Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 471

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

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

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

Simonm223 argues:

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

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

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

• Unreliable the Cass Review is bad science for all the reasons Chess attributed to YFNS. It is also bad medicine because its recommendations ignored how denial of services to trans youth led to an increase in suicide rates. It isn't just an unreliable medical report, it is an actively harmful one that has almost certainly led to preventable deaths. Simonm223 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  • @Simonm223: The source you link says that denial of services did not lead to a significant increase in suicide rates. gnu57 23:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

    I misread the article. Somewhat embarrassing but I know I have read sources that did demonstrate the suicide rate increase. Will look later today. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

    Ok here is the article I read before: . Before 2020, only one suicide among transgender youth on the NHS waiting list occurred in the previous seven years. Even that is one too many. But following the 2020 court ruling, the number of suicides among transgender youth on the NHS waiting list suddenly exploded to from one (in seven years) to 16 (in less than three years). Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, this is the activist misinformation originating with the Good Law Project that prompted the government to commission a leading authority on suicide to conduct an independent report, which found it to be false and dangerous. Best not to spread it. Void if removed (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Simonm223. It's been more than a week. Now that you know this is misinformation, will you please strike it? Having the top spot on an RfC occupied by an inflammatory false claim bodes ill for the rest of the discussion. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  I struck the part related to the source that I screwed up. Apologies, I forgot about this. I've been preoccupied. Simonm223 (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• I know that people like to come to this Noticeboard and ask about the general reliability of a source, but the Noticeboard also clearly states "ask about reliability of sources in context! ... Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Can you give a couple of examples of specific articles / specific content where an editor tried using the Cass Report as a source for specific content, and editors challenged it as not being a reliable source for that specific content? For example, I just searched for "Cass Review" in the history of the Conversion therapy article (since one of your quotes refers to conversion therapy), and couldn't find an example of anyone attempting to source anything in that article to the Cass Review. The Puberty blocker article cites it a few times, but that would be a counterexample to assuming that it's not a reliable source for anything. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  The context is whether or not the Cass Review counts for WP:DUE weight when discussing WP:Fringe theories at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  You presumably know that that's not what's meant by WP:RSCONTEXT. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  OK. I still think if there's arguments on the Cass Review going back to January of 2024 that boil down to whether the Cass Review is WP:MEDRS for the purpose of fringe theories, it's better to get that resolved. Heck, I've cited the Cass Review in the WP:TELEGRAPH RfC last year. If we have a WP:RSN thread saying the Cass Review is unreliable, I will stop citing it in discussions and expect others to do the same. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  For example, I just searched for "Cass Review" in the history of the Conversion therapy article

  Really? There are multiple discussions about this on talk, which prompted YFNS' original accusations it was FRINGE over a year ago. Void if removed (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, really. My claim was not about Talk page discussions, which is why I said "Conversion therapy article," linking to the article. Despite being asked, Chess is unwilling to provide examples of someone adding content to an article and sourcing that content to the Cass Review, and another editor removing it from the article on the basis that the Review is not a reliable source for that article content. Can you provide such examples, or is all of this only about Talk page discussions? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  This is a strange standard to apply. GENSEX is a contentious topic and it is pretty common (certainly on my part, as I'm usually in the minority) to raise a topic on talk first, seek consensus and attempt to find compromise, before applying changes. That's just sensible editing. As you can see from the discussion, there was vehement argument against inclusion, which I obviously disagree with, but that's all there is to it.

  Making changes against consensus on a CTOP is the sort of tendentious behaviour that is a swift path to a topic ban. The right thing to do in that situation is drop it, not pigheadedly press ahead and add content, only to be reverted - especially when YFNS then took the discussion onto the FRINGE board, claiming the source itself is espousing a FRINGE POV.

  The "exploratory therapy" material added by YFNS to the Conversion Therapy article around a year ago is basically ground zero for these discussions. Its all there on talk.

  But if you want only narrow examples of article reversions, here's one for starters. YFNS insists that "desistance is a myth", and removed a 37% persistence figure sourced to the Cass Review, which I had added as a secondary source for this figure from Steensma et al (2013). YFNS justification included direct attacks on its reliablity, as well as bringing up the American College of Paediatricians for some reason. Void if removed (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a strange standard. I seldom edit GENSEX articles, but I frequently edit other CTOP articles, and I don't start with a discussion on the Talk page. I attend to the actual restrictions for a given page (e.g., does the page have a "consensus required" or "enforced BRD" notice? is there a WP:0RR or 1RR rule to prevent edit warring?), and I attend to whether my edit is consistent with policy (e.g., supported by an RS). I just looked at the edit notice for the Conversion therapy article and at the top of its talk page, and although it's identified as a CTOP article, there are no "consensus required" or "enforced BRD" notices for that article. I'm not going to invest time in reading the talk page discussions; it's sufficient to note that there is no FAQ for that article referring to an RfC constraining people from appropriately using the Cass Review as a source on that page (and again: appropriate use depends on things such as whether it's an RS for the specific text introduced into the article). And yes, I do think introducing text that you believe is consistent with policies (e.g., is DUE, is sourced to an RS) and then discussing it if someone challenges the edit is just as appropriate as starting with a discussion. I'm not aware of any policy that requires talk page discussion first, but if you know of such a policy, please point it out to me so that I can read what it says. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CONSENSUS actually suggests that edit first is the correct path, and then through discussion if there is disagreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  @FactOrOpinion let me let you in on something that may come as a surprise. I am not a popular editor. Shock, I know. I edit in GENSEX and (IMO) I argue in the best possible faith for a neutral position, and in doing so I come up against a whole lot of resistance and outright hostility because this is not a popular thing to do. I've been dragged through AE, and there are any number of editors and admins that would like to see me banned I am sure.

  So forgive me if I have little patience for being lectured on what policy is, or what edits you think I "should" have just gone ahead and done a year ago.

  I work the way I work - conservatively, and invariably on talk first - because anything else would be futile and short-lived, and I have found it to be the safest and sanest way for me personally, avoiding inflaming edit wars on the articles themselves as far as possible. If I cannot make a case on talk, there's no point. You don't have to work that way, but that is how I work, on these articles, knowing that I am in a minority.

  This is all a massive derailment. The attempt to edit the page is all on talk. You can read the talk discussion. You can see the objections and all the arguments. If you have any comment to make, make it about that talk discussion, but don't pretend no attempt was made when it is all documented there, in painful, tedious detail. Void if removed (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to hear that you've been taken to AE. To clarify: when I wrote "I do think introducing text that you believe is consistent with policies ...," "you" was also meant in the sense of "one," not just you personally. I did not "lecture" or "pretend no attempt was made." You said "This is a strange standard to apply," and I explained why I don't think it's a strange standard to apply. You, of course, are free to edit more conservatively if you want. It actually sounds to me like your concern is less about WP:RS and more about WP:NPOV — "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Up to you whether you want to raise that at the NPOVN. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Probably important to note the context that the American College of Pediatricians is a conservative advocacy group that Southern Poverty Law Center calls an anti-lgbtq hate group and NOT the American Academy of Pediatrics, as the difference between a fringe hate advocacy group and an actual professional medical association supporting the conclusions of the review in question is pretty large. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Poorly defined question - the Cass Review's commissioned reviews are WP:MEDRS, the Cass's self-published reports are not and make multiple WP:FRINGE claims

1. You trimmed my quote which began with See Cass Review#Criticisms - Cass repeatedly... - you should acknowledge that per our own article, the Cass Review has been widely criticized for a range of reasons. That was not my opinion, but a summary of how we already cover it.
2. This question is incredibly vague. What part of the Cass Review? Reliable for what? (As this page says, Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!)
   • The Review commissioned systematic reviews which most people concur are broadly reliable (hell, I've cited some in articles before) The Review released 2 self-published reports, which were written by Cass and an anonymous team, received no peer review, and peer reviewed literature and WP:MEDORGs have been heavily critical of (including for making claims not backed up by the systematic reviews it commisioned).
   • Again, reliable for what? Consensus has been already that there are claims the Cass Review is plainly not reliable for. For example, Void if Removed tried to add into wikivoice that the majority of transgender children "desist" (AKA, suddenly stop desiring to transition during puberty, a piece of misinformation called the Desistance myth) citing Cass - Cass said this based on a single 2013 paper (Steensma et al., 2013), whose own author noted multiple caveats to that finding in that paper, and in 2018 noted this was based on outdated and overly broad diagnostic criteria that conflated gender dysphoria with gender nonconformity of any kind , citing that 2013 paper and also the Endocrine Society's statement to the same effect. We have a systematic review (aka, top tier WP:MEDRS) in 2022 calling BS on the claim (which Cass conveniently completely ignored), and Cass Review#Desistance noting multiple MEDRS have critiqued Cass for this claim.
3. WP:MEDRS states Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers, and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies - The Cass Review's reports are none of these things. Not a review article, not a book (and besides, Cass was explicitly chosen for not being an expert in trans healthcare), it is not a guideline, or a position statement, even ignoring the fact that the review team is not a national or international expert body. The Cass Review's reports are not WP:MEDRS.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

For example, Void if Removed tried to add into wikivoice

This is a gross misrepresentation and you should strike it. I tried to re-add well-sourced, longstanding consensus material (that had been there in some form for years) with additional citations after you removed it. You removed sourced material, and then created a page that describes it as a myth, and now use that page as justification for excluding the contrary sources in the first place.

And you continue here your misrepresentation of the section in question, as I pointed out to you last year. Void if removed (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If I remember correctly didn't one of the systematic reviews research into persistence rates and find nothing. If so the fact that the report ignored it's own review seems quite damning. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk page consennsus was to remove it and focus on better summarizing better quality sources such as the 2022 systemic review of desistance literature. In that edit, you reinstate a 2019 narrative review (not as strong as systematic) and remove sourced issues the review noted such as the claim being based on studies where conversion therapy was performed. You then toss in a superflous reference to Cass to try and launder weak primary sources over the systematic review noting just how problematic that claim is. Then, bizarrely, you try and cite the Cass Review glossary for the definition of gender dysphoria to override what the APA, who created the diagnosis, said about it.

As Luna points out, and as I noted in my reply to your comment, the Cass Review commissioned a review to look into desistance, which did not report a persistence rate (or if it did, found it about 92% as opposed to 30%) and Cass cites her desistance statistic from a 2013 paper whose author has for years heavily caveated that data in a way that Cass completely ignored.

The article transgender health care misinformation is a good article. The reason it says the desistance myth is misinformation is because we have dozens of RS saying so. You restarted the debate there making the same disproven talking points and bludgeoned the multiple editors saying you were wrong. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

What you've done here:

• Void if Removed tried to add into wikivoice that the majority of transgender children "desist" (AKA, suddenly stop desiring to transition during puberty, a piece of misinformation called the Desistance myth)

Is present this exchange as if I, out of the blue, added a load of obviously contentious material. This is a direct accusation that I am knowingly spreading misinformation.

I did not. What I did was argue for retaining the existing, well-sourced consensus material, which you removed, and which you subsequently started presenting as a "myth" on a page you created two months later.

So I ask again that you strike this personal attack and gross misrepresentation of the chain of events.

Also, this:

we have dozens of RS saying so.

Is an exaggeration. Your relevant citations for that section are:

• A sociology paper by Natacha Kennedy (one of the critics of the Cass Review, not MEDRS)
• Two papers by McNamara, Allsott et al (authors of the Yale amicus brief attacking the Cass Review, one social science, the other law, neither are MEDRS)
• An SPLC report (definitely not MEDRS, partisan, and co-authored by one of the authors of one of the McNamara/Allsott papers)
• A systematic review that says the best quantitative estimate of desistance is 83%, which is only there on the page because I pointed out you had left out this highly relevant figure, which kind of undermines the whole idea it is a "myth".

The discussion on talk is an absolute textbook example of you and other editors refusing to cite the Cass Review's perspective on desistance, because you think it is unreliable, because you think desistance is a "myth", therefore the Cass Review is unreliable. This is circular.

The right way to do this is to present all significant points of view neutrally, but what you continually do is argue the Cass Review is wrong and exclude it. Void if removed (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You tried to reinstate content that talk had already agreed to remove. You then tried to add a citation to the Cass Review that cherry picked a single study (which the systematic review already discussed and noted was severely flawed).

I don't think you're knowingly spreading misinformation. I truly believe you edit in the best of faith and believe the things you write. I will say I deeply wish you were more knowledgeable about trans healthcare and the history of it. Like with this whole argument, you seem to fail to grasp the basic concept that studies that didn't track trans identity or dsm-5 gender dysphoria are not actually predictive of dsm-5 gender dysphoria or trans identity, which the literature has noted for years.

The RS on the article are only a subset of the literature calling it misinformation, or noting it's flawed.

The Cass Reviews perspective on desistance was not cited because higher quality sources disagree, the author of the single study Cass cited for her claim disagrees, Cass neglected to mention several issues with the claim sources like the Endocrine Society have pointed out nearly a decade ago, and RS and MEDORGs have specifically called out the Cass Reviews claims on desistance as bullshit. Cass correctly identified the issues with the pre-2000s literature, then ignored all criticism of the post 2000s lit and presented it as settled.

A systematic review that says the best quantitative estimate of desistance is 83% - it absolutely did not...

The systematic review said Quantitative studies were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting. Thirty definitions of desistance were found, and From all of these collections of studies emerged the commonly used statistic stating that ∼80% of TGE youth will desist after puberty, a statistic that has been critiqued by other works based on poor methodologic quality, the evolving understanding of gender and probable misclassification of nonbinary individuals, and the practice of attempting to dissuade youth from identifying as transgender in some of these studies and concludes The definitions of desistance, while diverse, were all used to say that TGE children who desist will identify as cisgender after puberty, a concept based on biased research from the 1960s to 1980s and poor-quality research in the 2000s. Therefore, desistance is suggested to be removed from clinical and research discourse

The myth is not that these studies existed, or had these findings. The myth is that based on these old studies that neither tracked 1) DSM-5 GD diagnoses or 2) trans identification (and often included conversion therapy) one can confidently claim that the data shows the majority of trans kids / those diagnosed with GD "desist". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to get into a rancorous discussion I care little about, but the Cass Review is not WP:SPS as that policy is intended, and saying it is immediately weakens your argument.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no agreement about what WP:SPS is intended to mean, as is clear from recent RfCs, such as this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't comparing the same thing. As Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist notes above, what is being discussed at FTN are the separate self-published opinion parts with no review or oversight that make several claims that discussion at FTN is agreeing are FRINGE stances. You seem to be trying to avoid that resulting consensus by coming here and using a misleading summary of the subject at hand. Silverseren^C 23:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

As an uninvolved and trans editor can I just say it would be nice to not have POINTY things like this brought up to remind me every time I check out the dashboard that I am up for debate on this website Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• No, it's not. It ought to be treated as anything else directly published by a government, ie. it might at best be a WP:PRIMARY source for the official positions taken by the government, but it wasn't published via any form of reputable fact-checking, so it isn't even a primary RS. Even when cited via a secondary source, it definitely shouldn't be used for anything but the attributed positions and opinions of the British government. This makes it mostly useless for the things people would want to cite it for; in the vast majority of circumstances it should only be cited via a secondary source, and even then only in places discussion the political controversy, never the medical or scientific questions involved. Your question focused on what it says, but that's not really the issue - the issue is that it was not published by a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. There are ofc cases where a government-funded and notionally government-controlled source has enough editorial independence and a strong enough reputation to be a WP:RS, but that doesn't apply here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Regarding your comment: “Even when cited via a secondary source, it definitely shouldn't be used for anything but the attributed positions and opinions of the British government.” Which British government? The review was not done by ‘the British government’, it was done by Dr Cass. And the government has changed since the Review was commissioned and published. Your comment makes no sense. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:RS isn't (generally) about who wrote something, it's about the publisher - about whether the publisher has proper editorial controls and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The publisher in this case is the British government, which doesn't lend the report any reliability. This is standard for how we handle government reports. The fact that there was an election since then doesn't change that, obviously. If you want to argue that it could somehow be a RS, you'd have to explain what editorial controls it went through, and demonstrate that the publisher had the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that RS requires. --Aquillion (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The Cass Review was not published by the government – it is published by the Review. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The Cass Review was published under auspices of the NHS, and it's contents is owned by the UK government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you understand what "published" means on Wikipedia. The report was commissioned by the NHS, an arm of the British government; Cass herself was selected by the government to head it, and therefore was working at their behest. Anything they publish derives whatever reliability it might have through that chain - from the NHS, and through that from the British government - which makes them obviously unusable for statements of fact. This is not unusual or strange in any way; governments often such commission such reports, none of which are ever reliable sources for anything remotely controversial or contentious due to the obvious lack of independence such reports have from the policies of the government that established them. As I mentioned, there are occasional exceptions, but only for long-standing organizations with established reputations for independence, fact-checking and accuracy, which "The Report" clearly lacks; the idea that a government could commission a report, assign whoever they please to produce it, then say "trust us, it's independent of us" is obviously absurd and would allow a government to turn anything it pleased into facts. A report gets its reliability not from having a fancy website or calling itself "The Report" in big capital letters, but by being published through a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. How could you possibly assert that a group the government established specifically to produce a single report could meet that standard? --Aquillion (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Much like reports by US governmental institutions it use should be attributed. Reliable yes, but only with attribution. As to whether it's due inclusion that's not a reliability question but one of NPOV. I would suggest not splitting the discussion that is already occurring on WP:FTN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• It's complicated - The underlying reviews are generally high-quality WP:MEDRS sources but have received some criticism by other WP:MEDRS sources and so some attempt should be made to situate them in the context of the rest of the field instead of relying solely on them for controversial claims. The report is a government report that has received quite a lot of criticism by other sources including some WP:MEDORGs. So its reliability is much more complicated and context-driven than most other sources: there are some cases where it summarizes the underlying reviews in a straightforward way (and there it's clearly reliable), there are cases where it claims to be based on the reviews but goes further or is more opinionated than them, and there are cases where it's not directly based on the reviews at all (and often those are the most controversial bits). It should be treated like any other government report written by experts but which has also been the target of significant criticism by experts, which is to say, it's complicated.

If I had to give these a color rating I'd say the reviews are WP:GREL but with the caveats listed above, and the report is WP:MREL: it is sometimes reliable for some claims but significant skepticism is warranted. Loki (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I was interested to see if the Cass review had an error corrections process (like one would usually see in a modern paper in a journal) and found this page where a number of changes (both documented and undocumented) have been made. Not sure where this lies (and how often something like this would be done) but it is something to note. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

excludes sources because they advocate opinions that argue against a transgender point of view.

@Chess I take issue with this framing somewhat, because I don't hold with this pro/anti framing. What I am arguing for is proper, balanced representation of sources which contain different clinical perspectives. This is a difficult subject with significant conceptual disagreements between clinicians, and our job is not to pick winners but to neutrally present all significant points of view.

The Cass Review started from the position that children and young people were being referred to clinical services in distress over their gender in increasing numbers, and to evaluate the level of care they received, and the evidence base this care was based on. It found the evidence base was poor, and there was little-to-no followup to see if there were any benefits. This is not arguing against a transgender point of view - it is arguing for a cautious, evidence-based medicine point of view in a vulnerable population. It is also a significant, well-sourced point of view that's been accepted across the political spectrum and by all the medical bodies that actually matter, as well as being independently assessed and endorsed by Scotland's health service.

The controversy now is that the model prevalent in the US in particular is the affirmation approach, which takes the position the clinician is a facilitator of the child or young person's gender identity. Cass notes a tension between exploratory approaches which might explore the underlying reasons why a child is experiencing gender distress, and the affirmative model, which starts from the position that the child is the gender they identify as, and that to ask why is pathologising. This is why advocates of the affirmative model insist any other approach is "tantamount to conversion", since any therapeutic approach that might lead to a child "desisting" is seen as conversion (whether it was in fact coercive or not).

This is the issue. One clinical perspective says a child is presenting in distress, and we have to ask why, because sometimes things like autism, trauma, depression, internalised homophobia, may be manifesting as distress about their gender, and unpicking those reasons can alleviate the distress. The other says that the distress is often a symptom of an unaffirmed gender identity, and that to suggest it is arising from, say, internalised homophobia is pathologising a trans identity. Likewise, that comorbid conditions like autism and self-harm should not be barriers to transition, but managed in parallel.

Both of these are well-supported in the literature. Saying one is definitively right and calling other perspectives FRINGE to exclude them and any related issues is not at all the way to go, and is a misuse of FRINGE IMO. We should admit what we don't know and explain it neutrally to the reader.

In the ordinary run of things, the Cass Review would obviously be a reliable source. However, because trans healthcare for children and young people is currently facing legal challenges in the US from the right-wing, and because the Cass Review found the evidence base was actually weak, its findings have been drawn into the toxic legal/political battle in the US, and those currently fighting against those bans have submitted amicus briefs in various legal cases (including the supreme court) attempting to pick holes in it. Which means that such criticism is not independent, has a major vested interest, and has to be taken with a big pinch of salt. Void if removed (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Void, you have spent the last year repeatedly (Personal attack removed) "US activists!!!!!" any time there is any criticism of the Cass Review. Are you actually, seriously, unaware, that trans people in the UK have been the most vocal critics of the review and recommendations since it came out?

Both of these are well-supported in the literature. - no they are not. If a kid says "I am trans and want to socially transition", the claim that a therapist must [unpick] those reasons why and argue the desire might be caused by autism, trauma, depression, internalised homophobia is actually incredibly FRINGE and there's never been evidence it's necessary. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It also bears repeating that many of the criticisms brought up in this thread are described as being about the Cass Review, when they are actually about the series of systematic reviews that it commissioned. Eg. a substantial part of both the Yale amicus brief and the Noone preprint is attacking the methodology of those reviews, from the search criteria to the quality evaluation.

Systematic reviews are at the top of the MEDRS pyramid. Grey literature like this is nowhere close. These sources are simply not competent to poke holes in systematic reviews in this way. Taking such criticisms of the underlying reviews as "true" seems to be out of whack with MEDRS. Void if removed (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• A non-point - this is a government commissioned review, and as such published under the NHS.

WP:MEDRS reads:

Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, to public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.

The fact remains that this is a statment commissioned by the NHS, includes a systematic review, is referenced in UK guidelines, and there is no reasonable debate that it is allowed by WP:MEDRS.

However, just as the MEDRS-guidelines says:

Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with "however", "this is not supported by", etc. The image below attempts to clarify some internal ranking of statements from different organizations in the weight they are given on Wikipedia.

The fact that a MEDRS source is controversial favors attending to statements from it with potential counterpoints from other literature - in an unbiased way.

WP:MEDRS also reads:

Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review.

This is exactly what is attempted to be done here - we dislike the source - so we reject its findings. This is not congruent with WP:MEDRS, WP:RS or frankly any of WP:PILLARS.

I implore any editors that take offence to the views of the Cass Review to treat it as a controversial publication by a major national health organisation, that was put forth through commission (as most reports by the National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization among others and that make up a cornerstone of referenced literature on Wikipedia) - and thus treat it in the way Wikipedia should treat it - by referencing its findings, and referencing high quality opposing findings side by side in a WP:NEUTRAL manner.

I reiterate from WP:MEDRS:

Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review.

Now, let us move on. CFCF (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

All your argument really suggests is that WP:MEDRS is not presently equipped to handle state capture of governmental healthcare bodies. Will we be including anti-vax stuff as WP:MEDRS when the United States starts producing it at the behest of their new Secretary of Health and Human Services? Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Cass Review was somehow ‘captured’ by the Conservative government? If so, why have the current Labour government, and the current SNP Scottish devolved government all endorsed it? There’s not much all 3 of those political parties agree on. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the Cass review represents the introduction of transphobic misinformation into the corpus of formal UK healthcare. I should have said capture of the state rather than capture by the state. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Although I sympathise ideas of state capture aren't policy based arguments, or you at least need to show strong RS to back it up. If you believe MEDRS needs to be updated you need to take it to WT:MEDRS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that, if MEDRS automatically assumes government sources are reliable we're going to have a rough four years. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe it does, but discussions on MEDRS are complex and can't be reduced to simple claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Reading WP:MEDORG, well, it kind of does; at least, it creates the very strong presumption that they are. Meanwhile, the National Academies are already compromised in areas that intersect significantly with public health. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

How about everyone who has already discussed this at length on various talk pages takes a few steps back and allows other members of the community to discuss this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

(IMO this is already happening, there are lots of people in the discussions on FTN that don't normally edit WP:GENSEX.) Loki (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that it can't just be ignored, but neither is it always due for inclusion. I suggest that unless it is going to be discussed in WP:RSCONTEXT the question is just to broad to be given anything but the most broad answer. It's a govermental report, and if it is going to be included, it should be used with attribution as with other such reports. Whether it should be included is a matter of NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not a governmental report. It is an independent review, commissioned by NHS England. It is independent of both the NHS and the Government. That's the point of an independent review - to be independent.

The Review is independent of the NHS and Government and neither required nor sought approval or sign-off of this report’s contents prior to publication.

Void if removed (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That may very well be that it was created independently, but it is still a goverment report. If I run a business and hire independent consultants to do a report on the operations of my company, that report is still one of my business's reports.
An organisation can't disclaim the report it caused to be created. To accept that would be a very bad precedent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The issue is WP:DUE requires a source to be reliable for it to factor in. If other editors are saying "the Cass Report can't be WP:DUE because it isn't reliable", is that a WP:DUE issue or a reliability issue? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That would appear to be near circular in logic, and wrong. Unreliable sources shouldn't be used, if the source is unreliable why is a discussion on it's inclusion happening at all. As I've said the report is reliable for what it is as such reports are, but that doesn't mean it gets a pass against offer reliable sources.
I can only again say it should be used with attribution, and may not be due. If other sources are discussing it in a particular context then it's likely due, if it's in relation to trans health care in the UK it would definitely be due. Where it's used it should be in context with all other significant view point from other reliable source, but that is deeply into NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Not level 1 reliable—Use with caution and with regards to WP:WEIGHT. A lot of other MEDRS have made strong points against some of the reports findings — it is best as a primary source for itself and I would never support using as a pure citation without describing the full context of its release and responses, at minimum give it an in-text citation eg “according to the Cass Review,” and avoid using the original reports (stick exclusively to the review elements). The context of its political motivations and the responses from other medical organizations impact its reliability, as in other cases where different government or medical bodies disagree on medical recommendations. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying—i agree with CFCF’s point that it belongs in discussion alongside other high quality opposing sources and with context ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask Malvoliox what you mean when you say it is not WP:TIER1 reliable?

This terminology isn't really used when it comes to WP:MEDRS where government reports are at the top tier of reliability (see quotes above, and the MEDRS-page).

I think your interpretation of my comment is that the source is both WP:RS, but also WP:DUE in many contexts. Is that right?

And, just so that we, and everyone else here can be on the same page, and to square the tiering you refer to: the fact that the source is both "reliable" and "due":

1) In no way endorses its findings as truth

2) Nor does it negate the need to also present what is a preponderance of opposing views.

Do you agree?

I think this is a very simple take and frankly the only viable position that adheres to both WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:DUE, and WP:PILLARS.

CFCF (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose I’m not deeply familiar with the specifics of MEDRS. I meant that I would agree to the relevance of MEDRS guidelines where government and scientific perspectives differ. I would only advocate inclusion in a context that acknowledges its presence in a field that disagrees with its claims more than it agrees—the one piece you brought out that I was referring to was this piece of MEDRS:

”Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with "however", "this is not supported by", etc. The image below attempts to clarify some internal ranking of statements from different organizations in the weight they are given on Wikipedia.”

This is a case of needing to demonstrate the ways in which the overall field scientific literature differs from this review, which was created in a politically motivated context in order to achieve a particular result.

It’s a good source on itself, and it’s notable in its impact, but it differs from most literature and has racked up a lot of criticism in the medical community. That’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with what the findings are so much as one of acknowledging the context of its commission & responses by the medical community. I lean towards not reliable in contexts purely about what is medically viable/reliable in the context of government recommendations as it is the basis for some.

~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Not reliable A quick glance at the page for the Cass Review shows the medical fields of pretty much every country outside the UK ripping its conclusions and recommendations to shreds. It’s a non-peer reviewed government report from a government with a long and well documented history of targeting trans people, and should be treated as such. Snokalok (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Your argument has nothing to do with whether it is a WP:RS. Rather it highlights the need to present the results of the report in a neutral and unbiased manner - with corresponding findings from other high quality sources next to it. CFCF (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it matters; WP:RS is about whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Heavy criticism is one indicator that it lacks such a reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Well said. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll third what Aquilion said. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:GUNREL. The review has no editorial oversight and as noted within the Cass Review article, several major medical orgs have criticized it for significant methodological flaws. It should not be used to support MEDRS claims and should primarily be used as a primary source for articles related to the review itself and related controversies. HenrikHolen (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• Use with care I think the responses that suggest this is a complex issue are the most on point. This is clearly a well researched report conducted for (and presumably accepted by) the NHS. It is also the sort of report we are going to normally put the most faith in because it was a search and summary of other sources on the topic vs trying to be it's own primary source. The criticisms of the report appear to be more based on not liking the results vs any true problem with the report itself. However, as others have noted, it didn't undergo traditional peer review. Conversely, if it has been cited by many then it's views should be seen as influential. I would treat it as an expert review. When it speaks to a topic citing with attribution is reasonable. Unless the NHS rejects the report as unreliable I can't see treating it as such. Springee (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Inf: the Cass Review has been accepted by NHS England, which commissioned it, and also by NHS Scotland, a separate body responsible to the devolved Scottish Government. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• No. It's a nakedly political document advanced for culture-war reasons in a corner of the world where all the major political players are nearly or completely captured by transphobia. I'm sorry I don't have the WP: shortcut on hand for that situation, but that's the size of it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  in a corner of the world where all the major political players are nearly or completely captured by transphobia. There's no shortcut because you can't automatically ban sources from parts of the world that have hateful political views. This logic was decidedly rejected when editors tried to degrade the reliability of multiple major British newspapers due to transphobia in the UK. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about banning all sources from the UK. I'm saying that something can be endorsed by multiple political parties in the UK and still be rotten. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that it is a “nakedly political document advanced for culture-war reasons and that “all the major political players are nearly or completely captured by transphobia. – apart from the fact that you disagree with the Review? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem here is probably that the Cass review is too apolitical. It simply looks at the published medical evidence and draws conclusions from that. Unfortunately in a field that is exceptionally politicised, that creates problems. In another country altogether, people who want to do some quite bad things are seizing on it and attempting to make life difficult or even unbearable for transpeople. That is not Cass's fault.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• As others have said, this is an independent report commissioned by the British government, conducted by an extremely eminent individual. Its findings will very often be WP:DUE but it should usually be attributed as any source in a field where a range of often completely contradictory opinions exist.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Not Unreliable - This is certainly a controversial source, and as such needs to be used with caution. But that does not mean it should never be cited. Context matters. The review is influential enough that it can not be simply dismissed as Fringe/UNDUE and ignored.

I would also caution editors to distinguish what the report itself says, from what activist sources (both pro and anti) claim it says. It has been misrepresented by both extremes. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a reliable source. Despite being commissioned by the NHS in the UK, it is not government-driven because Dr. Hilary Cass and a large group of medical experts rather than legislators shaped its conclusions. Professionals from pediatrics, endocrinology, and mental health were involved in the review, which adopted a cautious, evidence-based methodology while taking patient experiences and global medical research into account. Its credibility was strengthened by similar independent reviews conducted in Finland and Sweden which came to similar conclusions. It is probably a primary rather than a secondary source, being a government commissioned research, but it is a very important document reflecting best practices and patient safety in gender-affirming care.--Colaheed777 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a generally reliable source. There are many signals of reliability. There is uncritical use by others: . It publishes corrections: . It was written by a recognised expert . It has of course been criticised by many, but unusually and very usefully we have peer-reviewed academic articles explaining why those criticisms are over-egged:

From :

Recently-published critiques of the Review have contained incorrect or inadequately contextualized claims.

From :

We conclude that these sources misrepresent the Cass Review’s role and process

many of the methodological criticisms directed at the Cass Review... are unfounded

These misunderstandings, based on flawed and non-peer-reviewed analyses intended for legal (rather than clinical) purposes...

Many of these misrepresentations and misunderstandings are repeated here in this RfC. It's particularly unfortunate that the first response repeats a piece of misinformation which still hasn't been struck more than a week later.

On the subject of whether this is a "government report", I think the relevant question is not whether its genesis was in government or whether it was funded by government, but its degree of independence from government. The report is completely unlike, say, a publication from the Cabinet Office, which is the principal executive. NHS England is a step removed from direct government control, and the Cass Review is several more steps removed. Cass in turn commissioned a series of systematic reviews, which if we follow a reductionistic fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree argument would make them "government reports" too. Clearly they are not, and the degree of autonomy granted to Cass was such that the Cass Review is not materially governmental either. Evidence of this is the broad bipartisan support it received and continues to receive even after a change in government. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I also note this oblique criticism of the criticism via the Hierarchy of Disagreement in this recent peer-reviewed article:

In medicine the hierarchy of disagreement is a valuable tool for examining the arguments made by groups advocating different treatment approaches, particularly when combined with the evidence pyramid. Anyone wondering whether to rely on the recommendations of Cass Review or those who have rebuffed these arguments would be encouraged to annotate the critique published by (McNamara et al, 2024), with coloured highlighters to code the types of argument used against the conclusions of the Cass Review or try the same with Cheung et al.’s 2024 critique of McNamara’s critique - (Cheung et al, 2024). The resulting colour maps neatly illustrate the predominance of arguments from each level of the disagreement pyramid.

Void if removed (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It is clear from discussion that there is no consensus as to who the publisher of this report is. I would think that in any other circumstances a self published(?) report that we only know 1 of many authors of wouldn't be argued as a RS let alone a MEDRS source. The only place this could get reliability from is use by others and I have never seen that argument been presented for MEDRS before and that argument has not been made here. I would also note that people have been heavily arguing about the independence of the report from the NHS and government so the idea that this is a statement from the NHS seems at odds with the fact that the NHS had no control over the report. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Unhelpful question. There's a lot of misinformation about the Cass Review. As already noted it makes little sense to describe it as a "source", reliable or otherwise, since it is a four year review chaired by one person, consulting with over a thousand individuals and groups, commissioning around eight specific medical reviews published in clinical journals that were themselves run by teams of dozens of experts, and with the purpose of answering issues affecting NHS England (not, cough, the USA). Saying the Cass Review was not "peer reviewed" or is "self published" or is the spew of a transphobic government are all activist misinformation tropes of the most blatant Trumpian kind. As noted earlier, there are a lot of systematic reviews and scholarly investigations that were commissioned by the Cass Review. These form as integral a part of the Cass Review as an engine does in a car. These are all MEDRS of the highest order. The Final Report, has a sole author, but, guys, that doesn't make it "self published". It was commissioned and published by NHS England. This is not the same thing as the Tory Party, and as a non-departmental public body has independence. We still have a functioning democracy here, where our health bodies are run by people whose aim is to make a nation healthier, not to make shareholders richer or not win elections or advance ideological causes of any flavour. Furthermore, the report was accepted by NHS England and then reviewed and adopted with adaptation by NHS Scotland, which is an entirely different body funded by an entirely different government elected by an entirely different nation. You can read NHS Scotland's review here. Nothing in NHS Scotland's review, which itself took months and involved a team of experts, rings any alarm bells about the Cass Review's Final Report being an unreliable source.

If we concern ourselves with the Final Report then it is a mix of two things. It contains a lot of factual information, "key findings", much of which is based on the MEDRS sources I mentioned earlier, plus other information from how NHS England's gender clinic was performing at the time, and the kind of population cohort going through its doors. For these facts, there is nothing to suggest it is anything other than top tier reliable. Other bodies may well present these findings with different emphasis and some may reach different conclusions from the same evidence, but this is a natural result of us being humans rather than machines.

The other thing it contains are 32 recommendations from Dr Cass. And that's what they are. They are aimed at NHS England, and other countries are welcome, as Scotland did, to look at them and pick what they like and reject what they don't, or to ignore recommendations that simply don't apply in a different healthcare system. It is wrong of us to consider the "reliability" of these recommendations. It is clear that while some nations and bodies are enthusiastic about them, others are not. That doesn't make them unreliable. For example, the US have an insurance model of healthcare and the UK has a tax-funded model. Recommending one model or another isn't a reliability issue. Rational people can come to different recommendations.

Lastly, aside from the nonsense about self-published, I see some claims that we should treat this highly cautiously because of some association with government. I've already noted it is independent of that and not some Tory Party Manifesto or campaign leaflet. But, well, would you listen to yourself? This is the epitome of "I don't like their findings so I'll invent some rule saying it isn't reliable". Is NHS: Covid-19 unreliable? Is Gov.uk: Getting an MOT unreliable? Is Gov.uk: Your rights and legal support unreliable? Are you saying that government information about seat belts is unreliable? Maybe the UK National diet and nutrition survey is unreliable? The vast vast majority of publications by a mature democratic government, or organisations that report to it, are not political or ideological or remotely contentious.

The author of this RFC has asked the wrong question, and I think we should call a halt to using this noticeboard as a proxy for waging the trans culture war battle on Wikipedia, as though editors here are any more capable of finding The Truth to that one than the wider population or the actual experts in healthcare. -- Colin°^Talk 15:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Here might be a good place to mention the Assurance Group, a 7-member panel which has been established to provide expert advice and challenge about the approach and processes used to conduct the review, and to ensure that the Review is conducted in accordance with its terms of reference.. This is very far from being a self-published source, as there are multiple independent professionals providing oversight. In fact, a 7-member panel of experts from multiple disciplines is far more oversight than some academic peer review involves. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing on that page that suggests that the group reviewed the final report (In fact if one considers the report to be an outcome, the group could not have informed the report). Also the group was chosen by Cass (the only know author) so it doesn't scream independent. Do note the difference between the reports and the review (which usually refers to the process/group rather than any output.) LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Luna, my own !vote should make it clear how dimly I think of the idea that this is "self published" or that there is any doubt at all who the publisher is. -- Colin°^Talk 15:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Colin, there is no agreement among editors (here and elsewhere) about what "self-published" means. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sweet6970 above argued that the final report was published by the review. I did have a look for a statement about a publisher but couldn't find any statement. If you have any statement so that there is no doubt it would be very welcome. LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, the Review does appear among "formal publications from the Cass Review," but does not appear among the NHS's own publications. Those are the most likely publishers, though perhaps you have some other proposal for who might have published it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, do you mean the final report (it is very important to use precise language here as it can get confusing with the Cass review, the Systematic reviews and the interim and final reports.) LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the final report, as should be clear from the first link. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

My remark was based on the fact that the Review appears on the tab for ‘Publications’ on the Review’s website. This was in response to suggestions that the Review was a ‘government’ publication. I don’t think this is relevant to the question of whether it is a ‘self-published source’ in the Wikipedia sense. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion I don't think there is a single word in WP:SPS that applies to the Final Report of the Cass Review or any of the supporting scholarly works. Nor is there any evidence in the discussion you link to that suggest editors have "no-agreement" whatsoever about what self-published means. There's quite a difference between editors recognising our current description/definition in inadequate and failing to reach any consensus on a better one that tightly defines the Venn bubble of what is and isn't self-published, and your claim that editors have simply no clue. It is quite possible for editors to agree that some works are definitely self-published and that some are definitely not. Having a single-author, for example, doesn't make the work self-published. Being commissioned and published by a body ultimately funded by the taxpayer doesn't make the work self-published.

Wrt the earlier comment about the Assurance Group. I don't think they reviewed the final document. Their job is to be process nerds and ensure the review is done properly. But guys, this is a 388 page report. I can barely type two paragraphs without making a typo. The idea it wasn't proof read and fact checked meticulously is for the birds. There's a FAQ on the website for disinformation, but there isn't an errata page (AFAIK). The fact that some information some claim is essential to know about the review/publication process is evading their detective powers from their home PC is not evidence that Dr Cass just blogged their review and posted it on WordPress.

Any rule invented as a reason "X should not be used as a source" needs to work generally. FactOrOpinion, much of the disagreement about whether something is or isn't a self-published source is that it effectively kills it as a source, and that is in fact what an editor wants to achieve. Same goes with the FRINGE arguments elsewhere. It's a weapon. One editor wants to expand a definition to include a source they want banned, and it is up to other editors to say that if we adopted that rule elsewhere, then all those perfectly reasonable sources would be banned too. I should note this is all done in good faith but people can argue wrong headedly in good faith.

The non-departmental public body that calls itself National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published Tirzepatide for managing overweight and obesity. Many of the arguments pushed forward on this noticeboard page applies to that. And yet NICE guidelines form a bedrock of MEDRS sources throughout our medical articles. That document, like the Cass Review, contains a mix of uncontentious evidence-based facts, and some recommendations, some of which are contentious. Other health bodies will reach other recommendations as to minimum BMI, or what kind of weight-related comorbidity is appropriate, or when to stop treatment and so on. And not least who should pay. Some of the NICE recommendation is evidence based medicine and some weighs the financial cost to the NHS. What I'm not aware of, on the subject of weight loss, is editors demanding to know the name, address, telephone number, school qualifications and grades, university degree, last three jobs, current holiday plans, BMI, health conditions and marital status of the bloody copyeditor. Or complaining that since NICE commission their own reports, appoint their own experts and publish the reports on their own website, that this is some kind of self published source we should run screaming from. Colin°^Talk 19:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Colin, there's agreement at the two ends of the range, for example, that things like tweets are self-published and things like peer-reviewed articles aren't. But there's no agreement about a huge swath that falls in between, that is, no agreement about whether/when publications from the following kinds of organizations are self-published: advocacy groups, universities, learned societies, think tanks, corporations, international non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental bodies, museums, foundations, charities, labor unions, and political campaigns. All you have to do to see that disagreement is look at the !votes for Question 2, and you'll see even more of it if you look at the RFCBEFORE discussions. Seems to me that the Cass Review falls in that middle ground. If by "the supporting scholarly works," you mean the systematic reviews that the Cass Review commissioned, those weren't published by the Cass Review itself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"those weren't published by the Cass Review itself" Why do you write those words. So what? They were published in frankly the highest quality journal one could hope for. They are still part of the Cass Review. here describes the reviews. Each one says This work was funded by NHS England to inform the Cass Review (Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people). The funder and Cass Review team had a role in commissioning the research programme but no role in the study conduct, interpretation or conclusion. These are all part of the "Cass Review".

Nobody arguing the Cass Review is "self published" is interested in debating your middle ground. It is an argument used to ban a source for containing recommendations and facts editors wish, in all good faith, to suppress. It is frankly as silly as someone saying the NHS Health website is self published. -- Colin°^Talk 11:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I wrote it because I was addressing publication status: self-published or not. Everyone agrees that the systematic reviews are not self-published. But that has no implications for whether the Review itself is/isn't self-published. Re: "They are still part of the Cass Review,'" I don't agree. They don't appear in the Cass Review (formally: the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People) and don't appear in the Cass Review's publications list; that the Cass Review team commissioned them does not imply that they're part of the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, any more than the fact that the NHS commissioned the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People implies that that Independent Review is part of an NHS publication. I suspect that part of the problem here is that people use the phrase "Cass Review" to mean more than one thing (e.g., the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, the team that wrote that review, the acts of reviewing by that team, the website explaining the team's work and hosting its publications); we're talking about whether the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People is/isn't self-published. I'm not trying to argue about whether the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People is/isn't self-published, my only point is that there is no agreement among editors about what "self-published" means.

Re: "Nobody arguing the Cass Review is "self published" is interested in debating your middle ground. It is an argument used to ban a source for containing recommendations and facts editors wish, in all good faith, to suppress," I suggest that you ask Void if removed whether he thinks that the Cass Review is self-published. I've read many, many of his statements about what "self-published means," and based on everything he's said about it, I think he'll say that the Review is self-published, even though he clearly doesn't want it suppressed and considers it reliable. Odds are that he'll also say that the NHS website is self-published. If you don't want to ask, I can link to statements he's made about other similar organizations and about self-publication more generally. He considers everything self-published unless it's published by a separate publishing company. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I would find it remarkable if, at the end of a four year effort, the assurance group didn't provide some level of oversight of the final report, given one of their roles is:

Advise on the types of evidence that should be sought by the Review team, the methods for gathering that evidence and the interpretation, significance and relevance of the evidence.

(my emphasis)

At an absolute minimum, having a team of people assure that the Review was conducted using appropriate processes and methodology is a strong quality signal that should remove all doubt that this might be a SPS. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure it matters whether the report is SPS or not… since it would qualify for the “expert exemption” even if we wish to define it as such. Not all SPS are “bad”. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It matters in terms of whether anyone knows what "self-published" means, as it's untenable that there is no consensus about what a key policy means. I agree that that the Review probably falls under the expert SPS exemption even if it's self-published, but it's a strange case, since Hilary Cass is the only author who's actually identified. What does the expert SPS exemption mean for a co-authored work when only one author's expertise can be assessed? And even if it's considered an expert SPS, those likely aren't considered high quality MEDRS sources. (For example, the RS statement about preprints says that they shouldn't be used for medical content.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes It's a NHS-commissioned report based on systematic reviews which are considered top-rate MEDRS. Of course, it should be presented with appropriate attribution and in context with other significant viewpoints, similar to how we treat other national health body publications. Alaexis_¿question? 21:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, as noted, The Cass Review is a comprehensive review commissioned by the National Health Service in the area of transgender medicine. It made conclusions that were highly unpopular in some circles, however, that doesn't make it less reliable, Huldra (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, The Cass review is a reliable source on its subject matter. The criticism comes mostly from partisan sources who disagree with its finding that the evidence supporting the benefits of puberty blockers for minors is extremely weak. Many of these critics argue from an ideological standpoint rather than a strictly scientific or medical perspective. However, the Cass Review aligns with growing international scrutiny over the use of puberty blockers in gender medicine, and the concerns raised in the Cass Review are part of a larger reassessment of pediatric gender medicine worldwide. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, It has been cited in subsequent reviews (e.g., New Zealand), and it issues retractions. However, it is one of many government reviews, and not all experts agree with its conclusions. It needs to be treated like any other government report. Reviews with differing conclusions must also be presented with it. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, the New Zealand Ministry of Health cited it only briefly in an evidence brief it noted not government policy or a clinical guideline in the section "Legislation and Governance:International context:United Kingdom" to describe how trans healthcare works in the UK, as well as an addendum to say the final report was published, and compare it's own review, which focused on different questions.

  So to say It has been cited in subsequent reviews (e.g., New Zealand) is somewhat misleading, as the only time it cites the review is in its review of other countries reviews. The reviews of the evidence base did not cite Cass.

  Meanwhile, high quality sources like this clinical practice guideline state regarding the Cass Review that The full report was made public in the spring of 2024. Although it was initially intended to be related to the organisation of healthcare in England and Wales, it caused a stir in public opinion and immediate harsh criticism from the medical and patient communities worldwide [36–38]. A detailed discussion of the document, comprising several hundred pages, goes beyond the scope of the Guidelines. However, the author’s concentration mainly on the absence of high-quality research on minors with GD/GI, and her lack of clinical experience indicate the low scientific value and credibility of the report [39, 40] ... One of the overt criteria that the NHS followed in choosing Hilary Cass was her complete lack of experience in working with people with gender incongruence and dysphoria, which was to ensure her independence and impartiality. However, in practice it resulted in an unprecedented situation in healthcare when a non-expert in the field was invited to develop expert recommendations. The common thread of many objections to the Cass report is the multifaceted downplaying of the importance of the voices of adolescents and their families, clinical practice, the scientific knowledge base, and national and global recommendations, while misleading the public that a complete lack of clinical experience in a given field is a guarantee of reliability. As a multidisciplinary team of experts and patients, we consider such a trend to be harmful and completely contrary to the interests of adolescents in need of help Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Type error. This is not a yes/no question, as is implied by the fact of the review itself being an intensely debated political topic with a nearly 200,000-character-long article about it. It would be asinine to have a bunch of guys^[1] sitting around a table at RSN decide authoritatively that it was unreliable, and it would be asinine to have a bunch of guys sitting around a table at RSN decide authoritatively that it was reliable. As CFCF has said above, there is some extent to which its publication by the National Health Service mean we would consider it reliable for medical consensus, and there is also some extent to which high-level bodies may differ from each other. This is not the first time that organizations have disgreed with each other about stuff, and it will not be the last time. Is there some reason why the policies which tell us how to navigate these situations cannot be used here? jp×g🗯️ 03:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say that the fairly obvious answer is that if a bunch of guys (similarly caveated) at RSN can be persuaded that the Cass Review is not a reliable source, then mention of its findings will generally not occur in articles on Trans-healthcare. Some of our users feel that would improve the content of our encyclopaedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say the even more obvious answer is that either a "bunch of guys" decide this question here or they will decide it separately on every individual page where it's relevant. Loki (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• This looks like a classic case for WP:ATT. "According to the Cass Review, X", with a link to the article on the review, which also contains some of the worldwoide criticism it has received, is arguably OK in some contexts, but treating Cass as a source of fact is an abject failure of NPOV as long as we have critiques like this in the world. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

RealClearInvestigations (dot com) is the in-house investigative reporting side of WP:RealClearPolitics. It's being used as a source on several articles, including Motte-and-bailey fallacy, Redlining, Defund the police, Academic Freedom Alliance, and Dan Polster. Is it reliable for claims of fact? Geogene (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

How 'red flag' are the claims? I think this is a case where we need to see the claim in question and the supporting article before deciding. I would be careful about claims that are on the red side if that is the source that is used to establish weight or make a surprising claim. Springee (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the Redlining article as an example I would probably remove it since it's one of two sources and all it's doing is saying "the AJC said...". The other source is the AJC. In such a case the source is reliable but also redundant. However, it seems more appropriate as used in the Defund example. It's presented as an attributed claim relevant to the subject. The AFA example is a simple claim that an organization has about 400 members. Springee (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it's a highly partisan source which mostly aggregates reporting from other outlets. I think Paul Sperry is the only author who publishes original content, and he's a conspiracy theorist. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That would put it in the yellow bucket. We do use a number of other partisan sources, a number more biased than this one, but we really should be looking to see what claim is being supported vs just outright stating a source isn't acceptable. The strong bias would make it a poor choice for many political claims. However, in the instances I found the bias wasn't an issue. Springee (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's representative that they repost to RCI every article Sperry writes for the NYPost, with is correctly a GUR. Which makes sense because the content of Sperry's contributions to RCI is indistinguishable from his contributions to NYPost. Sperry is, for example, the original "January 6 was antifa" conspiracy theorist. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• It seems to me that most of these are topics either about rhetoric or about sociological concepts that are very well established historically. I can't imagine we need a RealClearPolitics associated website for most of these. As such I'd err against using such a questionable source. As for the last two - if we need to be scraping the barrel so much for them that an RCP affiliate would be necessary I'd question their notability. So, all in all, I'd say avoid. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  I looked at the cite for Academic Freedom Alliance and it was being used to source four-year-old membership data. Which is of little value since quite a lot has happened in the last four years, so the information is stale, and sourced to a questionable source, so I just cut it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment. The only thing relevant I could retrieve from your link Wikipedia:RealClearPolitics was that RealClearPolitics is neither considered particularly reliable nor unreliable. I don't see why someone should have a different perspective here. Zero Contradictions (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello again. I have a question on The Lyme Times, which is published by the non-profit LymeDisease.org website. Considering the fact that the magazine has an editorial staff that frequently selects writers as opposed to open contributions (which isn't allowed), can it be used as a reliable source in general? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

On a general note, I'm seeing some minor "red flags" (clear activism, bragging about 50 peer reviewed publication across the entire board, etc.), but nothing horrible; I do not believe that it meets the requirements for Wikipedia:MEDRS.

I'm unclear on the relationship between the source and Chronic Lyme disease, something that should probably be strongly considered when establishing reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: this is a core Chronic Lyme disease group, its part of the Patricia Smith cluster of organizations. She basically founded the whole field, lymedisease.org/The Lyme Times, International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, Global Lyme Alliance, Columbia Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Research Center, etc are all Smith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

So likely to be completely unreliable, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes beyond something like WP:ABOUTSELF I don't see them being usable on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I would also like to thank you for your feedback.

Also, if possible, should we replace certain interviews on LT with other reliable sources such as Time, BBC, Forbes, USA Today, etc., in addition to your suggestion below? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think any of those are much better. I've heard chronic lyme quackery being credulously relayed on the BBC many times. Bon courage (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I know. I was referring to the interviews with those who have been stricken with actual Lyme disease at one point in their lives. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

It can be very hard to tell, In the Thalia case, for example, it seems lyme was a Dr Google self-diagnosis followed by treatment from 'lyme specialists', which raises at least one red flag. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree it can be very hard to tell. For the Thalía case, I can find a few sources from People magazine: this 2008 announcement confirming her immediate diagnosis as well as in a later interview in 2020. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course a "lyme specialist" (synonym for quack) will "diagnose" lyme, so as to sell the long expensive course of treatment (which accords with this story). Actual doctors appear to have diagnosed post-partum depression. At best Wikipedia should be arms length with this and relaying it as a claim only, not buying into these celebrities-with-lyme accounts that are so fashionable at the moment Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Reasonable concerns. Also, when determining due weight, unreliable sources (such as The Lyme Times/LymeDisease.org) do not count, whereas reliable sources (i.e. authorized biographical books or autobiographical books written by the subject) do count. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I've addede lymedisease.org, ilads.org, tbdalliance.org and columbia-lyme.org to WP:PREDSCRIPT. Did I miss any? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a few more Smith cluster orgs but those are all that come to mind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

FYI, I've now removed the sources to these particular websites. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• It's got chronic lyme quackery coming out the wazoo. When there's a metric crap-tonne of super-strength sourcing on lyme disease available, there is never a reason to use a dodgy source like this on Wikipedia, and I'd suspect WP:PROFRINGE at the heart of any insistence so to do. Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Lyme Times is part of a cluster of connected and often redundant organizations set up by the activist/donor coordinator Patricia Smith to promote the Chronic Lyme disease theory. Their work has in general been rejected by the relevant medical and scientific communities. I would not consider any of the Patricia Smith organizations anything more than conditionally reliable, in general they are not reliable sources and should be used with great caution if used at all. Also note that Smith died recently and most of the associated organizations have been reforming or closing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Is this about Kris Kristofersson again? Now that he's firmly dead if "lyme disease" is to appear in his article it would be appropriate – indeed necessary per WP:FRINGESUBJECTS – to use the ScienceBlogs source to describe how he sadly fell prey to health fraud. Without it, the bio would be incomplete IMO. Bon courage (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I actually discovered the LymeDisease.org source on the Thalía article, hence why I asked here if it's a reliable source. As Wikipedians, our role is to report what reliable sources say, not evaluate the actual claims, and deciding whether they are accurate or not would be original research. Also, other discussions like the one on Justin Bieber come to mind. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

    NPOV is a core policy and non-negotiable. Any mention of "chronic lyme", which is a fake disease (per RS), must be qualified with some explanatory context pointing that out per WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Anything else would be POV. Bon courage (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

    Being a longtime Wikipedian, I understand where you're coming from regarding NPOV. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

    I removed it from Thalia, as it is not a RS - certainly not to the standard required for a biography. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

    I've also gone ahead and removed it from Daisy Kent as per this discussion and the relevant policies at WP:BLP. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Pile on "hell no". This is a chronic Lyme activist site, which is very much not a thing we would ever treat as reliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, I reverted a change on the Long Biên Bridge article as adding an unsourced statement. The IP user who added it was nice enough to come to my talk page and post the link of where they got their information (). I do want to ask if this source is reliable, however, since I am not totally sure. If used, it would support the statement that the bridge is the only road in Vietnam where one drives on the left side as opposed to the right side. But I do want to ask -- is this website acceptable to use as a source for that purpose? JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a commercial website for tour guides. I'd not consider this particularly reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@JeffSpaceman, here's a better source: Dateline Vietnam: Managing the Peace in the Foreign Policy journal. Schazjmd (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Good research! I appreciate it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The New Arab is the English language sibling of Al-Araby Al-Jadeed. Its reliability is being disputed in the article 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites, where it is used for a few claims (see item currently at bottom of talk page). I can’t see it in our RSN archives. Any advice? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

After a half hour of looking the most I can find if criticism of it's reporting on Qatar (mostly concerns over independence from the government), but nothing else to show it's unreliable. I also read through a half dozen articles and nothing immediate popped out. Unless someone can show why they should be considered unreliable the normal WP:NEWSORG/WP:RSBIAS/WP:RSOPINION of dealing with standard news organisations apply. I read through the thread on the articles talk page, and can't see anything convincing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with above. Only thing I'll add is to keep in mind WP:EXCEPTIONAL when it comes to contentious claims.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, if there is no claim against it, let’s keep it. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Relevant Resources: Page: [Low-Income Housing Tax Credit] Talk: [Talk:Low-Income Housing Tax Credit]

Source in Question: President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board (2010-08-01). "The Report on Tax Reform Options: Simplification, Compliance, and Corporate Taxation" (PDF). whitehouse.gov. p. 77. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-01-26. Retrieved 2010-10-01 – via National Archives.

A user has cited the 2010, the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB) in three places on this wikipedia page (Opening Summary and Evaluations prominently). The two items taken from this source are 1) the cost of the program for the federal government and 2) comparison to housing choice vouchers.

I have attempted without success to remove this source on the grounds that on 1) those figures of government cost are outdated and 2) it does not provide substantial evidence to support its conclusions of the LIHTC program vs housing choice vouchers. All editing attempts have been undone by @Avatar317.

Please examine the source materials!! I am not suggesting the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board has a former entity was not credible BUT that it does not sufficiently examine the cost-effectiveness of LIHTC vs housing choice vouchers. Only a few sentences are dedicated to this subject, saying "Some experts suggest that other federal aid (like housing vouchers) would assist low-income households at a lower cost."

This unsupported sentence is irresponsibly used (in prominent places) on the page because the consequences of comparing affordable housing programs are severe for residents of affordable housing.

In fact, as of 2024, HUD's publication "The Role of Vouchers in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program" concludes that more research needs to be done on the relationship between both programs in the housing market and cost-effectiveness analyses.

This has been discussed with user @Avatar317 in editing comments and on the Talk page . Ms5678t (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Rather than removing the statements would it be better to discuss them in the article, so say that in 2010 the PERAB said such and such, but that in 2024 HUD said other things and that more research is required? When otherwise reliable sources disagree it's sometimes best to include both, and the explain the mismatch. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I still would like to argue that this study should be removed entirely.

This specific quotation from the source does not even provide citations or the names of the experts supporting the "some experts believe that vouchers would more cost-effectively help low income households" claim.

If I were to supplement the sentence with the opposing source conclusion as you suggest, this still gives too much leverage to an unsupported comparison of vouchers vs. the lihtc program.

Again this is a concern because it appears multiple times on the wiki page and especially in the first paragraph giving an unfair first impression of the LIHTC program.

Thank you for the volunteers reading this! Ms5678t (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Would this source be considered reliable for use in the COVID-19 section in Imran Khan article to support the following claim? After Khan ruled out a lockdown in his 22 March 2020 address, the Pakistan Army intervened, enforcing a nationwide lockdown within 24 hours. The military assumed control of the COVID-19 response, forming the National Core Committee to coordinate between national and provincial governments. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The BBC say that it was "provincial governments" that introduced lockdown measures, After provincial governments went ahead and introduced measures tantamount to a "lockdown" anyway.
The FP says When the lockdown came, implementation was delayed or piecemeal, exposing the government’s lack of swift decision-making, which doesn't sound like a sudden imposition by the military.
Al-Jazeera has Pakistan's powerful military was left with no option but to make its presence publicly felt. On March 23, Pakistan’s national day, chief spokesman Major General Babar Iftikhar announced troops would be deployed across the country in response to calls for assistance from the provincial authorities. Imran Khan's speech was on the 21st.
So ToI is being truthful, but the full situation looks a bit more complicated than they report. Maybe expand the content a bit using the Al-Jazeera source to say the military intervened at the call of proviencial authorities. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Al-Jazeera source is an opinion piece. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Since TOI is being truthful, can we use it to support that content? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

On its own I don't think so, it's not so much what it says but what it leaves out. Al-Jazeera was the only other source mentioning the nilitary, the other sources seem to focus on the provincial authorities actions. I'll try looking for some more sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested I added another source and changed the wording accordingly, how is it now? After Khan ruled out a lockdown in his 22 March 2020 address, the Pakistan Army intervened at the request of the provinces, imposing a nationwide lockdown within 24 hours. The military took charge of the COVID-19 response, establishing the National Core Committee to coordinate between the national and provincial governments.^[1][2] Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

That looks good. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Thank you for your help! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I was looking on WP:RSP and WP:VG/S and couldn't find any mention of the reliability of Sports Illustrated. I was wondering what others thought, or if I was missing a previous discussion about this source? I wasn't around at its peak but from everything I've read it seemed extremely influential not not have a WP:RSP entry. From what I can tell, they seem to formerly have been generally reliable for sports journalism 1, 2 until Futurism released a pretty damming article in November 2023 that they had been using AI to write some of their articles and had tried to cover it up. 3, 4 They had been on a slow decline for years at this point, this just seemed to be a last straw to where threats of them ceasing operations began to surface, to the point they had to adress it on their website 5 Has there already been a ruling on this source? If so, can it be added to WP:RSP, or could we have a discussion here? Cheers! Johnson524 18:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really sure at which point the separation became clear, but more classic SI (20th century to the 2010s or so) is reliable, imo - however, their content in recent years has become no better than Bleacher Report, Fansided, or other lower-end fan blogs. The AI-written content piece was also particularly damning. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion on the RSP is a matter for it's inclusion criteria (WP:RSPCRITERIA) and it's talk page (WT:RSP).
As to SI's reliability It does seem to have slipped in recent years. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of the Swimsuit Edition has especially slipped in recent years. 😉 Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging @Bagumba: who seems very knowledgeable about this specific source based on past discussions. (i.e. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/References) Left guide (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

While having been somewhat diluted as many legacy newspapers and magazines have been over the years, Sports Illustrated is generally reliable.

Note that the issues revolve around their product review content and review authors (which aren't WP:INDEPENDENT anyway), which editors should exercise caution with. They state at the top that:

This content is created by a 3rd party. The Sports Illustrated editorial staff are not involved in the creation of this content.

Any SI content with that disclaimer can be considered unreliable. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Their coverage of sports news is generally reliable. It does have editorial oversight. The link on 3rd parties is about product reviews of ball and other sports equipment. I don't think that is what Sports Illustrated is mainly about. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Their On SI portion of the website is not reliable. They rebranded it from Fan Nation, which they acquired in 2007 for their user-generated and aggregated platform. —Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Calling it not reliable is a stretch. Much of Fan Nation may be user-generated, but many On SI writers are actual sports journalists, some with decades of experience in a niche and others who have covered certain teams for years. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

As a whole, I'm wary of SI since 2019, when they were acquired by Maven, who employed independent contractors for low pay and no benefits.. In 2023, they were found to be using AI for their content. Somewhat like Bleacher Report or SBNation, some veteran writers deemed subject matter experts can be considered reliable on a per-case basis.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba side note, thanks for mentioning SB Nation - knew when I was listing blogs above that I was missing a big one, but couldn't remember for the life of me what it was. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Past RSN discussions:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 421#Sports Illustrated
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 422#RfC: Sports Illustrated
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 425#Sports Illustrated...

Left guide (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide, @The Kip, @Bagumba, @CherryPie94, @ActivelyDisinterested: Thank you for your replies! So from these responses, would it be safe to assume:

• Sports Illustrated (pre-2019) as generally reliable
• Sports Illustrated (2019-present) as additional considerations apply

But can we still do an RfC? I would really like to see this source listed on WP:RSP for the amount of articles it is used in and to get an "official" consensus, and if doing an RfC leads it closer to that goal, I'd be happy to start one, I just have never done one before 😅 Cheers! Johnson524 16:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing about RSP is 'official' or any more so than any discussion on this noticeboard, as it's meant to be a log of discussions on this noticeboard. RFC are a method of dispute resolution, is there any dispute about this source? As to whether it should be included on the RSP the list has it's own criteria, see WP:RSPCRITERIA. A RFC isn't necessary, only that it has been discussed multiple times. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This looks about right. These considerations apply to On SI section and editors should verify whether the writer has journalistic experience. Product reviews should not be used as sources as well, for lack of independence. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Can we call out the On SI section as unreliable too? It doesn't necessarily need a separate entry, like how WP:USATODAY says the source is reliable for staff content but contributors' articles are generally unreliable. —Bagumba (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. @Bagumba, some of the OnSI writers do seem experienced, so I'm not willing to declare it wholesale unreliable, but like CherryPie said, one should probably verify their credentials before using in Wikivoice. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, @Johnson524, an RfC is not required for listing on RSP. Given the multiple prior discussions, you can probably go ahead and list it now. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@The Kip: Yes, I said as much earlier: some veteran writers deemed subject matter experts can be considered reliable on a per-case basis. I'm fine for now if we note it like at WP:USATODAY, which is still shaded green. We can revisit later if it recurs often enough whether a dedicated entry like WP:FORBESCON is needed. —Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@The Kip, @Bagumba: Thank you both for your help! I've added the source in this edit, but being my first time, I'd appreciate corrections to any mistakes I may have made (quick link to the RSP section here: WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/7). Cheers! Johnson524 19:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The Lemkin institute is used 32 times as a source, and has come up in the recent discussion here, with no agreement on it‘s reliability. Considering this and it’s republication of a Mint Press piece here, am I correct in assuming that their republished content a) maintains the reliability of the original publication and b) is to be treated with caution? FortunateSons (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

While I like this specific advocacy group a fair bit more than many others that come up here I'd say the same guidance as other advocacy groups should apply. Their opinions are likely notable within their domain of expertise but we should be careful with attribution and avoid wiki voice in use. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

So additional considerations, if this were an RfC? FortunateSons (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Additional considerations, yes, as I would say for most reputable advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

There are two ways of looking at its reliability. First, are their findings used by reliable sources and *how*? Judging by a quick google news and google scholar checks, the answer is "not a lot", with many critical pieces.

Second, who stands behind the organisation? Rn there is only one person there who can be considered an expert - Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, the co-founder. So it would seem that we should treat this source as little more than a self-published blog by an expert. Alaexis_¿question? 22:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I’ve listed the least bad news and scholar citations on its talk page for review. Look a little weak to me - it’s barely notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

To the question of reposting content of another source, yes the reliability stays with the original publisher. The specific article you linked to is by Mint Press and is as reliable (or unreliable) as other Mint Press published content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

But the fact that they see fit to

republish a conspiracy theory piece by a deeply unreliable source reflects badly on their judgement right? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, publishing conspiracy theories isn't the mark of a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This organization spreads misinformation, as discussed at Talk:Khojaly massacre. Lemkin institute falsely claimed that no independent investigation of the massacre had been conducted, despite the existence of two independent investigations, one by Human Rights Watch and another by Memorial, both cited in our Wikipedia article. Lemkin refers to an online publication by conspiracy theorist Len Wicks, who has a background in aviation management and tourism and is neither an expert nor an eyewitness to the massacre. Given Lemkin’s poor fact-checking and strong ideological bias, I don't think Lemkin is a reliable source for factual statements, and their attributed opinion should be treated with caution. Grandmaster 09:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention is a US-based non-profit human rights organization, run by multiple experts with PhDs in genocide studies. The institute covers various topics ranging from Iraq, Bangladesh, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Transphobia, and Ukraine. It is non-partisan. The Lemkin Institute is notable for being cited in dozens of peer-reviewed publications, in different languages, as well as in Reuters, RFERL, Al Jazeera, JAMnews, University of London City Press, and Genocide Watch. The Lemkin Institute has also been mentioned in the proceedings of the UK Parliament. You can also see that the Lemkin Institute is listed by Genocide Studies International along with the United Nations as one among "five institutes... dedicated to the prevention of genocide and mass atrocity crimes around the world.". It's a reliable source; if there are any specific examples requiring discussion, they can be discussed on article talk pages. Vanezi (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

  It is a one-person show. After Massimino quit, Elisa von Joeden-Forgey remained the one who runs this organization. Occasional mentions in the media, scholarly journals or by an individual member of Parliament do not make the organization a reliable source. Other users have noted that the Lemkin Institute reposts conspiracy theories and generally does not have good fact-checking standards. My question is, should Wikipedia articles cite this organization's blatantly false claims that contradict well-known and easily verifiable facts? In particular, the Lemkin Institute's claim that there was no independent investigation of the Khojaly massacre, despite the existence of two such investigations. Grandmaster 23:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if SE Ranking is reliable. I want to add a citation to Google Search AI Overviews, supporting the statement of them unveiling the product in 2023. This is the source I'm talking about.^[1]

Justjourney (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Update - I added a different source here. I still want a comment on this source. Justjourney (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

They're an SEO platform, so whatever they publish is ultimately going to be promotional to their business. The same for most commercial websites. The person who wrote that particular article, and the person who reviewed it, are both SEO specialists. They might be reliable for details about SEO, if handled with care, but I would think them marginal for anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for the response. I will just keep this ref^[1] for now, that I've added here. Just want to make sure: is TechRepublic reliable? Justjourney (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes they should be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I am asking whether Relationship Science is (was) a reliable source. There are over 100 references to the website called Relationship Science. But when currently trying to reach this domain, browsers may say it is a dangerous site (503 - Forbidden error), and the Wayback Machine (Archive.org) seems to indicate that 2016 was the final year that this domain actually worked. Here are two examples of content pages: Inderpreet Wadhwa and Nikolay Banev. The site seems to have morphed into today's RelSci.com, which seems to databank the "web of connections" that businesses have. I don't have an agenda one way or the other, but I just wanted to see if it's worth building archive links for each of the references on Wikipedia, or to just purge that source altogether as not-reliable? - Whole milch (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems to be equivalent to a personal website or professional bio? In that the data must all come from the people themselves or their businesses. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What is the claim citing this source? Ramos1990 (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I only checked two Inderpreet Wadhwa born 1972 source 1 and Nikolay Banev participate as owner in ... Association "Golf Club Irakli" Kostenetz-HHI source 2 (fails verification). TSventon (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to write an article about a game I'm interested in but it's hard to find sources. I did find sources from Massively Overpowered and mmorpg.com, but I'm uncertain if either of these are usable. Are they? guninvalid (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

They seem to use a model where community members can write articles. Only columns by staff members would be reliable, anything from the forums or columns written by members wouldn't be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

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

YouTube is just a host that organisation can publish on, the reliability of any YouTube video is the same as anything else published by that organisation. So the reliability of CNET's YouTube videos are no different from their website. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

CNET has been sold by Red Ventures (the whole reason it was declared unreliable in the first place) and is now owned by Ziff Davis, who owns generally reliable publications like IGN. I therefore think its reliability should be reassessed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It should be reassessed. Also C|NET goes back to the 1990s, before problems noted existed. -- GreenC 07:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

As I was reading the RSP entry that thought crossed my mind. Given the changes over the years the entry should be updated. I think there was some AI concerns but their AI use policy looks good now. I'd support changing it to "Additional considerations" and noting the period that caused concern. Interestingly the close of the prior RFC details the different periods, but they weren't noted on the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I hope it's adjusted, before someone finds the hammer and sees nails everywhere causing a lot of damage. -- GreenC 22:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Any interested editors can edit it, it's nothing special - normal editing rules apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't it kind of crap under RV too? jp×g🗯️ 03:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• One thing that crosses my mind is that the reason their recent stuff (after their acquisition by Red Ventures in 2020) is considered unreliable is because of the use of AI to generate articles. Does this extend to video? --Aquillion (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  See the link in my comment, they seems to have curtailed their use of AI to generate content. I wouldn't trust that they didn't generate video scripts with AI under Red Ventures. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is a timeline of CNET's ownership:

• 1992 to June 2008: CNET Networks (formerly known as CNET, Inc.)
• June 2008 to October 2020: CBS Interactive
• October 2020 to October 2024: Red Ventures
• October 2024 to present: Ziff Davis

The March 2024 RfC on Red Ventures determined that "the online properties of Red Ventures are generally unreliable", building upon a highly-attended February 2023 discussion. which is the sole basis of These discussions are why CNET is currently being listed as generally unreliable in its perennial sources list entry. Because CNET has ceased being an online property of Red Ventures as of 1 October 2024, the "generally unreliable" designation from that RfC should not apply to any CNET articles published since that date, but the February 2023 discussion still currently applies.

In its current incarnation, CNET's highest-quality content is its Cover Stories, which are originally reported feature stories with in-depth research (e.g. "Inside the Rise of 7,000 Starlink Satellites – and Their Inevitable Downfall"). CNET's full-length technology reviews (e.g. pre–October 2024 link removed) and technology reporting (e.g. "This Company Got a Copyright for an Image Made Entirely With AI. Here's How") seem to be of similar quality to other mainstream tech news sites, and I consider this content on CNET generally reliable. I do not see any evidence of LLMs being used to generate these articles.

On the other hand, CNET's Deals are sponsored content and should be considered generally unreliable just like sponsored content from other online publications. CNET also publishes a large number of product comparison pages in the style of Wirecutter, such as "Best Electric Toothbrushes of 2025" and "Best Home Equity Loan Rates for February 2025", with affiliate links to each listed product. I consider these product comparison pages sponsored content (and therefore generally unreliable), and I believe there should be a broader discussion about affiliate-sponsored product review sites, whether they are part of a larger publication (e.g. The New York Times's Wirecutter) or not (e.g. Nexstar Media Group's BestReviews).

A visit of CNET's home page shows that at least half of the content linked from CNET's home page is unacceptable sponsored content, or articles that are otherwise unsuitable for Wikipedia (e.g. "Today's NYT Mini Crossword Answers for Sunday, Feb. 16"). Despite CNET having some high-quality articles, with such a high proportion of unusable content, I believe CNET (October 2024 – present) should be designated as "additional considerations apply".

ZDnet should also be re-evaluated, as it was reacquired by Ziff Davis in August 2024 and is also no longer a Red Ventures property. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Correct discussion history. Strike favorable assessment of reviews, which are difficult to distinguish from sponsored content. — Newslinger talk 08:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The CNET entries on RSP were not up-to-date at the time of my previous comment. The February 2023 discussion was incorrectly listed as a request for comment, but was actually a standard discussion that was formally closed without ever having the {{rfc}} tag applied. I've re-designated it as a standard discussion in the CNET entires. Also, I've added the March 2024 RfC on Red Ventures, which takes precedence over the February 2023 discussion for the October 2020 – October 2022 period, which I have updated to the generally unreliable designation. The CNET entries now reflect the status quo before the active RfC below. — Newslinger talk 08:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

One user has been repeatedly restoring contents based on liftblog.com, which is a personal website of some random guy Peter Landsman at Big Sky Resort. The specific link repeatedly inserted is https://liftblog.com/big-sky-resort-mt/. Even if accurate, I doubt this source establishes due weight for inclusion of such user generated contents. The site is used fairly extensively in various ski/mountain related articles, but I personally think it ought not be used, period and I feel such information goes foul of WP:NOTADIRECTORY #6 which says list of asset/equipment is inappropriate. However.. the source is used in 96 articles, so I would like to get input here. Graywalls (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• A quick search shows he's not "some random guy" but apparently "the resort industry's chairlift savant". so this might qualify as expert SPS. Whether it's due of not is a question that goes to the heart of what an encyclopedia is and whether Wikipedia is an almanac, which is not a discussion for this board. Bon courage (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  So, it seems to be comparable to rail fanning websites. I'd think this is the right place to discuss whether the source reliably indicates inclusion worthiness. Graywalls (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Bon courage:, just out of curiosity, what would you say, in nothing beyond your personal opinion that EXPERTSPS would be appropriate sourcing for? Graywalls (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have little knowledge in this area, but saying things like: a skilift has aluminium pylons, or that it has 3 seat cars, or closes over summer, could be reliably sourced to a blog of repute I suppose. Bon courage (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I must disagree with you that this is not a discussion for this board. Whether or not the source is of adequate caliber to demonstrate inclusion worthiness of what it has to say; is something I believe we should be able to discuss here. ExpertSPS may allow for well established expert to say what they have to say about nuts and bolt... but the question of "is his website acceptable to give due weight to itemize nut size, material, quantity used in each playground equipment in the article Some park in some city?" is still appropriate question here. Graywalls (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  The question of reliability is orthogonal to that of weight. Everything non-trivial in articles has to verifiable with RS, but then WP:VNOTSUFF. Bon courage (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Graywalls, what Bon courage says. Regardless of whether the source is reliable or not, that content is excessive. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

What are reliable sources for local news in Jamaica? 2601:644:8184:F2F0:39EC:3953:B4F8:1543 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The WP:Teahouse would be a better place to ask this question. This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of a source, not finding them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You can try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jamaica. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I am bringing this here because multiple comments on the article talk page over the last few years have not resulted in what appears to be an obvious problem being addressed.

The image in the first paragraph of our Mpemba effect article is captioned "Temperature vs time plots, showing the Mpemba Effect." There is no obvious link to the source for that claim.

Clicking on the image leads you to File:Mpemba Effect temperatures plot.png, again with no obvious link to any source.

However, if you look at the box where someone confirmed the license, you find a link to an abstract (and license info) at [ https://engrxiv.org/index.php/engrxiv/preprint/view/2104 ], which contains a link to [ https://engrxiv.org/preprint/view/2104/4198 ], which contains a version of the image.

The abstract and the article do not support the claim "Temperature vs time plots, showing the Mpemba Effect". Instead the source says

• "The Mpemba Effect (ME) is known as the counter intuitive effect of faster freezing of a beaker of warm water than the same but colder sample, under apparently same conditions (e.g. in the freezer, Aristotle will have done it outdoor). The astonishment about this misled all the investigations and explanations intuitively into looking for water/ice/solidification properties, and the key, the heat transfer, was not adequately taken into account. If we trust classical physics and energy conservation, faster freezing of water must be primarily associated with a greater heat flow, not with mystical water properties or behavior. It is shown that the trivial conductivity through the bottom of the beaker adequately explains the ME."

The author (Ren Tier) is later cited in the article as a source for the claim "Conduction through the bottom is dominant, when the bottom of a hot beaker has been wetted by melted ice, and then sticky frozen to it. In context of Mpemba effect it is a mistake to think that bottom ice insulates, compared to poor air cooling properties." I could find no info on who Ren Tier is or anything else published by them, but I did find [ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357917239_Mpemba_Effect_Demystified ], which states "Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet".

I propose removing the image, and we should consider removing the claim that uses Ren Tier as a source. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The preprint points to ORCID, which also contains no information about Ren Tier or who they might be. I can't find anything about them from searching either. WP:PREPRINTS are seldom reliable unless they're acceptable per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, and that requires basing the assessment of reliability on the author. As we don't know who the author is, this shouldn't be considered a reliable source.
Anyone willing to make a new image could start with, it was the result of a competition by the Royal Society of Chemistry and has a nice graph detailing coolling over time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If the graph from rsc.org is used, the caption should not include the words "showing the Mpemba Effect." That paper concludes:

• "The statement by J. D. Brownridge, 'Hot water will freeze before cooler water only when the cooler water supercools, and then, only if the nucleation temperature of the cooler water is several degrees lower than that of the hot water. Heating water may lower, raise or not change the spontaneous freezing temperature,' summarizes in great part the conclusions that may be drawn from almost all the data I have collected myself and others presented earlier".

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Preprints are not reliable for novel claims, regardless of who the author is. See WP:SPSPREPRINT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)