice (Archive 453, October 2024 as well as the Feb. one in 471 linked already) shows that editors want to give the publications another chance, but it would probably take quite a bit more time before we can find consensus for anything beyond the note In August 2024 CNET was purchased by Ziff Davis, which may mean that the reasons for considering it unreliable may no longer apply. already added to the box.

More concretely, while I can't see anyone actually mention relevance in the linked discussion, that is something completely different from reliability. A specific article can be one of both relevant and reliable or irrelevant and unreliable, but also relevant but unreliable (in which case a better source would be needed) or irrelevant but reliable (which means we wouldn't use that kind of content on Wikipedia even if we can be 100% sure of its factual accuracy). If you were referring to Newslinger's comments on unusable or otherwise unsuitable content, I would consider the suitability of content to be reliability and relevance (as well as any other factors) jointly considered.
We are always going to find listicles, for example, less relevant as actual content references even if they're very well written and even if we were writing our own list article. A feature article would likely be preferred even if they are written by the same person, with the same level of care. Some of the content from any news publication is going to be unsuitable for Wikipedia, even in generally reliable publications, because we're not actually a news site, and reviews and editorials are probably going to be harder for us to use than ordinary news content. Hands on tests are no doubt very useful for CNET's readers, but we're going to have a hard time putting it in Wikipedia articles.

As for affiliate links, that should probably be a broader discussion and nothing to do with any CNET specific practices. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ioneal123, I'd like to clarify the timeline. A well-attended 2023 noticeboard discussion found consensus that CNET's pre–October 2020 content is generally reliable, no consensus regarding CNET's content from October 2020–October 2022, and consensus that CNET's post–November 2022 content is generally unreliable. These designations are recorded in CNET's entries on the perennial sources list (RSP). The February 2025 request for comment (RfC) that you are referring to was closed without any change to the designations, due to insufficient editor participation in the RfC. In the February 2025 RfC, I argued that CNET should be reclassified with the "additional considerations apply" designation for its post–October 2024 content, as CNET has separated from Red Ventures (RSP entry), which is partially in line with some of what you are requesting now.

Sponsored content is considered generally unreliable, even when published by sources that are otherwise generally reliable. Although you don't label pages such as "Best Teeth Whitening Kits You Should Check Out In 2025" as sponsored content, such pages contain highly promotional content and are designed to strongly encourage the reader to buy the listed products through affiliate links, which "may earn a commission" for CNET. These low-quality review pages (which I also consider sponsored content) are substantially more promotional and less informative than CNET's full reviews, such as "Samsung Galaxy A35 Review". I understand that there may not be much to say about a specific product (e.g. a phone case model), but in those situations, there is little reason for a Wikipedia article to cite a sponsored review about it. When you check the perennial sources list, there are a number of publications whose sponsored content is similarly designated as generally unreliable, including that of your competitors Mashable (RSP entry) and Forbes (Forbes Advisor) (RSP entry).

(I do want to make a correction to a comment I made in the discussion directly above the February 2025 RfC: because the earlier March 2024 RfC on Red Ventures specifically excluded CNET from its scope, CNET is still currently considered marginally reliable for the time period of October 2020–October 2022. The current entries on RSP are accurate and up-to-date.) — Newslinger talk 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. @Newslinger, to support your argument of reclassifying CNET post-October 2024, I'd like to re-emphasize some dates in the timeline.

• CNET has maintained its public policy and has not used generative AI assists for the site since 2023.
• This commitment continued following its acquisition in October 2024.
• Externally, CNET’s journalism continues to be widely regarded -- CNET has received over 50 awards for its journalism,  storytelling and reviews  (LA Press Club, Folio, Webby, Telly, and more) since 2022.

I hope you take this into consideration. Thank you. Ioneal123 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two claims to consider here:

1. That CNET is no longer owned by Red Ventures and has been owned by Ziff Davis since August 2024, so a new entry on Perennial sources for CNET for after August 2024 makes sense. The November 2022-Present listing is primarily about AI-generated content and, at least according to @Ioneal123 and the pages on the CNET site, AI is not being used anymore.
2. Whether or not affiliate links in content should be considered sponsored content or not. That's basically standard practice now for most publishers, even ones doing lab (or human) testing, like RTINGS.com, Wirecutter (website), The Strategist and Consumer Reports. I think it makes more sense to separate out lab/human testing vs review aggregating (or just random lists or products to push affiliate links)

I think it makes to consider CNET's reliability anew in light of #1, and two separate discussions need to be had about affiliate links and AI-generated content. --FeldBum (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to suggest that Business Journals (BizJournals.com) get added to the list to help add creditability to notable topics in American markets. It is a network of local business news publications with a strong track record of fact-based reporting. It seems to already be a commonly used source across articles, particularly those related to company profiles, and executive biographies. They cover 40 different American markets and each operates with a local newsroom and professional editorial staff. They appear to follow standard journalistic practices, including source verification and editorial oversight. Their articles are widely cited by universities, law firms, government agencies, and other media outlets for business intelligence and regional economic reporting. Seems odd to me that they’re not already in the list? They should be added as Generally Reliable. JazzyOxygen (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can just add a source to RSP just like that. Discussion of why this is being put on this noticboard would be a good start. Is this source disputed by an editor on an article? Or is a claim disputed by another editor? Ramos1990 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Perennial_sources#What_if_a_source_is_not_here?. If it's not been under discussion, there's no reason to add it to RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are previous discussions:

• Archive 474 § bizjournals.com / fastcompany.com (April 2025)
• Archive 422 § Bell Bank: a tale of churnalism using InForum.com and bizjournals.com. (December 2023)
• Archive 288 § Business Journals / bizjournals.com (March 2020)
• Archive 271 § BizJournals in the Bitcoin Cash article (August 2019)

Overall it's a mid NEWSORG mostly used in prospective articles as a source of churnalism to pad things out, and if it's added to RSP should probably have the same caveats as WP:TECHCRUNCH (IMO anyway). While these publications are generalist rather than industry specific, the content is rather similar to trade press and the same COISOURCE analysis should be carried out for claims that are self-serving or exceptional. Prospective article reviewers should probably already be familiar with them though, given how common they are. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good digging! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with your assessment that BizJournals fits within the mid-level NEWSORG category and should be treated accordingly. That said, it’s worth noting that BizJournals is somewhat unique in that it focuses on market-specific reporting across many major U.S. cities. In that sense, it's no more of a “generalist” outlet than others already included in the list, and it doesn’t quite align with what we typically define as trade press.

As I’ve read through the other discussions listed above I've noticed a broader concern with some reviewers who may too quickly label content as “churnalism” when they see advertising, don't actually read the articles, and don't fully consider the context or nuances of the market or industry being covered.

“Churnalism” is broadly defined as a form of “journalism” in which press releases, wire service stories, or other pre-packaged material are used to create articles with little or no original reporting or fact-checking.

That is not happening with this publication. They seem to be labeling their sponsored articles as such, and each story has a real person attaching their name to it with their reputation on the line. What more could we ask for?

There are 4 users from previous discussions who say BizJournals is generally reliable, and now I’m the fifth.

1. GreenC
2. Atlantic306
3. SamHolt6
4. CherryPie94
5. JazzyOxygen

According to WP:RSPCRITERIA it meets all the criteria for inclusion. Seems like it should be added to the list. JazzyOxygen (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using Business Journals as a source for a long time. Support adding to them as Generally Reliable to the list per above comments and previous discussions. Timur9008 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes six of us. JazzyOxygen (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not how it works, but okay. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding of how it works according to WP:RSPCRITERIA. What am I missing? JazzyOxygen (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that per linked discussions + this one, criteria is reasonably met for inclusion. What to include is not that clear atm. However, starting RSN-discussions for the purpose of "achieving" RSPCRITERIA is a bad idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"What more could we ask for?" beyond an outlet labeling sponsored stories and including bylines on stories? At WP:NORG we ask for independent reporting based on a reporter's investigation and fact-checking, not on press releases. Looking at the previous discussions that were linked:

• Archive 271, three of four participants state that the specific article under discussion is a recycled press release; no rebuttal on that point from the fourth
• Archive 288 suggests that it's factually accurate but not an indicator of notability: Bizjournals is likely well-known to most WP:NPR and WP:AFC participants as it (for pay) churns out press releases and propagates native advertising for companies, but I have not seen anything indicating the information published by Business Journals is unreliable
• Archive 422, only one person says they are familiar with bizjournals and they say I perceive it as mostly a place for real estate developers to name drop and amplify their press releases. I agree it's churnalism, not independent of the subject, and shouldn't be used for determining due weight or notability.
• Archive 474 doesn't seem to reach a consensus around bizjournals; one person says it raised red flags for them as potential churnalism, and the reply doesn't address the churnalism aspect but does note that it publishes labeled paid advertising.

I'm pretty new to RSN, but to my eye, there have been multiple discussions of bizjournals but they have all taken the general stance that the information is likely to be factually correct but not independent and therefore not an indicator of notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d respectfully push back and ask for a more nuanced discussion on those claims. My overall stance is that it is independent, and generally reliable. But it could also go in the list under “marginally reliable” depending on context.

From my perspective, there seems to be a consistent skepticism (and at times a blanket dismissal) of business-related coverage that borders on an anti-business bias within parts of this community. While it’s true that business topics often attract spam and low-quality submissions, that doesn’t mean every business-related article or source is inherently unreliable or based on a press release. There are many notable subjects covered in outlets like BizJournals that are independently reported and entirely unrelated to any promotional content.

It’s important not to let anecdotal impressions or assumptions override a case-by-case evaluation of sources and articles.

Archive 271 - I’d like to point out that the comments again are saying “these are from press releases” but are not pointing to the actual press release as proof? They’re making assumptions.

”These appear to be based on press releases.” ”Both seem to be written by a PR agency.”

Where is the proof? Perhaps I’m missing something, but it appears like assumptions are being made here.

Archive 288 - Comments claim “they churn out press releases for pay” but still looking for someone to prove it?

Archive 422 - Again, prove it. Show me the churnalism. The Wikipedia definition of churnalism is: “Journalism that is based on press releases or news agency wire copy, rather than the reporter's own investigation or reporting.”

It is not churnalism if a journalist receives a press release but then conducts independent investigation, fact-checking, interviews, or analysis before writing the article. If a journalist uses a press release as a starting point but adds original reporting, multiple sources, or critical context, the result is considered independent journalism, not churnalism. So, the key distinction is whether the journalist simply echoes the press release or does some sort of meaningful work beyond it.

Archive 474 - Agree, no consensus.

My overall stance is that it is independent, and generally reliable and needs to be evaluated for notability on a case by case basis. It could go in the list under “marginally reliable” depending on context. JazzyOxygen (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the WP:TECHCRUNCH treatment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put me down for unreliable. I may be an exception here, but I've never read a business journal that I would trust, including bizjournals.com. Every biographical or company profile I've read was a puff piece, often verging on hagiographic, filled with company talking points and cribbed from interviews and press releases—essentially a laundered primary source. They're suitable for display in the executive suite, but that's about it. Woodroar (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in. I’d suggest we evaluate BizJournals based on Wikipedia's standards for reliability, not personal impressions or generalizations. The BizJournals network is owned by American City Business Journals, which operates dozens of local business publications with professional editorial staff. While some content is indeed promotional or opinion-based, the site also publishes routine business reporting, executive changes, earnings reports, and regulatory coverage. All falling within WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS guidelines when properly attributed.

Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, many mainstream publications (including Forbes, TechCrunch, and local news outlets) have content that ranges in quality. But that doesn't render the entire publication unreliable. The key is to assess individual articles based on context, editorial oversight, and whether they are being used for uncontroversial factual claims.

If specific BizJournals articles are too close to press releases or violate WP:CHURNALISM, that should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. But labeling the entire network unreliable based on anecdotal experience risks overgeneralization and contradicts how we handle other regionally focused outlets. JazzyOxygen (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is one thing, but if these sources are being used to argue WP:N, independence also matters. Articles that are essentially press-releases/written by subject (if that is sometimes the case here) aren't independent, and in such cases there is also WP:ABOUTSELF to consider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you asked for general impressions of the source, and I gave one—after reading a dozen or so articles. I don't see it as any different from any other business journal I've read. It's nothing I would even consider citing on Wikipedia.

If you want to discuss an individual article in context, as the banner at the top of this board suggests, then supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. I would be pleased to see a business journal publish actual, legitimate secondary journalism. Woodroar (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument is that the source is broadly unreliable, that claim needs to be supported with examples that demonstrate a consistent pattern of editorial failure. Show the proof of churnalism, along with the press release. Without that, it’s difficult to justify dismissing the entire outlet outright, especially when it’s widely used for routine business reporting in U.S. markets and ACBJ has a good reputation for regional business reporting. Happy to discuss specific articles if/when they’re cited. JazzyOxygen (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Independent I've subscribed to one of the local bizjournals at various times in the past, and had the impression it was there to republish press releases from quasi-notable local businesspeople who had just bought commercial real estate and wanted to be in the news for it. I don't recall there ever being any investigative reporting or negative coverage of anyone, which would be expected in an independent newspaper. Geogene (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Appreciate you sharing your “impression”.

  If BizJournals systematically fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for fact-checking or editorial oversight, that needs to be demonstrated with concrete examples. JazzyOxygen (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW - There are countless negative coverage articles and investigative reporting happening. And they are not hard to find. Here's just a few samples for you:

  https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/07/23/hunter-could-be-out-of-jail-in-two-months-if-she.html

  https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2018/01/31/nashville-mayor-meganbarry-admits-to-affair.html

  https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2020/06/22/ting-says-ab5-legislation-not-influenced-by-affair.html

  https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2024/08/30/jason-billingsley-tech-pava-lapere-murder-guilty.html

  https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2024/12/15/brian-thompson-spurs-executive-security-demand.html JazzyOxygen (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, you're welcome. Since I've been subscribed, I think I know more about it than most here. Maybe not as much as you, because the way you're WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion with a brand new account looks like an undisclosed WP:COI. Geogene (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies. I’ve made me point. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for giving some examples of what you consider independent reporting. These are paywalled so I can't read much, but the first two immediately identify that that they are based on statements (i.e., press releases). The third is a broken link, but given the "ting says" in the URL, probably also based on a statement. The last two could plausibly have original reporting -- the Pava LaPere one actually has an original photograph. All of these look to me like crime stories, though, rather than the kind of thing that could contribute to notability for WP:NORG. So I don't see an issue with an assessment like "factually reliable for basic information but not useful for notability."

  I also looked at the home page of the Cincinnati biz journal, and I am not impressed. The main headline, "Charleston-born chain Vicious Biscuit to open first Tri-State location", doesn't explicitly says it's based on a press release but it sure looks like a business announcement. The next two state in the headline that they're just repeating things from the businesses: "Fischer Homes CEO talks Covington headquarters move" and "Bengals owner talks stadium lease, player contracts, Super Bowl chances". My opinion is not changed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that bizjournals.com is definitely reliable for uncontroversial points of information, such as who is the CEO of a company at a particular time. I would not use it for a controverted statement, such as whether a company is innocent of wrongdoing in a scandal, or whether an asserted new product is independently notable. BD2412 T 23:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the perennial sources page, I saw that there is a consensus that the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) is unreliable in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that there is a consensus that Amnesty International is reliable. I then noticed that the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, HRW (Human Rights Watch), and the United Nations aren't covered here. What is the consensus for both BDS and HRW? And what is the consensus for the United Nations generally and in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? FSlolhehe (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a search like [12] above, and see earlier mentions of HRW on this forum. If there is anything resembling a consensus I don't know, but context matters. Fwiw, "hrw.org" appears in about 1000 WP-articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The BDS movement isn't a source at all to my understanding - rather it's an umbrella term for people who advocate for a specific politico-economic tactic. I would consider Human Rights Watch to be as reliable as any other advocacy group - its opinions should be attributed and should follow WP:DUE - it does not have a reputation for errors of fact so, for statements of fact, it's probably fine barring any specific exception where it's been demonstrated they got something wrong. The UN is a rather broad categorization but most of its bodies that produce documentation are reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest more specific questions about source usage would deliver more accurate responses. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HRW is a reliable but opinionated source, it would usually be attributed as with most NGOs, unless we are talking about uncontroversial or very well established facts. BDS is not a source. People/organisations who support BDS should be evaluated individually. UN representatives should usually be attributed in any given situation, if only because different sections and individuals will have differing perspectives. UN reports may be used without attribution for statistical data and similar, although in some cases attribution might be warranted.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mainly interesting in gauging others opinions on its reliability, seeing how the magazine's archives are free and run back to December 1996. Nighfidelity (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance gives a WP:SPS-impression. Can not find an about-page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use it. The reviews mostly appear to be written by Bill Mitchell, who also appears to be behind the domain host "Blue Night Productions" and its other website for the Continental Internet Baseball League. The Blue Night page links to billmitchell-baseball.com where he states that he is "a freelance photographer and writer from Tempe, Arizona". Unless you can find evidence of reliable sources referring to Blues Bytes as a credible critic, I'd agree that it's a hobbyist's self-published source. Schazjmd (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom, in the section Standard requirements, there is a sentence as follows:

There is no specified legal size other than an absolute minimum margin of 11 mm producing a minimum height of 101 mm (one-line) and 199 mm (two-line) on cars, and 86 mm for one-line import vehicles and 164 mm for a two-line motorcycle or import vehicles, with the overall length being based on the registration number itself, with the smallest number plate possible being 1 having a minimum size of 36 mm × 101 mm on a car, or 32 mm × 86 mm on a motorcycle or import vehicle; whereas a 7 character registration number without a 1 or I having a minimum size of 460 mm × 101 mm (one-line), or 255 mm × 199 mm (two-line) on a car, or 231 mm × 164 mm on an import or motorbike.

As I write this, this is sourced to:

• "Smallest Legal Motorcycle Number Plates". Website Article. 22 August 2022.

which to me is very obviously a sales site. It won't allow you to view the page without accepting cookies. There are at least three users insisting on this website being used as a source:

• Special:Contributions/C-J-H-Ninteen90 (6 edits, all on 22 October 2019)
• Special:Contributions/Carlosbah7777777 (6 edits, 9 January 2022 to 18 July 2025)
• Special:Contributions/Enthusiast motorman (5 edits, 25 June 2025 to 19 July 2025)

None of them have mainspace edits to other articles. To quote this removal, it is referenced only by sales links from custom plate sales companies.

Should we: (i) ignore, let it stand; (ii) revert again, and serve a further warning; (iii) revert and protect; (iv) revert and block? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There obviously should be government regulations treating this issue. The sources they proposed are trash and unusable.

I think blocking is using a nuke to kill a fly, but semi-protection might work to stop this low-intensity edit war. I think RfPP will be glad to help. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed both commercial websites that were being used. We're better off with a {{cn}} tag than those. I also removed some unsourced synthesis which wasn't in either source. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this from Headpress Books a reliable source to use for identifying works in a list I am working on? I have not heard of Headpress and am unsure how to determine the reliability of a publisher I have not seen before. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve heard of Headpress, and I consider them a legitimate publisher on niche/countercultural topics. For an article about pandemics I’d expect there to be scholarly sources too (it feels like Routledge would have an edited collection on this) but Headpress would probably still be useful to make sure the list thoroughly covers pop cultural subjects. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've been editing List of popular culture works on biological warfare. When the question is as simple as "Is the James Bond movie On Her Majesty's Secret Service about biowarfare?", then you don't need scholarly sources. Even a coffee table book would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you! I saw that it called itself an "independent" publisher, so that's why I had some qualms about using it. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I can see that, but in this case it's independent like indie rock -- i.e., they're not Random House :) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independent means bad, fringe, and untrustworthy when I don't like what a source says, but good, noble, and boldly speaking truth to power when I like what it says. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am reviewing a draft AfC and I wanted to check if anyone who has more experience with Brazilian coverage can confirm that the following are reliable?

1. The Brazil Journal (article)

2. GQ Globo (article) - AFAICT this is a subsidiary of GQ so looks reliable, no questions on this one.

3. Valor Economico (article) - according to the AfC submitter, "Valor is the biggest publication in Brazil for finance pretty reputable."

The submitter's analysis below looks decent to me, so just looking for a confirmation before accepting this. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Brazil Journal (Brazil Journal: Chris Meyn, um dos pioneiros do private equity no Brasil) appears to be a good reputable source, in depth article about the subject. Content seems to be biographical mentions how he died, his deals, personal interviews with Industry leaders, details his career and accomplishments better. Obituary/biography so I rank this one as the highest source for Meyn.

2. GQ Brazil (Maconha legal: mercado bilionário conquista investidores): Non contentious, GQ Brazil is pretty reputable, specifically addresses subject, includes biographical details about his career in Oregon cannabis and Gavea, mentions him as an investor. Although article is not specifically about him (it's about the wider emerging cannabis market in Brasil) he is featured prominently. I believe it adds credence to his cannabis career and Investment pedigree

3.Valor Economico (Sócio da área de private equity deixa Gávea), Valor is the biggest publication in Brazil for finance pretty reputable, specifically about the subject (Meyn) and his departure from Gavea a bit more direct than institutional investor. Corroborates his position.

Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tentatively accepted the article based on my preliminary analysis of the sources above and in particular the GQ Globo article. Please let me know if anyone has comments on the above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this one, all of these sources look generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the reply! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Is BYU reliable for Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

I tried removing nonmainstream sources in an article about linguistics, but multiple editors contend that BYU is independent/reliable for this subject. 166.199.97.87 (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should list the sources provided with title, author's name and publication details. I assume you are referring to BYU Studies. It seems to be a reliable source. The real issue is weight: how accepted are the author's conclusions? TFD (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, BYU is not a reliable source for mainstream scholarship on topics that overlap with the Mormon historical claims. Feoffer (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the passage in question with the citation: [13] Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BYU is not an independent source for LDS/Mormon topics since the university is owned and run by the church. Contested claims should be attributed so long as there is sufficient weight and consensus to include them. Left guide (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related: is BYU reliable for Archaeology and the Book of Mormon? (See Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#Ancient fires). In both cases, I would say no. If BYU is saying one thing and nobody else is saying it, it should either be reported as "People at BYU believe..." or omitted entirely. _pbp 13:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be the case here from a read of the article and talk page. The argument made on the older version of the page is essentially that writings may have been lost to fires so we can't know the true history of the Americas and, as such, its possible that the Mormon version of American history is correct. It's not a very cogent argument and has been reverted. In general, due to the natural POV of BYU when it comes to Mormonism and to th difference of opinion of different scholars at BYU, I would lean to writing something like "According to X at BYU..." --FeldBum (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability has to do with facts. Are the facts in the source true or not. It's independent of whether or not the conclusions the author makes are generally accepted.

BTW, per SELFPUB, the source is acceptable for the opinions of its author, even if it were not reliable for the facts presented. So again the issue is WEIGHT: have the opinions received sufficient coverage in mainstream sources for their inclusion. TFD (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As some of you may know, the debate on whether The Straits Times is reliable has been a hot subject these past couple of months. Several users have questioned the usage and reliability of The Straits Times in several Singapore FACs' reviews as well as other places such as DYK and GAR. The current community consensus listed on WP:RSP is that There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage... news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt.

However, I, along with several other editors, feel that this a very simplified consensus from the first RfC. What about The Straits Times before it came under more direct government control? What about coverage of past ministers and historical pioneering figures, especially the President of Singapore, which is a largely ceremonial position? Some editors may have even misunderstood the consensus and extended it to anything that's government owned, even if it's non-political such as rail infrastructure.

Anyways, before partaking in this discussion, I invite those who are interested to revisit similar discussions such as Singapore Rail Test Centre's FAC, DYK, and GAR review pages, Sengkang LRT's FAC review page, Actuall7, Aleain, and Thebiguglyalien's discussion on Yusof Ishak's FAC, and ZKang's comments regarding the usage of The Straits Times for FAC, as well as to read literature relevant to this discussion. The aim of this discussion is to determine what is a "political topic" for The Straits Times as well as if The Straits Times was reliable before government interference. Additionally, I, along with a few other editors, propose that its entry on RSP be changed to the following: The Straits Times is generally reliable, except for its coverage of national politics and its politicians, including those who did not win at an election from 1980 onwards. Please let me know your thoughts. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 14:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging active SG editors @Actuall7, @Robertsky, @Justanothersgwikieditor, @S5A-0043, @Aleain, and @Kingoflettuce. I invite those who expressed concern regarding the use of The Straits Times, mainly @Thebiguglyalien, @RoySmith, @Nick-D, @Launchballer, and @UndercoverClassicist as they have raised concerns regarding the ST's reliability. I also invite @Starship.paint, who conducted the GAN review for Singapore Rail Test Centre, @Narutolovehinata5, who said in Singapore Rail Test Centre's DYK review that the sourcing is "fine to [them]", @Brachy0008 as they have previously participated in a discussion regarding the reliability of Mothership (website). Courtesy pinging @Toadspike and @Epicgenius as well since they have shown interest in this discussion both on and off wiki. I know ZKang is on a wikibreak and may not participate at the moment, though he said that he will chime in later. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 01:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issues I found were not so much with the ST's reliability (i.e. can we depend on the facts it publishes to be true), but the broader issue of the independence, neutrality, and breadth of coverage of the sources as a whole. It is misleading at best to say "RoySmith expressed concern regarding the ST's reliability". If you are using the various discussions cited here as input for a discussion about the ST's reliability, that's not going to go anywhere useful. RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While yes, the main issues you cited were not specifically about ST but on the range of sources used, you did bring up ST as an issue. If this discussion can redetermine ST's status as reliable for non-political topics, this will directly affect your comments about the range of sources, as the 29 ST sources used would then be considered viable in the context of Sengkang LRT line's FAC. Thus I fail to see how the previous discussions could not be considered relevant here on a discussion of ST. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing from my earlier comments, I would like to restate that The Straits Times in the post-1980s period should be treated in a more balanced light, akin to how sources like WP:ALJAZEERA and WP:SCMP are approached. While it is true that its domestic political coverage tends to be measured in tone, it would be inaccurate to equate it with state media in states like Qatar or Hong Kong. In those examples, restrictions are far more pronounced, with Qatar prohibiting any criticism of the royal family and lacking national elections altogether, and Hong Kong under direct Chinese Communist Party influence following the 2020 Hong Kong national security law.

What remains puzzling is how Singapore's media landscape is often subjected to greater scrutiny than the likes of Qatar or Hong Kong, despite the latter two ranking lower on most global freedom indices. According to the Democracy Index, Singapore is classified as a flawed democracy, while Hong Kong is a hybrid regime and Qatar fully authoritarian. Likewise, in the Freedom in the World ratings, Singapore scores 48 out of 100, ahead of Hong Kong at 40 and Qatar at 25. I do not claim that Singapore is a liberal democracy with a fully independent press, and I am myself critical of the state's more heavy-handed policies. However, it is important to recognise that Singapore is, quite simply, not as bad as is often claimed when it comes to general news reporting.

The Straits Times, and Singaporean media more broadly, maintains a high standard of journalism when reporting on international and non-political subjects. Its coverage is factual, structured and professionally presented. While it is fair to say the paper tends to avoid aggressive investigative work on sensitive political topics, it does not blindly follow a government script in the manner of media in places like China, Russia or Qatar. For this reason, I strongly believe that The Straits Times should be elevated to WP:GREL, to reflect its overall reliability, especially given the integrated role of the government in many aspects of Singaporean public life due to the country's small size. The entry might adopt wording similar to what Icepinner proposed, such as: The Straits Times is generally reliable on non-political topics, although coverage of local politics and politicians are often viewed as supportive of government views and framed in a pro-government context, particularly after the 1980 Singaporean general election. Articles on People's Action Party politicians may appear to promote them in ways that resemble advertorials. Aleain (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's rather strange in my opinion that The Straits Times comes with more scrutiny considering the control of Hong Kong's press was tightened after 2020. Likewise with your comment, The Straits Times isn't churnalist, which is something I have previously mentioned in one of the above discussions. They go out of their way to interview relevant authorities and include relevant contextual information rather than just copy and pasting the press release supplied to them, changing a couple of words, and call it "news". I have no problems your proposal, though I must comment on the last bit. You said that post-WWII ST was seen as "pro-British" and often took "cautious or hostile" positions in its editorials commenting on emerging anti-British movements such as the PAP. I think it's particularly important and relevant to include this historical context on its RSP entry as well. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 07:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a large part of the issue is that Singapore is often misunderstood outside Asia, with many outdated or exaggerated ideas still circulating. Some people still believe Singapore canes people just for chewing gum. It is definitely odd that The Straits Times faces more criticism than SCMP, especially given how much press freedom has declined in Hong Kong since 2020. Meanwhile, The Straits Times has generally maintained a good level of professionalism, particularly in non-political and international reporting. It practices proper journalism and does not merely copy press releases and tweak a few words, as you mentioned. I also agree it is important to highlight the paper's earlier history about how it was pro-British and anti-PAP, often taking a cautious or even critical stance towards anti-colonial groups. Its editorials regularly supported continued British rule and portrayed nationalist leaders as too radical or unprepared for self-governance. That stance shifted in the 1980s when the paper came under SPH and S.R. Nathan became its executive chairman. Including this change in the RSP entry would provide valuable context especially since contributors like actuall7 (talk · contribs) rely heavily on The Straits Times as a source when improving historical articles, often from before 1980, towards GA or FA status. Aleain (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping. I would generally agree with the wording that Icepinner proposed - the issue is specifically with government-related or politics topics, where it may be biased or where it may show a tendency toward self-censorship. For other topic areas, it would be generally reliable, and there are plenty of instances where the ST doesn't follow the government's position for these topics, as ZKang123 has mentioned in the previous discussion. This is consistent with the previous consensuses about the ST's reliability (There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage.)
  I agree with Aleain's comment above about Qatar and Hong Kong, and was actually going to mention SCMP as an example. Despite the SCMP being pro-mainland China, and despite being located in a territory that is further down on the World Press Freedom Index than Singapore is, the SCMP is still considered generally reliable. Therefore, it does seem inconsistent to treat the ST as only marginally reliable, when similar "additional considerations" apply to certain topics for both the SCMP and ST, and when these papers are both treated as generally reliable otherwise. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

personally, the straits times is mostly reliable, unless when it comes to politics, because of self-censorship and media laws. but take my statement with a grain of salt brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment! However, for politics, I feel like it depends on which year you're talking about. As Aleain noted, The Straits Times was accused of having a pro-British stance before the 1970's. Actuall says that Yusof Ishak is not a politically controversial figure, along with the President of Singapore in general compared to the Prime Minister of Singapore. Would The Straits Times be reliable on their report of Operation Coldstore? These all weren't taken into account in the first RSN discussion, which gave the impression that the ST is pro-PAP, regardless of its era. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 08:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think The Straits Times coverage of Operation Coldstore in 1963 is quite distinctive, as it was a coordinated effort involving multiple parties including the British government to counter the communist threat. The operation took place during a turbulent period in the middle of the Cold War, and the reporting at the time was certainly freer and more independent compared to the post-SPH era, as the PAP did not yet have full control over The Straits Times editorial decisions. However, when it comes to Operation Spectrum in 1987, it is advisable to refer to other sources other than The Straits Times to gain a broader and more balanced understanding of the event. Aleain (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm I agree. For Operation Spectrum, I would try to find secondary sources by political commentators/historians with differing viewpoints. I think the usage of The Straits Times would be okay for Coldstore as they were independent enough to freely write opinions for such topics. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Thanks for the ping. That wording wouldn't quite work for me -- my concern was establishing WP:DUEWEIGHT when the subject matter is also owned/operated by the Singaporean government (specifically, public transport). Put another way, I don't have a massive problem with someone using The Straits Times for an uncontroversial fact like the number of people who used a certain Metro line, but I don't think we can say that an article largely based upon citations to it has shown Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable [i.e. independent] sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. It would be a similar situation if some event at Amazon were only sourced to the Washington Post (since both are owned by the same person), or (as I suggested in the relevant discussion) a story about Doctor Who were only cited to the BBC -- we wouldn't really be expecting either to get their facts wrong, but if they're the only people who care about the story and they have an obvious "family" connection to it, that would be a bad sign for me in terms of DUEWEIGHT and perhaps WP:GNG. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your concern but are you aware that The Straits Times isn't actually government owned? It's owned by SPH media, which is not government owned. Truthfully, it'd be almost impossible to produce any good Singapore article without using The Straits Times or other local sources according to your standards since the Singapore government is often involved in every major project. The topic of the ST's NPOV and GNG is best left for another discussion; this is focusing on its entry in RSP. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 07:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @UndercoverClassicist a correction: The Straits Times isn't owned by the government since 2021. It was briefly owned by the government between 1984 to 2021. I still understand the concern for DUEWEIGHT, especially in the context of Sengkang LRT but what about before 1984, when it was independent? Many newspapers existed around that time, such as Singapore Free Press, Sunday Standard, and many, many more. Surely articles that use such sources will not have DUEWEIGHT issues, no? Anyways, that's enough ST–DUEWEIGHT discussion I touch upon, such discussions should take place at the appropriate venue. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, but if we're saying that the ST is likely to promote a government line in regards to politics, it would be strange to treat it as completely neutral -- not only in the manner of coverage, but in what it chooses to report or doesn't -- in its handling of state-owned institutions, companies etc. Agreed that we're probably going to end up putting particular caveats on the period (nearly 40 years -- not "briefly" in my book) that it was actually in state ownership. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For reliability, I don't have much to add here, so I'll just endorse the comments above by Aleain and Epicgenius and support an upgrade for ST's RSP entry to WP:GREL for non-political coverage. For independence, I've not fully thought out my opinion yet, but I feel like I need to ask this (because this impacts some non-Singapore related articles that I've written about as well), in the face of a place where the state media is considered the most authoritative, or is the only option available (not just Singapore, but others like China or Venezuela too), how do we gauge independence? Is it simply "Oh, this is state media, and this is a service offered by the government, no no, not independent", or is it worth a deeper look at the history of the publication to find out it has carried out independent reporting? (for example, this is a piece by state-owned Shanghai Observer which is fairly critical about a change to a bus service done by the relevant government agencies) If it's the first one, then we risk opening a can of worms where every article on a topic that's not covered by something other than foreign media is going to be thrown out, even ones without political implications. It is not reasonable to expect media like The Guardian or CNN to cover a service that only serves a local area in a foreign country, and in the face of only local (state-owned) media covering them, the metric of what is considered "independent" should really be more context-sensitive to account for the different situations not found elsewhere. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 07:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I support Imbluey's rewording above, though I'd add a comma before "from 1980 onwards". The current wording is overly broad and has led well-meaning editors to cast aspersions against The Straits Times. The comparisons with Al Jazeera and the SCMP are pertinent – The Straits Times has a similar or stronger reputation than either and their entries in RSP should be at the same classification level. Whether this is "additional considerations apply" (which would be factually accurate, since the existing consensus on all three is that additional considerations do apply) or "generally reliable" (which would also be accurate, since outside of certain topics they are all generally reliable) I don't particularly care.

If, per UC, this is not a reliability issue but a due weight issue, I don't see any practical way to determine if The Straits Times lends undue weight to "local" or "government" issues. It would be ridiculous to dismiss all local news coverage from The Straits Times, but what level of local news is "more than expected" or "undue"? How can we quantifiably determine that, compared to other national newspapers of record, The Straits Times focuses too much on local government? The NYT focuses heavily on New York politics; the NZZ focuses heavily on Zurich issues; obviously the ST will focus on its local government. I personally think articles in The Straits Times are "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable [i.e. independent] sources"; excluding them would create more of a due weight issue than including them, and I would oppose any FAC on a Singaporean topic that avoids the ST and other Singaporean media for not being comprehensive. Media bias or no, it is a fact that most Singaporeans are satisfied with their government, Rail Test Centres and all, and The Straits Times represents mainstream Singaporean views.

On the specifics: I disagree with UC's description of "the number of people who used a certain Metro line" as "an uncontroversial fact". Those are numbers that cannot be independently verified and the operator may have an incentive to fudge, so they should always be attributed inline ("According to the LTA, X Line had a ridership of 50,000 in 2024.") On the other hand, statistics like track length and power supply should be uncontroversial, even if not easily independently verified. I strongly disagree with the way Straits Times articles have been broadly treated as unreliable, biased, primary, or undue at FAC with very little evidence of actual issues. On the other hand, the concerns raised about actual primary sources, like transit operators and government ministers [14], are valid; I only wish that they were discussed with more nuance. I don't think it's unreasonable, for instance, to cite "according to communications minister Mah Bow Tan, the SKLRT was planned to be completed in 2002" to the archived speech by that minister and a news article, but instead of looking at individual sources, that discussion began and ended with polemical bickering. Toadspike [Talk] 08:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is worth handling the Straits Times with reasonable caution, especially with regards to politics, but that is not unique to this newspaper or to Singapore. It is as generally reliable as most newspapers, and its use should not be coming up as an issue on FACs. I wouldn't even say it is unreliable with regards to politics, just that you might want to complement it with other sources. CMD (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't exactly wish to revisit this discussion so soon, but I greatly appreciate some of the fresher perspectives offered here.

There seems to be at least three issues being discussed at once: the reliability of The Straits Times, the independence of ST, the bias and political slant of ST, and the use of primary sources in FACs.

First, let's tackle one issue at a time. And this topic thread is about Straits Times reliability. The issues of primary sources should be set aside for another time. Now, also I understand when discussing ST's reliability, further discussions are being raised about its independence and political bias. However, from my understanding of similar discussions on RSN, especially those of Al Jazerra and SCMP, biasedness doesn't necessarily correlate to its reliability.

This was perhaps one mistaken assumption in the first ST RfC, which resulted in no consensus of its reliability among SG editors (myself included) involved due to Singapore's lack of press freedoms and potential government interference. However, because of that, it seemed other editors assumed ST to be an inferior news source to be avoided like Fox News, although it was also established that it had been Singapore's newspaper of record and sufficiently reliable for local topics, which don't often receive as much coverage by foreign sources. Nor were there falsehoods or extraneous unverified claims published by ST to promote a political agenda, similar to Xinhua News Agency or Fox News.

As such, there also seems to be a grave misinterpretation regarding "political issues" and "government's involvement in its coverage" in the current entry. As Toadspike points out, it is unrealistic that we should avoid ST sources altogether and try to find more independent coverage for many topics in Singapore. This include major infrastructure projects such as the MRT system and Changi Airport Terminal 5, cultural and historical institutions such as National Museum of Singapore or 141 Neil Road, and even media programmes like books and television shows, which would all often involve the government (or an agency) in some way or another. This is particularly so in a small city-state like Singapore.

I agree nevertheless that there should definitely be some caution exercised with using ST sources, particularly for potentially controversial political topics concerning elections and coverage of the opposition and the incumbent. That said, even ST is shown not to completely shy away from some hot-button topics, as I shall raise again from here:

• Critical analysis of some government policies such as SimplyGo: [15] and [16]
• Opinion pieces showing that ST does not always toe the official government line: [17] and [18]

Ultimately, if we can agree that ST's reliability is on the same calibre as those of SCMP and Al Jazerra (i.e. GREL), then I think the way forward for this discussion is: what should we really define as a "political topic"? What are some topics which an editor should take greater caution for when using ST as a source?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your statement Zkang. I must admit, the organisation of this discussion is rather messy, which impedes the effectiveness of each user's points. I shall take it upon myself to organise this discussion into sections regarding the above issues. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 16:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Having read through the FAC links, I'm still not 100% sure if the issue is with the use of this source in general or in featured articles. I've been trying to familiarize myself with the FA critera the past few days, and there's obviously a higher standard applied in that process. It would be helpful to understand what the desired outcome is here if that were clarified imo. CarringtonMist (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CarringtonMist I appreciate you taking interest in this discussion. The issue is The Straits Times' entry on RSP, which may seemed to influence others' opinions in the FAC review. I, along with a few editors, felt that its RSP entry is very simplified (honestly it seems like the first discussion only focused on the modern-day Straits Times, which would be post-1980s acquisition), especially considering its historical nuances, such as articles published whilst it was indepence, as well as the definition of a "political topic" within the context of the ST. We believe there may have been confusion regarding what is a "political topic"; some have interpreted to be anything that's government-owned or had major government involvement to the point of questioning DUEWEIGHT and NPOV. Regarding its use in featured articles, there seems to be de facto consensus that it doesn't meet the threshold for a "high quality source". However, such discussion should be done in the appropriate venue, as this discussion is focusing on its entry on RSP. I invite you to add your own thoughts regarding the ST's reliability, the exact meaning of "political topics" within the context of the ST's current RSP entry, my above proposal, etc. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 14:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no doubt that FA applies a higher standard to sources (both individually and collectively) than GA does. In theory, WP:GVF describes the differences but to be honest I've always found that page frustrating because it describes things in relative terms which are vague and open to interpretation. GA requires "reliable sources" while FA requires "high-quality reliable sources". So, what exactly makes a source reliable, but not high-quality? That's a good question. I wish I had a good answer, but I think that is really the gist of the dilemma here. One camp is saying "ST is a reliable source" and the other camp is saying, "Yes, but that's not always enough". It's not always enough in the context of an individual source, and it's not always enough when evaluating the entirely of the sources used in an article. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Icepinner: Thank you, that was a helpful response. I wrote about this below, but I wanted to also respond to you directly. Personally, I've found that figuring out what is or isn't a political topic can be a lot more complicated than people expect it to be. To be a little more blunt than I usually am: I don't think that people are going to stop arguing that public transportation is (or at least can be) a political topic, even if the RS entry is successfully changed. Like I said below, in the NYC area public transportation is hugely political. That's not to say that every single thing the MTA or Port Authority does is controversial or polarizing! But in my experience, when you're dealing with local-level government, seemingly mundane things can become political in unexpected ways. I can't speak for anyone else in this conversation, but if I were evaluating a source's independence, that perspective would definitely influence my thinking. CarringtonMist (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by Zkang's comment, I have decided to split this debate into three sections. As the title suggests, this is for the definition of "political topics" in The Straits Times's RSP entry (apologies for the kerning of the apostrophe with "the straits times"). Anyways, like Zkang mentioned, I think it's rather safe to assume that transport and the likes of it aren't a "political topic". The key thing is, what about elections? The President of Singapore before the 1990s? Etcetra, etcetra, etcetra. Such questions are to be discussed here. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 16:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, I support The Straits Times being elevated to WP:GREL, similar to how WP:ALJAZEERA and WP:SCMP are treated, with the same caveats applied. Coverage related to transport (e.g. aviation, buses and trains), geography (e.g. parks, gardens, rivers and wildlife) and infrastructure (e.g. heritage buildings, skyscrapers and malls) is typically mundane and not politically sensitive. In these subject areas, The Straits Times maintains a consistent level of reliability suitable for use as a source.

However, additional considerations should be applied when assessing the paper's coverage of elections, political parties and government policies, particularly on sensitive topics such as capital punishment, corruption, military matters, foreign interference and issues of race and religion. This is especially relevant for content published after 1982, the year S.R. Nathan was appointed executive chairman. From that point until 2021, key leadership positions within the organisation were held by individuals with close ties to the government, which reasonably raises concerns about the paper's editorial independence during that period. The wording in the summary could subsequently be:

The Straits Times is Singapore's English-language newspaper of record and is generally considered reliable. However, its coverage of topics such as local politics, government policy and the People's Action Party (PAP) should be approached with added considerations for the period between 1982 and 2021. Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this period, given the close ties between the paper's leadership and the government during those years. Aleain (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the above new statement, though I would write: its coverage of politically-sensitive topics such as local politics, government policies and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP)....--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me too. Aleain (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the above statement (with Zkang's addition). As the government was heavily involved during that time period, greater care should be taken if it's used in articles such as the Caning of Michael Fay. I believe it's also worth mentioning their pro-British stance before the government interfered in the ST's RSP entry. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 07:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner: and @ZKang123: The Straits Times is Singapore's English-language newspaper of record and is generally considered reliable. Founded in 1845 when the country was a British colony, the paper had predominantly focused on British and colonial-related events, reflecting a pro-colonial tone until Singapore's independence in 1965. Its coverage of politically sensitive topics such as local politics, government policies and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) should be approached with additional considerations for the period between 1982 and 2021. Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this timeframe, given the close ties between the paper's leadership and the government during those years. Aleain (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me! Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 11:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I have no opinions or consensus of its bias on british and colonial topics, and I don't think it's really relevant here to highlight its colonial past. What we are more concerned is the reliability of its present-day coverage of local topics. So maybe simply like: The Straits Times is Singapore's English-language newspaper of record and is considered generally considered reliable. However, its coverage of politically sensitive topics such as local politics, government policies and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) should be approached with additional considerations especially for the period between 1982 and 2021. Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this timeframe, given the close ties between the paper's leadership and the government during those years. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its present-day coverage is certainly important, but the paper's colonial-era history is arguably just as relevant when editing articles on pre-independence Singapore under British rule. Such topics often rely heavily on The Straits Times for sourcing, as seen in entries like The Cenotaph, Singapore. Providing this context can be useful for editors who may not be familiar with Singapore's historical background. Aleain (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this discussion thus far have been mainly about ST's present-day coverage of SG topics. Maybe you can word and say that it was established during British colonial rule, but as far as I'm aware this discussion here has no clear consensus about its pro-colonial bias. Again, let's tackle one topic at a time and if there are more questions raised about its pro-colonial bias, then we can open another discussion.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. That can be discussed at another time. Aleain (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that stands out to me about this is that some of the examples of things that are typically mundane and not politically sensitive are also going to, in some situations, be related to local politics or government policies. Aviation and public transportation are areas where governments have significant influence. I live in New York City, and public transportation here is absolutely a political issue. This isn't an oppose !vote, I think people will be able to figure out edge cases through normal discussion. I just want to present a slightly different opinion on what counts as a "political topic" CarringtonMist (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it all comes down to the situation in different places. While public transport may be seen as a political issue in NYC and across the USA in general, in Singapore efforts to improve the system generally receives universal support across the political landscape, and I should add that (this may be an over-generalisation but) the USA seems to be the only place I know where public transport is such a politically divisive issue. There's sometimes debate about certain aspects like fare hikes, train breakdowns, etc, but the system itself and future developments (such as new train lines) are far from what I would call a "political topic" in the Singapore context. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 13:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also live in NYC, but I'd say that "it depends" with regards to topics like public transit. While our public transit (as with many public transit systems around the world) is operated by a government agency, it doesn't mean that everything related to public transit is politically related. Nor is public transit necessarily a politically divisive issue - many of our projects do receive broad political support. I think it's useful to make this distinction, because things such as new capital projects, system expansion, maintenance, etc. may not be necessarily political just because a government agency operates the system. The same thing goes for Singapore and other cities where a municipal, subnational, or national government operates the public transit system, or for other topics (e.g. hospitals or schools) that are controlled by said governments. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the above-mentioned wording proposed by Aleain. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with others above that this will be an "it depends" call for any particular example. Transport has political aspects, but at the same time I don't think there's the suggestion that the Straits Times is misreporting electoral counts. CMD (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am raising a concern about the reliability of The Economic Times as a source for box office figures on Wikipedia, proposing that it be treated as unreliable, similar to Wikipedia's own content under WP:CIRCULAR. For example, an article in The Economic Times states:

• "Though critics gave the film generally favorable reviews, praising the performances and technical finesse, pacing issues were noted. Nevertheless, it pulled in ₹97 crore globally against a ₹65 crore budget, securing a spot among the year’s top Tamil hits and becoming one of Suriya’s most successful films to date." [19]

The corresponding Wikipedia article claims:

• The film received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised Suriya and Hegde's performances and technical aspects, but some noted issues with the pacing. Despite this, it emerged as a major commercial success and has grossed ₹97–200 crore worldwide against a budget of ₹65 crore, becoming one of the highest-grossing Tamil films of 2025 and Suriya's highest-grossing film in his career." [20]

The Economic Times report appears to mirror content from Wikipedia, including details about critical reviews, praise for performances and technical aspects, pacing issues, the ₹97 crore box office figure, the ₹65 crore budget, the film's status as a top Tamil film of the year, and its significance as one of Suriya’s most successful films. This suggests a potential circular referencing issue, as per WP:CIRCULAR.

I propose that The Economic Times may not meet WP:RS standards for box office figures due to its lack of transparency in sourcing and the risk of circular reporting. Can editors provide feedback on the reliability of The Economic Times for box office data? 2607:740:20:9:4B0C:473:8B1C:46DA (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the information in the Wikipedia article originate? BD2412 T 01:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: ₹97 crore box office was reported by WP:PINKVILLA, which is unreliable source now. On 26 May 2025, The Economic Times published an article that reproduced content from Wikipedia's revision on that date, including the questionable figure and contents mentioned above. 2607:740:20:9:4B0C:473:8B1C:46DA (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on getting It (character) to GA status (see Talk:It (character)/GA1) and saw a source from Cinepunx that I'd like to use under It (character)#Concept. A review of Andy Muschietti's It (2017) was used to say that a critic observed that Pennywise was a "jittering, twitching mess of a monster" whose form was unpredictable due to his shapeshifting abilities. The sentence currently has a {{Better source needed}} next to it, but I'm unsure what I should do about this that. Is Cinepunx reliable in this context? Gommeh 🎮 15:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source reliable for:

"a critic described Pennywise as a "jittering, twitching mess of a monster" whose form was unpredictable due to his shapeshifting abilities"?

Yes, it's extremely likely that's what he said.

Is it reliable for:

"a critic observed that Pennywise was a "jittering, twitching mess of a monster" whose form was unpredictable due to his shapeshifting abilities"

Probably. It doesn't seem like he's lying about the film.

Is the opinion WP:DUE (a significant viewpoint)? Probably not. The review (as far as I can see) wasn't used by Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. There doesn't seem much written by independent, secondary sources on Cinepunx, or on the review critic Justin Long as an individual critic. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 16:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, bringing this up because it's in question at an ongoing AfD. I am not asking anyone to participate there, but I would like some discussion since I'm worried about how this could impact other articles in the future.

The article in question is Meghan Andrews. It was in an absolute garbage state at one point and was brought to AfD. During my searches I found multiple reviews of her stage performances in RS. Some of the reviews go into some detail about her, while some give 1-3 lines of commentary on her performance. Schazjmd has stated that these reviews should not count towards notability because the mention is too brief. In contrast, I believe that the reviews should count as long as the following criteria have generally been met: the review is overall in-depth, the review was put out by a RS, and the mention gives some input on the character and/or actor. So in other words, we cannot use capsule reviews or anything where they're only included in the cast listings that can be somewhat routine for articles.

I'm just concerned that this could have a negative impact on actors whose career has been kind of based on being "That Guy/Girl" in films, where they're mentioned in reviews but never with the depth of the main characters. To be specific, I'm a little concerned on how this would impact niche genre productions, since it's not unusual for those to never mention actor names and instead go solely by character names. This review by Bloody Disgusting is a good example, as it has a lot to say about the film and performances but is low on specific cast name mentions. Again, I'm not arguing for capsule reviews or cast lists to count towards notability, just that we not disregard mentions in reviews because they're not in-depth. This just has the potential for, over time, to limit Wikipedia's ability to cover other areas.

What is everyone's take on this? I've opened up a discussion on the AfD talk page and I've also opened a discussion at WP:THEATER since it involves them. Again, not asking anyone to argue for or against deletion. I purely want a discussion on the review concerns. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there were two reviews brought up, neither of those went "into some detail about her", and I stated that I did not think either of those contributed to notability. Saying there are "some" that "go into some detail about her" and that I stated all of those should not count is not an accurate representation of what I said. Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are clarifying, you are referring to this Variety article and this Chicago Tribune article, correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of notability rather than reliability, unfortunately there's no dedicated notability noticeboard. I'd note that NACTOR is for 'having had significant roles in notable works' (paraphrasing), or having made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." I don't think either is applicable in this situation, so the question is more one WP:SIGCOV and general notability. Cast listings aren't going to add notability, as they aren't "in depth" and are indiscriminate. The rest would be covered by SIGCOVs "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Whether a particular review provides significant coverage or is a passing mention will be specific to each case, AfDs exist to discuss such things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me, a trivial or passing mention would be like you said, something like the cast list or something like "Also starring John Smith as Character A, Jane Smith as Character B...". If they're reviewing the person, that elevates it as more than a passing mention (the reviews I'm basing notability on actively mention her and the quality of her performance). A lot of times the coverage tends to focus on the ensemble rather than the individual, so something that might seem trivial elsewhere really isn't with a theater review. You see this with some film reviews as well.

This review by The Guardian is an excellent example of how even very major characters can receive a smaller amount of attention in a review. The actor portraying a central (or arguably main) character is mentioned only twice, with the main focus centering on the production as a whole. Same thing is more or less featured in this review as well.

Like you said, this isn't exactly reliability, but we don't have a noticeboard for that and I wanted some feedback on this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the first article it doesn't appear to show notability for any of it's actors other than Prior. Other than Prior it focuses on the production of the play, rather than the acting. The other article focuses entirely on the production, mentioning the actors only as a role call. I don't see how it would add any notability to them.
The first article has "Prior slouches around Kimberly’s house, melts into the beanbags at the school library and absentmindedly chews on a candy necklace. Her voice is rich and pure and sure, her characterisation intelligent. Prior’s performance is never condescending or cynical about teenagers; it is all heart, and she folds neatly into the bright young ensemble." this addresses Prior and her acting directly (I would consider this SIGCOV, others may disagree), the second article lacks any such discussion of the actors. A cast list or simply stating who played which roles wouldn't be enough.
That's not to say they wouldn't be reliable, but reliability doesn't mean inclusion (WP:VNOT). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add information to Belavia article on its current and past fleet. The source I have is [21], excerpts from it were published at a conference in a Belarusian University in 2021(p. 12), author is a Belavia employee and works at an aircraft museum that is promoted by the Belarusian government (link to a government-owned newspaper)

Does this satisfy WP:RS, particularly with respect to WP:SPS? Kelob2678 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aviation museum would be expected to be knowledgeable about aircraft, but I'm not sure how far that would extend into operational matters of an airline. The authors of the work are an engineer who works at Belavia, and someone who is either the administrator of the museum or the administrator of the museums website (I can't find anything clear this up). It should probably be ok, but I've left a notification at the WikiProject Airlines talk page to see if anyone has any other thoughts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SMNI. Should we upgrade that status of political section of SMNI to Deprecated? The reliability of this source seems to be fully unreliable because it propagates a globally sanctioned individual who owns the network. I'm talking about the political section mostly, because non-politcal sections are still at "additional considerations apply" stage. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between unreliable, and deprecation is a filter that warms based on the URL used. Deprecation for a subject or topic area is therefore not something that's currently possible. Given how likely such a system would be to false positives I would also oppose it. It appears that SMNI is considered unreliable for politics already on WP:TAMBAY/RS as they seperate WP:SMNI and WP:SMNIPOL. I've left notification of this discussion on WT:Tambayan Philippines/Sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone offer an opinion on martincid.com as a source for media reviews: e.g. this one [22]. I'm having trouble convincing myself it isn't bot-generated, though that may be the result of reading too much else that quite obviously is. And from reading their 'Collaborate with Us' page, [23] it appears as if they may be accepting content from more or less anywhere. Which may account for what appears to be a house style that precludes writing anything that isn't gushing praise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article does read as very AI-generated. Based on both the "Collaborate with Us" page that you linked and their rather light "Editorial Principles," I'd say they're not reliable. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• McDermott, Robert A. (2021). The Serbian Revolution: 1804-1835. Chicago: History Nerds.

Robert A. McDermott appears to be a professor of philosophy and religion, and doesn't appear to have any specialization in the field of Balkan history, Serbian history, or Ottoman history. The publisher, History Nerds, doesn't appear to be reliable either.

His book was used in at least 3 different articles, all concerning Serbian battles:

• Battle of Mišar
• Battle of Ivankovac
• Battle of Deligrad

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the citation is messed up somewhere. McDermott isn't listed as the author of that book. [24] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at other books listed on their website, two things are immediately obvious: (a) they don't seem to name an author at all. I suspect it is Dr Chat Gee Pee Tee, or one of his esteemed colleagues. (b) the books are complete and utter drek. About as useful as sources as graffiti on an outhouse wall. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 2021 book wouldn't be Doc Tee, as ChatGPT wasn't available until late 2022. But the citation also claims publication in Chicago, and History Nerds are based in Northern Ireland. McDermott is listed as translator on French Italian, German, Portugese, and Hindi History Nerds books.... which makes it particularly possible that those are machine-translated, either prompted by a real McDermott or a house name. In either case, Robert McDermott does not seem essentially to be Robert A McDermott. So this is beginning to have the scent of a citation that may have been LLM generated. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier listing of the work has the authors as Aleksa Vučković and History Nerds, and the publisher as Amazon Digital Services LLC.[25] From searching I think Aleksa Vučković is the author of all the books by History Nerds, and that they're selfpublished. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that answers my question. My sincerest thanks to you all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to bring attention to a recurring issue regarding false claims that Somali government helicopters are being misused for private purposes. These allegations lack any independent or credible verification and rely solely on Somali media echoing a single self-published tweet by a clearly biased individual. No neutral or authoritative sources have confirmed this, which undermines factual discussion and unfairly casts doubt on official state operations.

The confusion appears to arise from two facts: the helicopters have civilian registrations, and some government pilots wear civilian clothing. In reality, the Bell 412 SB and Agusta Bell 412 helicopters registered as 6O-AAG and 6O-AAH are exclusively used to transport the President and Defense Minister to frontline areas. These helicopters have civilian registrations because they are part of a controlled government aviation training program that also serves direct military purposes.

Somalia opened a state-affiliated aviation academy in Mogadishu that trains both Somali Airlines(training for relaunch) and Somali Air Force pilots. Air Force trainees train on the Bell helicopters, while government-sponsored civil aviation students wearing civilian clothing train on aircraft such as the Cessna 172RG (6O-AAK) and Cessna FR172J (6O-AAJ), operated by Gamtecs Aviation Academy. This program is highly restricted to select government personnel and is not open to the public.[26]

While some Somali media outlets repeat these misuse claims, they typically present them as unproven rumors or allegations without providing any verifiable evidence like photos, documents, or independent investigation. No internationally recognized sources support these accusations. Meanwhile, the helicopters have documented and traceable official use. Claims of misuse remain purely speculative and lack factual basis.

Additionally, I must raise concern about a user on Wikipedia who repeatedly accuses me of vandalism and reverts my edits that remove these unverified and sensitive claims. Despite his accusations, a review of my editing history shows no vandalism or violations of Wikipedia policy. My contributions have been focused on improving article accuracy and removing misleading content. This user’s conduct is obstructing factual updates and discouraging legitimate correction of misinformation. I request that this behavior be reviewed as it affects the quality and neutrality of Somalia-related pages.

Thank you for your attention to these issues. Majid8097 (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: Courtesy ping to the other involved editor. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 12:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is for advice on the reliability of sources, it can't help you with a general topic area. If you have specific sources, or a particular piece of an article, you'd like advice on them just provide some detail and links.
This noticeboard specifically does not deal with user behaviour. For that you need WP:ANI, make sure to read the instructions before posting there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for the clarification. I’ll look into ANI for the user behavior part. Majid8097 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only link you've provided in your post is about spectrum licencing in Somalia, it's entirely unrelated to your comments -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crux of the matter, and why it is reported here, is whether TikTok videos, pictures and social media posts (presumably official accounts of the Somali airforce) can be used to say that certain helicopters are operated by the Somali airforce and not a private firm. Videos in question: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. The discussion can be found here. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 10:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then that would be a wp:or issue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go through all of them, but the last one shows the Somali military using a helicopter - that doesn't preclude that they hired the helicopter rather than own it. It couldn't be used to say that they definitely own and operate the helicopter, that would require a source that directly says that they own and operate the helicopter - rather than a video that just shows them using it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the distinction you're making. While the visual evidence shows active use, I also have Somali government itself directly reporting these helicopters as being acquired by and operated under the Somali Air Force. If necessary, I can provide those specific sources which meet reliability standards. The question is not whether the helicopters are owned by the Somali Air Force, for that, there are overwhelming independent sources. Majid8097 (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TikTok videos and photos are just raw visual evidence, not the core of my argument. If stronger sources are preferred, I can provide official Somali government media that clearly report these helicopters as operated by the Somali Air Force. Majid8097 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only shared that one link to show the registration of the two helicopters. But if you're looking for another source confirming the same registrations (6O-AAG and 6O-AAH), here it is: https://www.rotorspot.nl/current/6o.php Majid8097 (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well this might not be an RS, and even if it was "civil rotorcraft register for Somalia", as it not operated by the military. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Communications Authority of Somalia confirms the same registration data, so that shouldn't be an issue anymore.[33] As for its military use, the helicopter is in service for utility and pilot training. I can provide raw evidence if needed. Keep in mind, Somalia doesn't have the same level of detailed media coverage on military assets like Western countries do. Much of the confirmation comes from local or official visuals or formal acquisitions. Majid8097 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"GAMTECS HOLDINGS" does not read like the military. So this still seems to support they are privately owned, and leased by the military. 12:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

As I said the link you originally shared (and have shared again) is for Spectrum licencing, it has nothing to do with helicopters. The Rotorspot link doesn't say they belong to the Somali military. You need a reliable source that directly says that the Somali military is operating those helicopters. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of linking the spectrum license document is to show the specific aircraft types associated with GAMTECS, which are military-use helicopters. That’s the context not the spectrum itself. Gamtecs Aviation Academy is a government-affiliated training institution working with the Somali Air Force. The helicopters are operated within a military framework, regardless of how the name "GAMTECS" may appear. You're focusing on the label instead of the operational reality. Thanks for the discussion. Transparency and accuracy are what we all aim for. Majid8097 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That they hold some spectrum licences doesn't even show they fly the helicopters, only that they have aircraft radio station licenses for them. What you've provided isn't enough to support what you want to add, as I said references must directly support the content. You need a source that says the Somali military owns these helicopter, with no interpretation or ambiguity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My intention wasn’t to use the spectrum licensing page to assert ownership, but rather to illustrate the aircraft types, variants, and their registrations. The goal was to clarify the specific models, not to interpret ownership claims from that source. I agree that direct attribution of military ownership requires clear and explicit sourcing, and I’ll ensure that distinction remains clear in future edits. Appreciate your feedback. Majid8097 (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Majid8097 I am not 100% sure you understand the process here. If you wish to contest the reliability of Garowe Online and https://www.garoweonline.com/en/news/somalia/villa-somalia-under-fire-over-alleged-misuse-of-donated-military-helicopters - the story in question, you need to bring evidence to show that Garowe Online is not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Also when bringing things to noticeboards it always works better if you provide exact diffs of the issue in question. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've been going back and forth on this for a while now, and at some point, we need to start listening to each other and valuing what’s being said, otherwise, we're just going to keep exhausting ourselves. The issue is less about whether Garowe Online is a reliable source in general. The issue here is that their article doesn’t provide anything concrete. It’s full of vague terms like 'allegedly' and rests entirely on one person's claim (Abdisalam Guled) with no additional verification or evidence. That makes it shaky ground to base such a serious statement on, especially in an encyclopedic context. We owe it to the quality of the article to demand more solid sourcing. Majid8097 (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Source: India-Taiwan Bridging The Labour Gap by Team StratNews
• Article: 2023 Taiwanese anti-Indian migrant worker protest
• Statement: "In fact, pro-China media reports have warned that Indian workers could pose law and order issues. The reports have also highlighted attacks on women in India to reinforce the view that Indian workers cannot be trusted." in the news, for "Some media outlets have also noted that Pro-China media [zh] emphasised violence against women in India to create a negative impression of Indian workers." in the article.

I am currently working on getting the 2023 Taiwanese anti-Indian migrant worker protest to GA status, both in Chinese (for a test to implement a new GAN precedure) and in English. During the Chinese GAN, a reviewer questioned the reliability on StratNews Global. I am confident on the site after reading their introduction and how English Wikipedia used the source, but that still can't convince the reviewer, so I come here to ask the site's reliability. Saimmx (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My personal doubt is that they lack an "editorial policy." But I don't know if the Indian media sites have such practices. SuperGrey (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about "how English Wikipedia used the source", StratNews is only used 12 times on enwiki[34]. Also not even all 12 relate to startnewsglobal.com, as there are uses of stratnews.com a completely different organisation.
As to the specific question you would need to ask at whatever venue zhwiki has for discussing the reliability of sources. How enwiki judges a sources has no hold on how zhwiki wants to use it, each project is run separately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, zhwiki editors generally respect the enwiki concensus on the reliability evaluations. Plus, this article is also a GA candidate on enwiki. Therefore, it's fair that the evaluation is (also) hosted here, to gather opinions from the English speakers. SuperGrey (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's being used in an enwiki article it can be judged here, but otherwise I'm unsure of a couple of editors speaking for a while editing community. I can't find the enwiki GAN, do you have a link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2023_Taiwanese_anti-Indian_migrant_worker_protest. No one has started reviewing though. SuperGrey (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about reliability, but I do worry about tone in the enwiki article. Currently the enwiki article states "Some media outlets have also noted that Pro-China media [zh] emphasised violence against women in India to create a negative impression of Indian workers", based on StratNewsGlobal stating "The reports have also highlighted attacks on women in India to reinforce the view that Indian workers cannot be trusted." They both ultimately mean the same thing, but the enwiki content has a much more aggressive tone.
As to reliability in general it would be useful to find WP:USEBYOTHERS, but I can't find much. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea of "WP:USEBYOTHERS". I haven't considered that. Saimmx (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user created an article at Azizul Haque (Indian Revolutionary). The version I originally came upon was Special:Permalink/1301739317. I discovered that of the 26 sources provided, all but two of the ones that were linked were bogus. That made me suspicious of the ones that weren't linked, so I searched for all of them and couldn't find any of them. I realize that this doesn't mean they don't exist, but, as I said, my suspicions were already raised.

I detailed my concerns and findings at Talk:Azizul Haque (Indian Revolutionary)#Draftifying and draftified the article. The creator made a bunch of edits and has now republished it to main space (Special:Permalink/1302255350). I found that while 16 sources had been removed, including all the links that had led to "Page Not Found" or "Site Not Found" messages, three of the bogus links remained (a phony ISBN number, a GoodReads page about a novel written in the 19th century by Sir Walter Scott, and a news article about a football match), while another irrelevant reference had been added (as well as included as an external link) that is an article about a cricket player's visit to the Miami GrandPrix. I've removed those, and am now left mostly with unlinked sources that I still can't find. You can find my commentary on this on the user's talk page at User talk:Ei to ami akash#Terrible sourcing.

So I'm trying to decide what action, if any is warranted, whether this amounts to vandalism by a user inventing an article based on mostly nonexistent sources and irrelevant ones, or whether the subject might be considered for deletion on notability grounds or because, perhaps, it was AI-generated, but before that I figure I should square away whether the sources that are given are any good. Do any of you want to review them and see what you think? For extra credit (unless this is off-topic here), are there real sources that could be used to support a claim of notability for the subject? Largoplazo (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources appear not to exist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fair bit of news coverage of his death from Indian newspapers. I am looking for what else I can find. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the Hindustan Times reference, the sole reference that has a link in the current state of the article: "This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text." There is no indication of what this automated feed is or where it came from. I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. I wasn't able to find any evidence that the other sources exist either. I would suggest clearly explaining to the original editor that it is totally unacceptable to cite any source that they have not personally read. AI can be useful in identifying possible sources, but editors have a responsibility to read those sources themselves and use their reading, not AI, to inform the writing of actual article text. With that said, a google search for the article subject (who apparently just died) does produce a fair few results, so it might be possible to find appropriate sources and save the article from deletion. But the current status ain't it. -- LWG ^talk 16:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Library returns 6 results, one peer-reviewed about prison conditions in the 1970s. No WP:SIGCOV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple people (even just on WP) named Azizul Haque, which also makes it harder to winnow the results. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one supposedly by Bupesh Gupta (1980). Memoirs of a Marxist. People's Publishing House doesn't seem to exist according to google and the OpenLibrary section of the Communist Party of India (they have other books/essays by him, he's a real person). MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed one of the references as a hallucination. While trying to verify "Collected Works of Haque to be archived" - Ei Samay (I don't believe it exists) I found some useful obituaries that I've added to the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]