Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• Water fluoridation controversy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

RFK Jr. may belong in the article, but some people insist it has to be in a specific way, which results in lots of edit-warring recently. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the correct space for this. But why do we call it a "controversy"? There is no reasonable controversy to speak of when we're looking at water fluoridation. We don't call the antivaxxer movement part of a "vaccination controversy", or do we? The nicest terms I've seen used is "hesitancy", as in vaccine hesitancy. I think anti-fluoridation cranks deserve the same treatment as anti-vaxxers. Also, they're mostly the same people... I'm thinking the tone should be more in line with anti-vaccine movement or outright mention misinformation, like in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy. VdSV9•♫ 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, deleting the "controversy" part would probably give a better article name. "Opposition to water fluoridation"? But that belongs on the talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a better name Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there has been discussion on the talk page about this: I've moved the article to Opposition to water fluoridation; parts of this article will have to be reworded. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well...JAMA Pediatrics did publish a meta-analysis linking water fluoridation to decreased IQ in children. That review is now prominently emplaced in the (stupidly large) lead of the main fluoridation article - but interestingly enough, not in the "opposition" article in question (yet). I don't know how you intend to handle this, and I probably wouldn't have time to contribute to this on top of editing my usual subject matter, but it's worth mentioning. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JAMA Pediatrics did publish a meta-analysis linking water fluoridation to decreased IQ in children. No, they didn't. That's inaccurate and misleading. It not a link between fluoridation, as in Fluoride being added to the water, and IQ decrease. But Fluoride exposure from drinking water. Places with higher than 1500 ppm of Fluoride in water have those levels naturally - and an inverse association was found to be statistically significant only in those cases. So it's not from fluoridation, it's for a lack of control over the natural levels of fluoride in the water supply, which means there are also confounding factors: what other possibly toxic elements could naturally be in that untreated water? It's a very small effect with lots of confounding factors.

Looking at that big paragraph that mentions this and other studies, and it's a mess. One thing jumped out and I'm editing out right now. VdSV9•♫ 15:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Water fluoridation, which is teetering on the brink of an edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, experienced eyes on Water fluoridation would be appreciated. Someone added a bunch of FRINGE and it stuck for months. Now an editor with about 180 edits to their name is all like "STATUSQUO" and it's really aggravating. Also, expert criticism on some systematic review studies is, apparently, undue, and the most sensationalized interpretations of the study (i.e. actual anti-Fluoridation propaganda) is, apparently, NPOV. VdSV9•♫ 02:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask the newer editor whether they've actually read WP:STATUSQUO. It doesn't say what a lot of editors think it says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new thread below as both are different topics. --Julius Senegal (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need more eyes on the talk page for COVID-19 lab leak theory regarding multiple discussion threads there. There's been a lot of WP:SPA and new account activity over the past two months and there should really be broader community involvement so WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues don't occur. There's several instances of comments currently on the talk page where accounts more or less openly state that they're trying to make POV changes because the scientific community is covering up the facts. Silverseren^C 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for bookkeeping so that people following this noticeboard are aware, there are at least two drahmaboard discussions about this matter active now:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_and_ABF_in_contentious_topics
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#BabbleOnto

jps (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a heavy suspicion that somewhere in here are some socks (especially given the sheer number and timeline of SPAs and anons). I filed a CheckUser on two of the new SPAs, but they were likely unrelated.

Is it possible a bunch of random people from various corners of the internet are all simultaneously becoming interested in this topic again? Yes. Is it more likely that at least one or a few of these are socks of LTAs? Also yes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible that they're all separate people that are organizing this activity together on some conspiracy forum somewhere. Much harder to detect in that case. Silverseren^C 16:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking. Alternatively the election of Trump has reinvigorated WP:SPA's who are out to WP:RGW. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the problem with that article has always been that "lab leak theory" is not really an encyclopedic topic. The topic is Origin of SARS-CoV-2 and really not much has changed as far as evidence goes in years. If there is an encyclopedic topic of "Lab Leak" it is the story, recent and ongoing history, a narrative of notable events. WP has taken a story and tried to transform it into a topic for an encyclopedia. fiveby(zero) 16:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a conspiracy theory, which is entirely an encyclopedic topic. Just because "vaccines cause autism" is complete bokum doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic to have our Vaccines and autism article. Silverseren^C 16:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old/current Wikipedia message: "Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny.^[1]"

My suggested edit: Some experts see misandry as a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny.^[1] Others disagree, and see misandry as a major issue.^[2]

My edit has been reverted by @mrollie and @Binksternet (who said I was engaging in an edit war or about to, but reverted himself, which I didn't fully understand.)

Their reasoning was that seeing misandry as a minor issue was the consensus amongst scholars. However, I said that there was no evidence that the majority of scholars don't see misandry as a big deal, or that seeing misandry as a big deal was a "fringe issue" amongst scholars. Who's in the right here?

P.S. if you think I'm in the right I'd appreciate it if you reverted it for me so that I don't get into trouble for edit wars.

Thank you all for your time. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that this is regarding the text in the Misogyny article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the best source you can find to demonstrate the prevalence of a position is a blog post published in a pop science rag, then it is quite possibly a fringe position. Remsense ‥ 论 06:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Misandry and Misogyny articles must both tell the reader that misogyny is a huge deal and misandry is comparatively minor and recent. That's because the people who make the most noise in social media about misandry—members of the men's rights movement—have been pushing a false equivalence to get more sympathy for their cause. They keep saying that misandry is a huge deal, much the same as misogyny. Scholars who study these issues have formed a consensus against the MRM position, saying that misogyny has a few thousand years of terrible mistreatment of women, while misandry is about 1 percent of that, as it is a recent accusation, representing a backlash against the advances of feminism. Topic scholars making this description include David G. Gilmore, Marc Ouellette, Heidi R. Riggio, Michael Kimmel, Alice E. Marwick, Robyn Caplan, Frances Ferguson and R. Howard Bloch, among many others. These are all cited in the misandry article. In fact, 40 topic scholars have declared a "misandry myth" contradicting the MRM claims, saying that feminists in general do not hate men. It's a thing. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's a minor issue, and misandry doesn't have to mean that feminists in general hate men. Do the sources you listed also state that it's a consensus that misandry is a minor issue? To clarify, are they claiming that they think it's a minor issue or are they stating that it's the consensus? Perhaps you could point to specific from the sources?

@Remsense I wasn't sure it was a blog post, but I did see the person writing the article had a PHD, and I saw some other places on google scholar stating that too.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate the proposed changes represent positions in proportion to their prominence in the body of reliable sources. This is something the post above goes much farther in demonstrating, even citing a survey of many relevant scholars. Remsense ‥ 论 07:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's a minor issue Then it's a good thing that nobody said that was the reason for it being a minor issue. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like “comparatively minor” would be more accurate, unless sources state that it is a minor issue on some kind of absolute scale. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black male studies sources do not consider at least the racialized version of misandry to be a minor issue.--Reprarina (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

misandry is comparatively minor and recent

From what source did you get the idea that hatred towards men appeared recently? I read a lot of sources including Misandry myth and Drinking male tears. There is no such thing there. On the contrary, sources say that feminism is no more misandrist than non-feminism and antifeminism.--Reprarina (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the claim that it is less harmful, or less widespread? The ability to carry out harmful action is directly proportional to power structures, and desire to do harmful things can exist without harmful action. From what I can tell, the sources being cited are mainly discussing the harmful action aspect, referencing the larger number of men holding positions of power. I don't see support for the claim that misandry is a "minor issue" in sense of being a less common form of prejudice, as is implied by the article. Dekadoka (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely an issue that has received increased attention. But it does probably need better sourcing to back your stance. I would recommend something like Of Boys and Men by Reeves. Granted, I largely disregard the MRM as weirdos. But the subject has gotten treatment from people who aren't online weirdos.

I would also note that misandry doesn't necessarily mean overt and explicit "hatred" of men exclusively. By all accounts, the jerk at the office or the Harvey Weinstein at the job interview doesn't hate women. They're probably very fond of them. But they're also part of a systemic viewpoint that devalues people based on a particular class membership. GMG^talk 14:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This. Implicit misandry without any "I hate men" is also misandry.--Reprarina (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are the types of claims that should be attributed. Wikipedia shouldn't be telling people what issues are important, it should be telling people who thinks what's important and why. Trying to use Wikipedia to say "this issue is worse than that one" is textbook POV pushing. And Wikieditor662, keep in mind that it's still edit warring if you ask other people to do it on your behalf, and it's not a good idea to dodge restrictions like that be enlisting others. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your responses, please allow me to address them:

@Remsense @GreenMeansGo If there are reliable sources on a topic giving opposing views, and you claim that one is a minority view, wouldn't the responsibility of proof fall on you? Either way, I tried to find information as to whether scholars have a consensus on the severity of misandry. There is only one thing I found in regards to that:

1) "Misandry is a very general and very contested term" - Excerpt from Sutton, Robbie M., et al. "The false and widespread belief that feminists are misandrists." (Please note the title isn't related to the issue, as it's about whether misandry is a big issue, not whether feminists are misandrist.)

Note that this was in regards to what the consensus is about Misandry. I can also show you what individual scholars think of Misandry, but again, this may not necessarily represent the consensus:

"Whether you define misandry as “hatred” or “contempt,” which is … First, misandry is a major

problem for men and must not be …"

Source: NathaNsoN, Paul, and KatheriNe K. YouNg. "Misogyny versus Misandry: From" Comparative Suffering" to Inter-Sexual Dialogue." New Male Studies 3.3 (2014).

"Mitigation of misogyny and misandry is crucial"

Source: Oparah, J. S., and Mary Ndubuisi Fidelis. "Misogyny and Misandry: Reasons and Mitigating Strategies in the Sample of Antenatal Patients in Tertiary Health Facilities in Owerri Municipal Imo State, Nigeria." International Journal of Human Kinetics, Health and Education 5.1 (2019).

These are some of the areas of text I found from google scholar; I'm sure there's plenty more. But except for the one excerpt stating that Misandry is a general and contested term (they may be talking about the general population, so I'm not even sure if that counts), I couldn't find anything about what the consensus is, but it appears to be a nuanced issue amongst scholars from what I see.

As for the WP:ONUS, some other options would be to only compare it to misogyny (for example what @Barnards.tar.gz suggested, although that example specifically would also require source/s), to mention that it's the counterpart of misogyny but not compare it, or just not mention misandry at all.

-

@Hob Gadling I think Binkstrenet did when he said "misogyny has a few thousand years of terrible mistreatment of women, while misandry is about 1 percent of that, as it is a recent accusation"

-

@Thebiguglyalien In the first part of your sentence, were you referring to where it says Misandry is a minor issue when you were talking about POV pushing?

And as for asking people to do the edit on my behalf, I meant after a consensus was reached, I promise it wasn't my intention to escalate an edit war. I apologize if I worded that statement badly.

-

Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Male Studies is a journal sponsored by the foundation for male studies. The about us page of the foundation includes PragerU and random TED talk videos.

International Journal of Human Kinetics is not a journal really about human sociology, and is published by a random department in the university of nigeria.

These don't pass muster for reliable and due sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I quite specifically pointed to evidence that this position is in the great majority, and am not sure how you missed that. Remsense ‥ 论 03:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence could certainly be worded more impartially. That said, typing a phrase such as "misandry is a major problem" into any search engine is going to return biased results. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young are religious scholars whose writings about misandry are outside their field of expertise and have been harshly critiqued by topic experts.^[3][4][5] Their views are extremely WP:UNDUE if not outright WP:FRINGE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman I thought the information on google scholar was reliable, perhaps I was wrong. That's unfortunate, it means getting reliable sources is a little more difficult. Are you aware of any other easy ways to find reliable sources?

@Remsense are you referring to the misandry myth title? As far as I'm aware that's in regards to the viewpoint that feminism is misandrist, so it might be talking about a specific part of misandry rather than all of it.

@Sangdeboeuf I didn't type that in, I typed in things like "misandry" and "what do scholars think of misandry" and "is misandry a problem" into google scholar, but now I'm noticing that also may not be reliable as @Bluethricecreamman so I'm trying to figure out where else I can check

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every source on Google Scholar is reliable. For scholarly sources, check if the journal is peer-reviewed and is well-respected by others. The journals you posted were easy to investigate with a quick google search to see who were sponsoring them, or if they were predatory. Please see also WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:DUE. You need to find sourcing that is due, not the first sourcing that validates your point of view. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here are some things I found from what I believe are peer-reviewed articles (and I searched misandry and clicked on whatever I saw). These are some different perspectives I found on it:

The psychology of women quarterly (the misandry myth) shows different sides to the issue (I'll highlight the specific parts).

On one side: "some feminists have claimed that misandry is a legitimate, even necessary aspect of the movement. Their argument is that bad feelings toward men are rational responses to men's hatred and mistreatment of women and that more positive or dispassionate responses would only undermine women's motivation to bring about social change

On the other: "On the other hand, there are reasons to think that feminists may harbor positive attitudes toward men. Many feminists disown misandry and even advocate for men and boys." (They later elaborate on this by stating "Feminists have driven forward significant changes in men's favor (Courtenay, 2000) including the repeal of sexist drinking laws (Plank, 2019) and laws that define rape in terms that exclude assaults in which men are victims (Cohen, 2014; Javaid, 2016). Feminists have also advocated for reforms that mean the burden of front-line combat duties and dangerous occupations are now open to women and therefore no longer borne alone by men (Soules, 2020). These phenomena weigh against the conclusion that in general, feminists are motivated by negative attitudes toward men.")

Interestingly enough, the article Hating Misandry will free you? Valerie Solanas in Paris or the discursive politics of misandry argues, if I understand correctly, that a certain type of misandry can even be a good thing. If I'm correct, that article (and others) seems to imply that the term misandry has had a major influence on feminism and dissuaded many people from becoming feminists in fear of being called misandrist. These articles seemed to try to counter that notion, but the notion's existence itself shows that at least the concept of misandry is a major issue.

-

I'm pretty sure these sources are reliable and prove that it's a nuanced issue, but I apologize in advance if I made some sort of mistake. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

might be worth inclusion depending on what is added in and where. I have no clue about this subject matter. try WP:BRD with these new changes, and if you are reverted, engage in discussion on the article talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about Crime & Delinquency? A recent study in the journal found significant level of both implicit and explicit misandry in the criminal justice system.--Reprarina (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming misandry needs to be mentioned at all in the Misogyny article, then I'd go with others' suggestion to attribute the opinions of relevant scholars. Copying from the Misandry article, we could say something like: Marc A. Ouellette argues in International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny".^[1] Anthropologist David Gilmore argues that misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" and that there is no male equivalent.^[6] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Sangdeboeuf has the right of it. And do please avoid the PragerU pseudo-journal. They aren't a real university. Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add what the peer reviewed article mentioned: Marc A. Ouellette argues in International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny".^[1] Anthropologist David Gilmore argues that misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" and that there is no male equivalent.^[6] At the same time, the Psychology of Women Quarterly in the article the Misandry Myth states that many feminists disown Misandry and advocate against it. Is this good to go? And if we reached consensus, can I add it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that misandry doesn't need to be mentioned in the misogyny article, there's a link to misandry on the bottom among related articles and I think that's enough. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the two aren't connected and don't influence each other? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if major texts discussing misogyny do not also talk significantly about misandry, then we cannot include it due to WP:DUE.

It technically does not matter if it is obvious anyone thinks they are connected, WP:OR means we have to find sourcing that backs it up...

If there are minor texts talking about both somehow, then maybe thats an auxiliary article... Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are major texts discussing misandry which also talk significantly about misogyny, does that count? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... i mean you can debate it in the talk page. im not a topic expert on it, but i think folks who watch that page, myself included, would probably want a text that discusses misogyny to spend a bit of time on misandry for it to be considered due for more than a mention in a see also. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connected and influencing one another are two different things. They are in the same category, this is reflected by the "Related" link at the bottom of the article.

To claim they influence one another WP:RS is needed. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So is it ok if I remove the part that talks about Misandry on the Misogyny page? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. You'd need go get consensus at Talk:Misogyny to do that, and I think that is unlikely to happen. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given @TurboSuperA+'s reasoning, why is it unlikely to happen? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because finding one person who sort of agrees with you on this noticeboard is not a substitute for gathering consensus support on the article's talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then should I go to the Misogyny page and seek consensus between removing mention of misandry and changing to the phrases mentioned earlier here? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that question is a few lines above, but at least it is a better option than editing the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kozyrev mirror (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Seems to have only in-universe sources. Does anybody know any better ones? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In russian Wikipedia I deleted it in 2019 because there are no normal sources on this topic ru:Википедия:К_удалению/27_февраля_2019#Зеркало_Козырева. Only fringe sources such as Kaznacheev. El-chupanebrej (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it before. Pretty outlandish stuff. Having a look. VdSV9•♫ 13:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This just feels like it needs an AfD more than any extra eyes on it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kozyrev mirror (2nd nomination) jps (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure how to word this question to you all, but it comes down to this, if Ido Kedar is using Facilitated communication and or Rapid prompting method and is a student of RPM founder Soma Mukhopadhyay then how is it that Kedar is listed as being "author, memoirist, essayist, educator, and autistic advocate"? Sgerbic (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is he still only using FC/RPM? The article claims he types on a tablet unassisted. jps (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a WP:RS, but the best sanguine evaluation I can find: [1]. No real explanation as to whether Kedar may be engaging in validated augmentative and alternative communication or is still in the thralls of FC/RPM. jps (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So despite that no one has ever been proved to have become an independent writer after using FC, we have to assume that this person is an independent writer just because they said so? If so can we start writing articles from people who are dead but are currently telling us about what life is like in heaven? I'm only half-joking. Sgerbic (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our hands are tied by WP:RS and WP:BLP. The blogpost is the best we can do with someone evaluating the situation and we really can't use it for any claims. An alternative might be to argue that we don't have reliable WP:FRIND sources about the subject and asking for deletion. jps (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those cases where, I think, so-called weasel words would be appropriate. I don't know if the zeitgeist in WP has changed in regards to their use. He is an "alleged" those things. Who claims that he is those things? That's the problem. We don't really know! VdSV9•♫ 13:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say deletion is the best option, if we have no reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar. Let's see how this goes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

During the AfD discussion, two peer-reviewed papers were identified which I think more-or-less cast doubt on the FC/RPM techniques associated with the claims of communication. I have added them to the talkpage of the article. Perhaps they can be used in the article in some fashion, but I'm not exactly clear to what end (and to what extent articles which implicitly or explicitly contradict these points should also be included). jps (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I courtesy blanked the AfD, not because of BLPVIOs but because we should be ashamed of it, as a community. Polygnotus (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE? [2] tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to judge whether it is or isn't fringe but for something as culturally and historically significant as the New Testament one minor scholar's unique opinion should never be given that much due weight on the main article. Definitely undue weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I mentioned shortening the description over undue weight in the talk page as well. Maurice Casey and James Crossley also argued for early datings like Bernier as well, so I would not describe it as an extremely unique opinion. This review mentions the book had a strong press release, with endorsements from the notable Chris Keith among others. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early dating is not necessarily fringe since Casey and Crossley are actually atheists and relatively recent scholars that argue for this. Chris Keith is a notable scholar too. I think this is just a minority position at the moment and can be represented in the encyclopedia with attribution or respective weight. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your input @Ramos1990. I think adding a shorter description on earlier datings is a good idea. It is indeed a minority position, but significant. Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does atheism disqualify anybody from anything? This sounds like you want to redefine "reliable" as "agrees with me". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Casey and Crossley are reputable scholars who publish with academic publishers like T&T Clark and are associated with institutions like Cambridge makes them highly reliable sources. My uneducated guess is that @Ramos1990 noted their atheism to refute any accusations of bias. Silverfish2024 (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early dating for the New Testament literature has traditionally been advocated by predominantly conservative Evangelicals and apologists. The point about atheist (and presumably critical) scholars advocating for such positions in recent years is not intended to disqualify atheists, but to argue that such ideas perhaps should not be brushed off as being fringe, though (which should be highlighted) still a minority position. Divus303 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user is edit warring to include the results of a study in the fringe journal Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing in the article about Brazilian claimed medium Chico Xavier. At minimum the additional context from skeptical writers provided in the explore article (Explore:_The_Journal_of_Science_&_Healing#Chico_Xavier_letters) should be included in the main Xavier article, though I would mind mention of the study being removed enitrely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and done this [3] but the section should still be checked over for neutrality, as the wording of the initial paragraph on the paper seems overtly promotional and long to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If any of this is inappropriate to bring up, please delete and let me know. But... The Portuguese language article for Xavier is very problematic, based almost entirely on believer "in-world" sources, and studies such as this one are presented in a very credulous way. Even argumentative, and often proselytising in tone.

I have tried to make improvements to it, with very little success, because there are always a few believers watching the page who fight over every sentence and are immune to reason (the article is currently blocked by admins because of one such dispute).

Looking over at the English version, it clearly has been created as a translation of an old version of that one and has a few of the same issues, but some of the more outrageous things seem to have been improved.

This Explore paper is a good example of the sort of thing that passes as "scientific" for these spiritist editors (should I tag them here? They also have accounts in the English project). The Portuguese version even includes the fact that the paper is indexed at PubMed, in a very poor attempt at an appeal to authority fallacy. As if the irrelevant fact that the paper's abstract is available at PubMed gives it any weight or credence. Doesn't matter how many times I point to WP:FRINGE, the spiritist Portuguese language editors refuse to listen. If anything, they seem to get offended and sink their heels even deeper by the suggestion. It can be quite frustrating.

I have taken further comments about this paper over to the article's talk page. Anyone is welcome correct me or add to the conversation. VdSV9•♫ 18:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Papers authored by parapsychologists, especially ones forwarding WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, should not be given weight in an article unless they are notable as discussed by WP:FRIND sources. Although better than the Portuguese version, the Xavier article is still loaded with worshipful anecdotes and overly credible tone, e.g. When challenged to demonstrate his abilities, Francisco impressively rose to the occasion. He was asked to improvise an essay on the spur of the moment about a grain of sand, with the assistance of a spirit. Despite the lack of preparation and the immediate nature of the challenge, he succeeded. I understand Xavier is a beloved part of the culture in Brazil, but our article has long ago veered off the path of encyclopedic. I would say WP:BLOWITUP but doubt the fans would allow it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hemiauchenia did a good job in regards to the part that mentions the Explore paper. The section you quote is one outstanding example of the proselytising tone in the article. Such an unsourced fantastic claim should just be removed. The one ref in the entire childhood section doesn't have anything about an essay on a grain of sand.

This was probably taken by one of the many very credulous biographies about the man. VdSV9•♫ 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VdSV9: The problem is that the coverage of Xavier is basically entirely in Portuguese, and often in difficult to access 20th century sources like old TV interviews and such. I would improve the article, but without good critical sources that's difficult to do. Do you have any good source recommendations that talk about Xavier from a non-hagiographic perspective? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a big problem. Almost everything that is published about him in mainstream media for the past several decades has been hagiographical. There are very few exceptions, but publishers usually err on the side of caution when it comes to hurting people's religious sensibilities, as Brazilian law typically is more interested in protecting religious feelings than it is in protecting the victims of charlatans.

It's quite a cumbersome system to navigate, but the Brazilian National Library has a big collection of searchable old magazines (link). Here is one notable story from 1971 that I added to the pt version. And another one from 1944.

A problem, especially with his childhood, is that everything is unverifiable. Everything is hearsay written decades after the fact. We can't even properly attribute things, because we don't really know who said it, or when they said it. For most non-extraordinary claims, that's fine. But when it comes to extraordinary claims, I don't even know how to handle it. VdSV9•♫ 21:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just deleted almost the entire childhood section. It's not sourced anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Exorcism in the Catholic Church (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Complaint on the talk page: the realist angle is missing. Complaint seems legit. Who is familiar with sources in this area? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:POVPUSH in the article/section: Vladimir Bukovsky#Child pornography case

Related talk topics: [4] [5]

Rather than continue the back and forth with the other editor, it would be good to have input from others. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 05:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. I mostly said my piece about it on the talk page, but I find that your approach could be a bit more respectful to @My very best wishes. You are in a content dispute with another editor who is very decently arguing their point (and as a result I agree with them on the content), but you choose to drag it to this noticeboard even though the connection to fringe stuff is tenuous at best, while declaiming policies like it is a clear-cut thing that any of these have been breached. That is in my opinion misleading, and unfair to the other editor whose contributions you are misrepresenting. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 14:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote what I said that could be more respectful. I am always looking to improve. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was very clear actually, I criticized your "approach", not individual words, and explained why I felt that way. I have now read the rest of the talk page of the article in question, and I see that there was recently a long discussion between multiple editors about this section already and how best to bring it to WP:NPOV. It ended in a consensus that looks satisfactory to me, therefore I now think your approach is doubly misguided. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 14:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, there is nothing wrong with my approach then, you disagree with my assessment. That is your prerogative, but you don't need to accuse me of being disrespectful. WP:RS consensus supports my view. Only 3 sources support the Bukovsky/Russian hacker conspiracy view: RFE/RL (considered "reliable, with restrictions"), an NYT article, and a book published by a self-proclaimed conservative publishing house that published books by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Glenn Beck. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied once again on the talk page, but am no longer convinced engaging is productive at the moment. I will wait until other editors weigh in, but I still think this issue (if there is one, since imo it was resolved already, check talk page to see recent involvement of WP:NPOVN) has very little to do on this noticeboard. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 14:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Russian hackers are very much real, and we have pages about them, see Cyberwarfare by Russia and others. Have they been involved in this specific incident? I do not really know, but a book on this subject (IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age by Bill Gertz, Threshold Editions, 2017, 384 pages, ISBN 9781501154980) tells that they have been involved. Other strong sources, such as NYT [6], say that the claims of hacking were taken by the prosecution very seriously and investigated, but it does not say if they come to any specific conclusion. This is moot because the case was closed and the defendant has died. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're being disingenuous now.

  "but it does not say if they come to any specific conclusion." NYT article came out on 9 December 2016.

  On 13 December 2016, the BBC wrote:

  Cambridge Crown Court heard Mr Bukovsky's computer was examined by Dr Howard Chivers. He said the evidence supported the view the images were placed there by the user and not by a third party. Dr Chivers, a former worker for British intelligence's listening post GCHQ, runs a cyber security company. He was asked whether, in normal circumstances, the user would be aware of the indecent material on the computer. "Did you find that the user of the desktop applications would immediately be shown files which are suggestive of child pornography?", asked the prosecutor William Carter. Yes," replied Dr Chivers.

  TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the police expert has examined the computer immediately after it has been confiscated and found no evidence of hacking (your quotation). We said it on the page. However, the defendant plead not guilty and said that the images were placed by someone else. Therefore, the prosecution decided to investigate further this matter (the quotation from NYT above). I understand they did not publish their findings (that would be discussed in the court to finally determine the guilt of the accused, but it did not happen). Bill Gertz apparently did not buy the words by the police expert and came to a different conclusion in his book. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Yes, the police expert has examined the computer immediately after it has been confiscated"

  Where does it say that? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right here [7]. Sources in April 2015 say ""Following an investigation by Cambridgeshire police...". Hence, the examination of his computer has been already completed in 2015. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by the police. Dr Chivers is the independent expert, who was a former GCHQ employee and now has his own cybersecurity firm. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Claims the Russian state may have been part of a hack to plant indecent images of children on the computer of a dissident living in Cambridge have been rejected at his trial."^[1] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rejected by the prosecution's expert - MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Rejected by the prosecution's expert"

  Please find a citation from the source backing up that statement. Thanks. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article describes exactly who rejected it. Cherry picking the preface to that is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "The article describes exactly who rejected it."

  Then you won't have trouble finding a citation. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure! It's the little number at the end of the quote you posted. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please find a quote from WP:RS that supports your claim "The article describes exactly who rejected it." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Copyright concerns prevent me from reposting the whole article. Feel free to click on the little number and read it. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GAMING. Please stop wasting my time. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be nice if you could recognize that you are wasting your own time, as well as the time of three other editors who all independently reached the same conclusion. Consensus has formed and is not on your side, that happens, move on. Since you apparently like the WP acronyms, it is time for you to stop WP:BLUDGEONING and to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 17:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus is about WP:RS and arguments, it has nothing to do with the number of editors. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not actually see that the Cambridge News article "describes exactly who rejected it". That paragraph isn't well written.

  It says the claim is "rejected", then it goes on to describe the claim being refuted by a witness.

  I'm left with the impression that the argument was rejected *by the court*, on the basis of an argument by Dr. Chivers, but it doesn't clearly say that either. Perhaps the article writer simply meant to say "refuted"? ApLundell (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing disingenuous here, what is meant is that the court did not reach an official conclusion, since the case was closed. A statement of a prosecution witness is not "a specific conclusion" about the truth of the matter. On another note, discussing the specifics of this content dispute should really stay on its talk page; you are already taking things in a sufficiently WP:DISRUPTIVE direction there, so it does not need to spill on this noticeboard as well. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 21:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you and My Very Best Wishes allowed to post here but I am not? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in any event, this is not a fringe theory, and therefore, it does not belong to this noticeboard. That was just a claim by a defendant during a court trial. It could be true or not. The court did not rule anything about it, and dismissed the case. We have a book (IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age by Bill Gertz, Threshold Editions, July 2017) that qualify as an RS and says his claim was true based on whatever info the author of the book was able to collect. This is all I can say about it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicted by at least three WP:RS.

"Claims the Russian state may have been part of a hack to plant indecent images of children on the computer of a dissident living in Cambridge have been rejected at his trial."^[2]

"I don’t think the Russian state had anything to do with it,” said Ms Fradkin, a Cambridge-based scientist."^[3]

"He said the evidence supported the view the images were placed there by the user and not by a third party. "^[4] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this differently. The author of the book, Bill Gertz was well aware of the published claims you cited (and a lot more), but decided it was an operation by Russian agents. We only cite RS. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE, WP:EXTRAORDINARY.

"Bill Gertz was well aware of the published claims you cited (and a lot more),"

Not supported by source. WP:OR, MOS:EDITORIAL. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on his book (that's the source), he is well familiar with this subject and a lot more. He says that Bukovsky was targeted to discredit him as a witness in the Litvinenko inquiry. He was just about to testify. And no, according to the book, this is nothing extraordinary, just "a classic Russian disinformation and influence operation". My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess the question becomes one of due weight - whose expertise do we prefer? The police witness or the journalist who wrote the book about it? My tendency toward parsimony says that this sad story works out perfectly well without Russian spies being involved and with no prejudice for whether or not this is actually a Pete Townshend situation. But then again it's pretty well known that police are not always perfectly honest at trial if they can secure a conviction with a fib. So... I'm going to be honest, if this were an RFC I'd be on the fence. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a difficult one indeed, and regarding what actually happened I am also drawn towards a 50/50 belief. However I sincerely think the section is correctly balanced as it is in terms of due weight of everything, and that it does not point the reader to one opinion or the other (which makes sense since it already underwent prior work to get to NPOV) and as a result should stay as it is. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 20:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not just the police, it's the Cambridgeshire police, Bukovsky himself, the expert witness, Ms Fradkin (a Cambridge-based scientist), the court, and the Appeals court. I will post the quotations and citations:

  Cambridgeshire police: " "Following an investigation by Cambridgeshire Police, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Vladimir Bukovsky in relation to the alleged making and possessing of indecent images of children."^[5]

  Bukovsky himself said it was for research: "Bukovsky told police he had been researching the images and videos out of "social" curiosity and not for sexual gratification, according to an agreed summary of his interview which was read to the court."^[6] "Bukovsky claimed that he had been researching the images and videos out of "social" curiosity and not for sexual gratification."^[7]

  Bukovsky told the police he had the images when they first came to his house: "But when the case was opened in December 2016, Cambridge Crown Court heard that when police knocked on Bukovsky's door he immediately told the detectives he had the images."^[8]

  In his defense, Bukovsky said the children seemed to be enjoying themselves: ""So far as the children were concerned, it looked to him [Bukovsky] as though they were enjoying themselves.""^[9]

  Bukovsky also said he thought it was like stamp collecting: "Mr Bukovsky told the police after his arrest that he did not realise downloading the images was a crime as he considered it similar to "stamp collecting".^[10]

  Dr Chivers, a former GCHQ employee,^[11] and a lecturer at University of York,^[12] a computer expert,^[13] said "said the evidence supported the view the images were placed there by the user and not by a third party."^[14]

  Ms Fradkin, a Cambridge-based scientist: ""I don't think the Russian state had anything to do with it," said Ms Fradkin, a Cambridge-based scientist."^[15]

  The Court rejected it: "Claims the Russian state may have been part of a hack to plant indecent images of children on the computer of a dissident living in Cambridge have been rejected at his trial."^[16]

  The Appeal Court rejected Bukovsky's libel claim: "Appeal court throws out libel claim over CPS press release"^[17]

  Furthermore, WP:EXTRAORDINARY:

  The images and videos were downloaded over a period of 15 years: "The dissident stood trial for allegedly accessing still and video images over 15 years, some of which were being downloaded at the point of his arrest in 2014." and " "The charges related to making or possessing more than 19,000 still images and more than 8,700 films of child pornography.""^[18]

  The extraordinary claim is that Russian hackers placed over 19.000 images and over 8.700 videos in the course of 15 years. And then, after waiting for 15 years, decided to "tip off Europol" (according to Bill Gaetz). But it wasn't even Europol who got him, he was traced because the police was monitoring child abuse websites: "On Monday the court heard that Mr Bukovsky was arrested after police monitoring child abuse websites traced activity to his computer."^[19]

  And what do we have in support of the Russian hacker conspiracy? A book, a NYT article and an Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty article.

  The consensus among WP:RS is clear. Only reason to ignore it is to push an agenda. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is just a hearsay. There was no conviction. We may never know the truth. Given that, I would generally rely on the best available sources, such as books by experts. Any other books that cover this subject? My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unconcerned with NYT or RFE/RL - neither of those are sources I hold in particular high regard. However I also don't hold police claims regarding things they say a suspect of a crime said in their custody as reported by the Telegraph and the Independent, two sources I like even less than NYT, in any particular high regard either. I concur with MVBW above that it'd be best to find other sources that aren't just more newspapers. Simonm223 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are considered reliable sources by wikipedia, WP:RS. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look WP:RS isn't a talisman to write whatever you like as long as some newspaper said it first. Reliability is contextual. In this case you said, at the top Rather than continue the back and forth with the other editor, it would be good to have input from others. and now the input from at least two others is that newspapers are being over-weighted as sources here and undue attention is being given to salacious crime reporting that wasn't subsequently played out as a finding by a court. In this case more sober sources would be preferred. Like I said there are three possibilities here:

1. This guy was burnt by a Russian spy operation.
2. This guy accessed images for non-sexual reasons (the Pete Townshend possibility).
3. This guy actually was a nonce.

The sources provided don't honestly present an entirely convincing case for any of the above. Regardless I don't think this really is a WP:FRINGE issue so much as a WP:DUE one. Simonm223 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This guy was burnt by a Russian spy operation."

That placed over 19.000 images and over 8.700 videos in the course of 15 years. WP:EXTRAORDINARY

1) If the aim was to "burn" him, a couple would have sufficed, not thousands.

2) If the aim was to "burn" him, why wait 15 years.

3) Bill Gertz' book contains factual errors, Bukovsky wasn't captured by Europol.

There's nothing more I can say on the topic. If you think Wikipedia should defend pedophiles there's clearly nothing I can say to change your mind. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, did you just accuse another editor of protecting pedophiles? Asking just to be extra sure here. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 21:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was very much a rhetorical yes/no question to give you a chance to explain you meant something else, but alright, let's go with that. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From your first reply to me you have been accusing me of bad behaviour without contributing to the discussion. You're being disruptive. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 21:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise further of these factual errors in the Gertz book? Can you please provide evidence from other sources of these failures of fact? Is it just one factual error or are there several? Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gertz said that "Europol was tipped off", but it was in fact UK police that was monitoring child abuse websites that traced the activity back to Bukovsky's computer, and his house. That is a factual error. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a fact and far from clear. It well could be that someone tipped off the police or Europol, which triggered their investigation. Other sources do not say there was no an anonymous call. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources don't say it was the men from Alpha Centauri either, how can we ignore the intergalactic connection?

WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:OR. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. "it well could be..." that's WP:OR. It is not up to wikipedia editors to come up with hypotheticals or theories. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing extraordinary here. Russian hackers are pretty much "mainstream" and they did a lot of damage. We also know that Russian services followed and targeted every notable Russian dissident abroad, from Solzhenitsyn to Dasha Navalnaya. I have no idea if this specific claim was true. But it is definitely not a conspiracy theory. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the extent of the "factual errors" in the book I see no reason to discount the book as a source. Which brings me back to what I said before: There are three basic possibilities here from what sources we have. As no sources are authoritative we should describe the controversy per reliable sources. I don't think there's anything fringe at play here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it were one or two images, then the russian hacker theory could be plausible. But there was literally thousands of images and videos, downloaded over 15 years. So the hacker theory simply doesn't make sense and it is not enough to say "Russian hackers exist, therefore they did it." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The extraordinary claim is that Russian hackers (whose existence is not in dispute) placed 19.000+ images and 8.700+ videos on Bukovsky's computer over 15 years. That is the extraordinary claim that needs evidence. Russian hackers had (presumably) constant access to his comnputer and spent 15 years placing child abuse videos and images on his computer.

This begs the question: if the aim was to report him to europol, then why wait 15 years to do it?

Yet, we have the British police claiming Bukovsky was caught as part of a sting that monitored access to child abuse websites and tracked him after he had accessed the websites.

Fuerthermore, Bukovsky was in the process of downloading more child abuse videos and images when the police came to his house.

That's why the hacker theory holds no water... unless there is better proof than "Russian hackers exist, therefore they did it", which is simply not enough. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently discussion occurring at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses in which some editors are proposing that COVID-19 lab leak theory should be edited to state that the genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The eyes of experienced editors is invited. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I remarked on the talk page, I think the clearly non fringe thing to do is that we shouldn't ignore what a paper says even if it's primary and continue to present something which seems to be so clearly contradicted. It doesn't help convince the readers of the rest of the non fringe stuff. Instead it's just more likely to make them believe fringe stuff., Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate very much the point you make here and on the article talk page, errors such as this could make the entire article seem lest trustworthy to careful readers. fiveby(zero) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This conspiracy theory silliness is spreading to unusual pages now [8] I think, somehow, the Americans are to blame. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:POVPUSH in the article/section: Water fluoridation.

I have added this as it was first mentioned above.

There is also a lot of WP:LAWYER, one user against all. --Julius Senegal (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the provenance of the sources that are being cited, the way they're placed in the leading paragraphs is ruining the appearance of the article and putting too much weight on individual studies. Reconrabbit 16:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice here. --Hipal (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sex differences in intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was last discussed here in February/March of last year. That discussion hinged on a brand-new account pushing against the scientific consensus for gender parity in general intelligence. It quickly turned into a WP:1AM situation and the account disappeared for nearly a year.

Recently we saw another brand-new account appear on the talk page, making largely the same arguments. This editor was given a 1-week block for edit warring on Monday. But then today we saw the return of the account from last February/March to take up the mantle for the currently-blocked account.

I have engaged with the returning account as far as I believe AGF requires. The returning account, however, refuses to be WP:SATISFIED. Experienced editors are invited to join the conversation at Talk:Sex differences in intelligence#Claim not matching source or simply keep an eye out for disruptive edits. Generalrelative (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is misplaced in the context of broader claims about sex differences. My edit was a simple, factual clarification of the 2022 meta-analysis, specifically noting that it only involved school-aged children, which is explicitly stated in multiple sections of the manuscript. The edit was reverted without sufficient reasoning or evidence. The so-called 'compromise' introduced a significant deviation from the original text, which only added confusion and misrepresentation of the study's conclusions. My goal here is not to challenge the broader discourse on sex differences but to ensure accuracy in the representation of this particular study AndRueM (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPI engaged? Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has already opened one, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndRueM --Aquillion (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New red account on the talk-page of the carnivore diet repeatedly requesting to add this self-reported questionnaire to the article [9]. The questionnaire is a primary source that took most of its data from a carnivore diet Facebook group. It fails WP:MEDRS. Veg Historian (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Up for deletion, I'm looking at it and wondering whether this is a pop-sci fringe notion. I do see it discussed but it, well, sounds off-the-wall. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit of OR. The source that is online does not mention "decade", and the terms used as the names of ages in the article are not used that way in the source. Donald Albury 14:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Science of Identity Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• As a Rising Political Star, Gabbard Paid to Mask Her Sect’s Ties to Alleged Scheme, The Wall Street Journal, Jan 28, 2025

Note that Qnet is a subsidiary of QI Group, both are are mentioned in the WSJ article.

Quoting the WSJ article:

Gabbard, a former House member who is now President Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence, was raised in the Science of Identity Foundation, a sect tied to a direct-marketing firm accused of running a pyramid scheme in several countries. Neither Gabbard, the sect nor the firm, QI Group, wanted the relationships scrutinized.

Gabbard’s campaign paid Washington, D.C.,-based Potomac Square Group for the PR cleanup, trying to mask the connections. But the operation was directed by a Science of Identity follower—and longtime Gabbard adviser—who sits on the board of a QI subsidiary.

...

Potomac worked to obscure longstanding connections between Gabbard and Butler, as well as between QI and Science of Identity, according to documents reviewed by the Journal and a person familiar with the matter. Potomac targeted journalists who had conducted research into the groups, for instance, writing an email to a magazine editor questioning the credentials of a reporter working on a related article.

I'm starting a discussion here, given the fringe nature of Science of Identity Foundation and Qnet. Recommendations for a better venue would be appreciated.

I'm concerned that the "PR cleanup" may be impacting the three articles. --Hipal (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the past few years, about once a month somebody tries to argue that the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine isn't WP:FRINGE and won't drop the stick. I'd like outside input here and a centralized FTN thread to point to. NPOVN has found it FRINGE[10] and RSN has found It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here.[11] This organization has been classified as a hate group by the SPLC (who describe it as the "hub" of anti-LGBT misinformation), described as outside the medical mainstream by the Endocrine Society's spokesperson, and explicitly described as fringe in peer reviewed literature on misinformation. The American Academy of Pediatrics won't host their panels. It's members frequently support trans healthcare bans in court including ones effecting adults (opposed by every major medical organization in the US), co-author papers with members of pro-conversion therapy christian fundamentalist organizations such as the American College of Pediatricians, and claims kids are catching trans from the internet en masse. It opposed bans on conversion therapy for trans people and argues that conversion therapy only applies to LGB not trans people (a position contradicted by every medical org in the world). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a WP:FRINGE organization? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously FRINGE per the above. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m concerned that fringe is a term that can be easily abused against organizations on Wikipedia by those with opposing viewpoints. Some of the sources that say SEGM’s fringe have a conflict of interest or said it a while ago when SEGM was new to the field. As of today, given that McMaster University, a powerhouse in evidence-based medicine, has taken research agreements with SEGM, and three systematic reviews so far have been published in major medical journals, they cannot be considered fringe. BlueBellTree (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NOT Fringe BlueBellTree (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the second time you've repeated this claim about McMaster University but, as I said before, the University website and Google itself have no information on this supposed research agreement. Do you have evidence it exists? Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It might be called a "research agreement," but it's really a funding agreement for sponsored research. For example: "Funding This work was commissioned by the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM), the sponsor, and McMaster University. This systematic review is part of a large research project funded through a research agreement between the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM), the sponsor, and McMaster University. None of the team members received financial compensation directly from SEGM to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis." (source) FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, a question: why are you asking this? Specifically: what are the implications for WP content if the consensus is "yes"? (For example, the SEGM article already has statements about them having been characterized as a "fringe medical association," so your RfC doesn't seem to be about the content of the SEGM article.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  SEGM publishes a lot of material advocating their political positions and therefore is relatively frequently used as a source, especially by WP:PROFRINGE people or people who just did one Google search to gather sources. Loki (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying that the RfC's purpose is to deprecate them as a source? If so, then the RfC should say that and should be advertised at RSN. Is there any additional purpose for the RfC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously FRINGE per above. Also, multiple sources have identified it for creating misinfo, including SPLC, [12], Vice News [13]/

• SPLC has classified it as a hate org as well. [14]
• Other sources have called them "conspiratorial" and "biased", with the doctors who are part of SEGM pushing other fringe ideas such as antivax movements and anti-abortion ideas. [15][16]

also, if we are doing this RFC-like bolding, should we consider making an actual RFC and notifying WP:RSN? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, It's just blatantly a FRINGE group. Not sure how there's even an argument here. Silverseren^C 21:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• They're transparently a group whose purpose is to advocate for WP:FRINGE theories. Loki (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't clear before that means my !vote is that they are obviously fringe, though I think this was a clear enough conclusion last time that I'm not sure we really need an RFC for it. Loki (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely fringe. Looking to SEGM for opinion about trans people is like looking to the KKK for opnions on desegregation. Per the SPLC designation. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No Organisations that get multiple systematic reviews published in the BMJ, co-authored by Gordon Guyatt are not WP:FRINGE. Nor is the the NHS for that matter. Nor is the Cass Review, which you raised last year reciting all these same arguments.

Further past discussions where anyone can read the actual evidence presented, including the criticism of those non-independent sources. Void if removed (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) They funded the reviews, but none of the authors are SEGM members. Having money != not fringe. 2) Lokis NHS comment was irrelevant. 3) See Cass Review#Criticisms, but that thread also wasn't about SEGM so irrelevant.

Care to comment on if it's fringe to co-author papers with the fundamentalist American College of Pediatricians and claim conversion therapy doesn't apply to gender identity? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every single point made by YFNS in the opening of this RFC is specious, exaggerated, misrepresentation or arguable. YFNS is aware of the counter arguments, but chose to mention none of them.

• This organization has been classified as a hate group by the SPLC (who describe it as the "hub" of anti-LGBT misinformation)

SPLC are non-independent, as they are a plaintiff in cases where SEGM have appeared as expert witnesses for the defence. They have a vested interest in this. Additionally, they are partisan, and not reliable on biomedical matters.

• described as outside the medical mainstream by the Endocrine Society's spokesperson

The endocrine society's guidelines were singled out for criticism by the Cass review. This MEDRS states: Most clinical guidance lacks an evidence-based approach and provides limited information about how recommendations were developed. The WPATH and Endocrine Society international guidelines, which like other guidance lack developmental rigour and transparency have, until recently, dominated the development of other guidelines. Healthcare professionals should consider the lack of quality and independence of available guidance when utilising this for practice

• and explicitly described as fringe in peer reviewed literature on misinformation

The peer-reviewed paper YFNS does not cite is a sociology paper, ie not MEDRS.

• co-author papers with members of pro-conversion therapy christian fundamentalist organizations such as the American College of Pediatricians

I think the basis of this particular claim is that Will Malone once cosigned a letter to the editor with two members of AcPeds, about 4 years ago. (Edit - Actually it was 2019)

• and claims kids are catching trans from the internet en masse

No matter that YFNS thinks this is misinformation, social contagion is taken seriously by MEDRS, and is not fringe.

The European Academy of Paediatrics stated:

The argument, initially emerging from interviews with parents of transgender youths, effectively runs that a social contagion fuelled by social media leads to peer group-GD, reflecting a social coping mechanism for other issues. The polarisation of the subsequent debate will be familiar to all, with many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept. However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes.

ie, this is an open question. There's legitimate debate on this in MEDRs, so not WP:FRINGE.

• It opposed bans on conversion therapy for trans people

It opposes bans that don't clearly distinguish between coercive conversion therapy and exploratory therapy, something which the Cass Review described saying It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve., which YFNS and several other of the voters here argued against including on the relevant page. Many clinicians also have concerns about this, something also noted in the Cass Review some medics were afraid of being accused of conducting “conversion therapy if, again, they take a cautious or exploratory approach”. This is not a WP:FRINGE position.

• and argues that conversion therapy only applies to LGB not trans people (a position contradicted by every medical org in the world).

This misrepresents a submission to Canadian Bill C-16 by Roberto D'Angelo explaining the historical context of the term "conversion therapy" and that none of that discredited practice was in use:

Using the term “conversion therapy” in the context of gender dysphoria is not only misleading but also inaccurate. “Conversion therapy” refers to an ideological and, historically, religiously motivated effort to “convert” lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals to become heterosexual. Conversion therapy has not been practiced or supported in any domain of Canada’s health system for at least 30 years in relation to LGB individuals. To suggest that this practice is being applied to gender-questioning youth is erroneous and will only serve to further inflame the already highly politicized field of transgender medicine. In young people, gender dysphoria arises from a wide range of causes, often in complex developmental and family contexts (Churcher Clarke & Spiliadis, 2019; D’Angelo, 2020). Should Bill C-6 pass as written, it will effectively make it illegal to consider the role of developmental, family, and mental health issues in generating or contributing to a young person’s gender dysphoria. There is a very real risk that all forms of supportive and explorative psychotherapies for young patients who present with gender dysphoria will be classified as “conversion”.

He has made similar statements in peer-reviewed journals, which is not FRINGE.

Which is, again, all in line with perspectives on exploratory psychotherapy in the Cass Review, which is not FRINGE. Void if removed (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply is in discussion section. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to what some voters are saying - the systematic reviews are not just funded, SEGM are listed as collaborators, with extensive mention in the conflicts of interest. My experience is that YFNS considers any MEDRS where anyone connected to SEGM is a co-author to be unusable FRINGE.

So that includes, off the top of my head:

https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/27/1/e300940

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10398562241276335 Void if removed (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never commented on either of those examples but neither are MEDRS... The first is a WP:MEDPRIMARY source, not the kind of secondary systematic review or clinical practice guideline that qualifies as MEDRS. The second is even worse. It's a primary piece, where the authors give their opinions on why prominent WP:MEDORGS are wrong, where almost every author explicitly says they are affiliated with SEGM or Genspect. Some have also campaigned in favor of gender-affirming care bans, other against conversion therapy bans.

One thing SEGM has been called out for, as we note in their article, is they heavily rely on writing letters to the editor and primary pieces to make claims that couldn't survive in a review. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they are a fringe organization. When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, is classified by the SPLC as a disinformation-spreading duck.... XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, they're clearly committed to pushing a fringe perspective per the massive amounts of external coverage to that effect described above. The argument that they've had things published and are therefore not fringe is flawed in several ways. First, even a fringe organization can sometimes publish non-fringe stuff (the "but your honor, look at all the people my client didn't stab!" defense); this is not enough to save it if its overarching purpose is to push a fringe viewpoint. Second, most of the "publications" cited for them are from governmental or political sources; citing those to argue in defense of an academically fringe viewpoint is inappropriate. A government ultimately publishes and supports things that reflect the viewpoints of its leadership (who, in a democracy, will in turn take the positions they believe will get them re-elected or otherwise advance their political agenda.) It's like trying to cite the opinions of government officials on the efficacy of faith healing, or global warming, or the creation-evolution controversy, or the origins of COVID; plenty of politicians and their pet projects will embrace fringe perspectives on those things, but there's no evidence that the fringe nonsense pushed by this group is taken seriously outside of that bubble. EDIT: One thing I want to underline is that SEGM has an incredibly idiosyncratic definition of trans "youth" as being anyone under 25, which is certainly fringe. I also want to note that some of the arguments people are presenting in defense of SEGM are classic arguments used to defend FRINGE organizations - in addition to arguing that the fact that their position has had governmental support, there are constant attacks on WPATH based on the idea that 1. these governments criticize them, and, 2. SEGM criticizes them, rendering it a he-said-she-said where WPATH's statements on SEGM are biased. That's not how WP:FRINGE works - obviously a fringe organization, and governments devoted to fringe science, are going to attack the most prominent mainstream medical orgs on the topic. We see a similar dynamic for eg. climate change today, and saw a similar dynamic for the creation-evolution controversy in the past. It is academic acceptance that matters; and WPATH is treated as the gold standard for mainstream science on trans issues, academically, whereas SEGM is treated as fringe. In the same way that a source criticizing mainstream climatology is a red flag that they're pushing climate-science fringe material, sweeping attacks on WPATH are a red flag for fringe trans science. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, fringe. They're more or less solely dedicated to preventing people from transitioning. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fringe because they are opposite of the scientific process. They have a conclusion they believe strongly in and then try to manufacture evidence for the former. They're not an independent research body following the evidence wherever it leads. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "They have a conclusion they believe strongly in" could be said about basically every organization in this subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Per nom. I am sure a few people (like void already has) will note their sponsorship of McMaster university to create some systemic reviews. I will just note here that Gordan Guyatt has criticised SEGM for placing a low value on children's autonomy and is forming their position before the evidence is there, This undark peice Is the source.

I am also sure that people will argue that their position is common in Europe. This is on the misunderstanding that SEGM are merely cautious, not the truth that they have advocated for outright banning of healthcare which is a position no medorg has taken.

There is more to say with their advocating of gender exploratory therapy (which last I checked there were no studies done so it's efficacy and safety is highly questionable). However I think this is already a wall of text. LunaHasArrived (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, undeniably There is no ambiguity in this case. Reliable third parties identify this organization as peddling pseudoscience. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But at the same time this organization conducts systematic reviews with a leading university that is published in leading medical journals. That's not fringe. Evathedutch (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't seen any evidence that "this organization conducts systematic reviews with a leading university that is published in leading medical journals," only that they fund systematic reviews by a leading university that are published in peer-reviewed journals. Do you have evidence of them conducting systematic revews / being published themselves in leading medical journals? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, obvious FRINGE. Wikipedia doesn’t pass judgment on the merit of arguments. It defers to the major scholars and scholarly and medical bodies relevant to the question. When those bodies not only suspiciously avoid an organization, but actively advocate against it…it’s FRINGE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But when this organization aligns with national health authorities who disagree with those very professional medical organizations it's not fringe, it's just clashing POV. Evathedutch (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  when this organization aligns with national health authorities
  We on Wikipedia are a global encyclopedia, that respects scientific and medical bodies far above governmental ones which are governed by politics, rather than evidence. This is not "USipedia". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for "Yes" voters, would these two BMJ sources be WP:UNDUE as they're funded by the SEBGM? i.e. does this only extend to papers published by the SEBGM, or all research funded by it? [17] [18] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about UNDUE. This is about FRINGE. I think the stuff they fund can, in theory, be taken on a case by case basis but it seems very unlikely that a fringe advocacy group would be funding good research conducted independently and impartially. That would simply not be value for their money. So, if they throw a small sum of money at valid independent research that they hope might serve their purposes then that's probably not disqualifying so long as they are not interfering with the research itself. If they are commissioning or participating in the research then that's cause to be exceptionally cautious. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral right now. I'm unconvinced by "yes" !voters. Boiling this down:

• The SPLC designated SEGM as a hate group.
  • The SPLC is an advocacy group and it's unclear how a "hate group" designation from a left-wing organization automatically makes an organization WP:FRINGE. Being opposed to transgender healthcare may be ideologically anti-trans yet still be supported by scientific evidence.
• Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics call it fringe.
  • Can the "yes" voters cite some non-American organizations?

I'm also very unhappy with the opening statement from YFNS. It is both non-neutral and doesn't have many inline citations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not fringe. LokiTheLiar has made it clear that this designation is intended to ban any publications "touched" by SEBGM, contrary to what Shibbolethink asserts below. Quoting: It appears that the article relies significantly on letters from SEGM, which as you can see above the community agrees is an organization dedicated to pushing fringe theories. So at minimum the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable. [19] While I doubt it's WP:DUE in many situations, describing it as WP:FRINGE would mean that articles published in respected academic journals would be unreliable if they had any involvement with SEBGM in any way. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess, your claim that LokiTheLiar has made it clear that this designation is intended to ban any publications "touched" by SEBGM is false, as I explained to you below. I suggest that you retract your false claim about Loki. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion: Please provide some examples of when a publication can rely on SEGM to argue against trans rights and be reliable and due onwiki. I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt in my original comment (which is why I !voted Neutral). I still am if you can show me some counterexamples.

Right now, the standard Loki (and presumably you) are advocating means a peer-reviewed article from the British Medical Journal is now wholly unreliable because it partially relies on a letter from SEGM. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess, I'm totally baffled by your request that I "provide some examples of when a publication can rely on SEGM to argue against trans rights and be reliable and due onwiki," when I've said nothing about that topic. I have no onus to provide examples out of the blue simply because you want examples of something. Ask someone who actually said something about it, not me. Re: "the standard Loki (and presumably you) are advocating," wow, what an astounding presumption on your part. I've said nothing about that. All I've done is point out your strawman argument and ask you to retract your false claim. Do you seriously not understand why it's a strawman to transform Loki's actually statement, which was limited to a single News/Features column into a statement that "LokiTheLiar has made it clear that this designation is intended to ban any publications "touched" by SEBGM"? You're asserting that Loki's actual statement (A) implies your wild overgeneralization (B) when A does not imply B. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC is an advocacy group and it's unclear how a "hate group" designation from a left-wing organization

Per WP:RS/P:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess Every source analysis is reasoned based on all parts of a source - the authors, the publication venue, the paper itself, and the funding. It's a wholistic analysis on a case-by-case basis. Nobody is throwing out all publications "touched" by SEBGM. It's moreso that things /they/ publish as a body are determined to be FRINGE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is throwing out all publications "touched" by SEBGM

@Shibbolethink I really would ask you to please at least have a look for "SEGM" in the Cass Review talk archives for examples of exactly this, even going so far as dismissing the BMJ for "platforming a fringe org as legitimate". A run through other such past discussions brings up many such similar cases and there's many more.

Exclusion of anything "touched" by SEGM is the clear intent of this RFC, not merely the reliability of self-published material (which would obviously not be usable other than the most basic of WP:ABOUTSELF). Void if removed (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: This RfC is already being used to justify claiming papers are unreliable due to association with SEBGM and it hasn't even ended.[20] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, fringe. Pretty unambiguously. Skyerise (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Fringe is the politest term for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, clearly not Fringe.

The field of youth gender medicine is a hotly debated and rapidly evolving field. There are opposing positions, but are those positions are not fringe just because they clash. SEGM's positions are aligned with the NHS and are not aligned with AAP or Endocrine Society. WP:MEDORG tells us how to give weight if guidelines clash. National Guideline (e.g. NHS) rank higher than professional Society (e.g. Endocrine Society). These positions can't can't be dismissed as fringe by pointing to a position of a professional society because WP:MEDORG gives less weight to professional societies like AAP or Endocrine than it does to NHS.

Also, several MAJOR outlets have talked about SEGM in a neutral or positive light or have quoted SEGM founders (papers even have standards for op-eds). This doesn't include smaller papers. This demonstrates SEGM is not a fringe org.

• Economist  Apr 5, 2023, Quotes Will Malone; Jul 28, 2022 Quotes Will Malone
• The New York Times Aug 3, 2023 Quotes Julia Mason Feb 5 2024 Oped, “one of the most reliable nonpartisan organizations dedicated to the field”
• BMJ Investigation: Oct 30, 2024  Quotes cofounder Zhenya Abbruzzese; May 23, 2024 describes SEGM as a group of researchers and clinicians that has pushed for systematic reviews and an evidence based approach”
• The Telegraph Nov 13, 2023 talks about SEGM conference
• Wall Street Journal Jun 13, 2023 [OPed by SEGM co-founder Will Malone]
• National Post Jan 24, 2025 Entire article about the two systematic reviews that SEGM commissioned with McMaster
• Medscape Medical News Aug 16 2022  Quotes Julia Mason

Evathedutch (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEDORG: International guidelines (such as the Endocrine Society and WPATH) are more weighty than national ones

Per WP:NFRINGE: Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents - Discounting the WP:RSOPINIONS (which are not WP:RS) - The Economist is a quote and fails NFRINGE, the WP:TELEGRAPH has a noted anti-trans bias, the NYT article is about how SEGM is a small group critical of gender-affirming care who the American Academy of Pediatrics don't take seriously,and Medscape says the same. The author of the BMJ piece's has been criticized by the British Medical Association, who has previously said We have recently written to the BMJ, which is editorially independent, to challenge its article “Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement” and express our concern, that alongside criticisms made by LGTBQ+ organisations such as GLADD and neurodivergent doctors, in our view, it lacks equality, diversity and inclusion awareness and patient voice. That the article has been used by transphobic lobby groups around the world is of particular concern to us.[21] LGBT doctor's associations in the UK including GLAD and the Royal College of Surgeons' LGBT chapter have said the same[22][23] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, fringe. Heck, Cornell University Library even uses SEGM as an example of a source to avoid in one of their LibGuides CambrianCrab (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's considered a tell tale sign of misformation when a section on "Finding and Evaluating Information" is abused to tell people what source not to trust. It goes against information literacy guidance from the Association of College and Research Libraries. Evathedutch (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, definitely fringe. They are known for propagating unfounded theories like ROGD and there is an abundance of reliable sources (eg. the Endocrine Society) which describe them as being outside of the medical mainstream. HenrikHolen (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, fringe. My response to points already made:

• Multiple reliable sources per nom and comments describe SEGM as fringe or unreliable or words to that effect. Attacks on those sources, such as suggesting the Endocrine Society cannot be taken as expert because its guidelines were criticised in one article for opaqueness, are weak attempts to shoot the messenger. Likewise, the argument that the SPLC cannot be trusted because they have been expert witnesses in cases involving the SEGM makes no sense. That would discredit any expert witness that had testified against a fringe group from being an expert on that group.
• I find the argument that because people associated with SEGM have published peer-reviewed articles, therefore SEGM is not fringe, simply not plausible. There are people associated with climate science denialism who get published. That does not make climate denialism mainstream. In addition, I note that one of the people thus cited is Gordon Guyatt. Others have noted that he is ambivalent about SEGM. The thing is, he describes himself in the same source given as not an expert in gender affirming care. So I'm not sure why his case is relevant at all.
• The argument that the UK Cass Final Review aligns with SEGM, so SEGM is not FRINGE is also false. The Cass Review, whatever issues it has (and RS suggest it does), does not align with SEGM. It does not support ROGD (which it calls controversial and does not endorse), nor conversion therapy, which Cass explicitly rejects. Nor does Cass call for an end to transgender health interventions even for youth, let alone adults.
• That some major news outlets cite the SEGM is not a relevant issue for whether or not something is fringe. Climate science denying organisations have had the same treatment, and from many of the news sources cited here. Whether or not an organisation is fringe is about the science in this particular field, not about the salience of political hostility to gender affirming care.
• Finally, as a check for credibility of this conclusion and in response to arguments made here, the concept of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, which SEGM promotes, is clearly fringe. It doesn't have an evidence base, and has been explicitly rejected by multiple expert bodies. That scientific bodies are always open to examining ideas does not make those ideas mainstream. The quote from the European Academy of Paediatrics makes it clear that experts and scientific bodies view the theory critically. So as a smell check too, SEGM is FRINGE. OsFish (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously FRINGE per discussion above and to quote WP:NFRINGE: "Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents, and there continue to be many completely unreliable sources masquerading as legitimate." Relm (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly not FRINGE. What substantively makes SEGM fringe? This organization advocates for the evidence-based approach to the medical transition of minors, which aligns closely with state policies in most European countries. Undark magazine is the only source that ran a dedicated and well-researched article about SEGM, and it writes: "On key issues, the organization’s views were increasingly aligned with those of several major European medical institutions, which were beginning to restrict access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones". [24] Can anyone say that those European medical institutions are fringe? The situation in the world has drastically changed in the last two years. Most European states banned or strictly limited puberty blockers and surgery on minors, including the UK, Finland, Denmark, France, etc. [25] The UK’s NHS, for example, has now fully banned them. Could one really say the national health system of one of the most developed countries in the world is fringe? SEGM’s position is straightforward: the U.S. should follow the evidence-based approach that much of Europe has already adopted. That is not a fringe stance—it’s becoming the prevailing policy in developed nations (informed by medical consensus). In addition to European states, most of the US states also banned puberty blockers on minors. Is that fringe? Being fringe means promoting unconventional and not-generally accepted views. I cannot see how advocating something that is the official policy in most of the world (based on the research done in each country) could be considered fringe? The criticism of SEGM comes from advocacy sources such as SPLC, which is recognized as biased in WP:RSP, and the leaders of WPATH, the controversial organization that developed the guidelines for transgender care. The article about SEGM cites in the lead AJ Eckert, who is one of the leaders of WPATH, and the speaker for the endocrine society, Joshua Safer, which is another WPATH leader. SEGM has been very critical of WPATH, because it was revealed that WPATH was involved in manipulating scientific evidence. In particular, as reported by the Economist and the BMJ, WPATH suppressed publication of systematic reviews that they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University, because Hopkins team research did not deliver the results that WPATH wanted. In fact, the Hopkins team reported that they “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents.” In addition, as reported by a number of mainstream publications, in particular The New York Times [26] [27], The Hill [28] and others, WPATH removed minimum ages for the treatment of minors from the latest revision of their “Standards of Care” under the pressure from Dr. Rachel Levine of HHS. So how could WPATH with its controversial guidelines that are being rejected pretty much everywhere now be mainstream, and SEGM, whose views align with official policies in most of developed countries be fringe? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No not Fringe I’m concerned that fringe is a term that can be easily abused against organizations on Wikipedia by those with opposing viewpoints. Some of the sources that say SEGM’s fringe have a conflict of interest or said it a while ago when SEGM was new to the field.  As of today, given that McMaster University, a powerhouse in evidence-based medicine, has taken research agreements with SEGM, and three systematic reviews so far have been published in major medical journals, they cannot be considered fringe. BlueBellTree (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If these research agreements exist McMaster University is being very quiet about them. Do you have any sources for this claim? Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/transgender-treatments-for-kids 72.71.223.163 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was able to do some due diligence and the only named author of the study is an advocate for ROGD. So it just seems like a fringe org funding a fringe researcher then doing PR about it in a very conservative newspaper. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article also mentions Dr Guyett. Here is a link to the most recent review: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/29/archdischild-2024-327909 PositivelyUncertain (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SR itself https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39252149/

This is how SRs work. The entity that is commissioning has a research agreement with the entity that is conducting and policies to stay arms length (unlike WPATH and Hopkins which got exposed for violating that and suppressing results) Evathedutch (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really change that one of the authors of this study advocates for ROGD - which is definitely a fringe medical belief - and that rather than the funding source calls this study into severe question. Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fringe It's possible that the SPLC might make the occasional mistake, but this is (supposedly) a scientific organization. A normal scientific organization shouldn't even be on the SPLC's radar, and if they are.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, not fringe. I think some people who voted fringe based their votes on the article about SEGM, which is far from being neutral and its neutrality has been debated for a very long time at its talk page. However, the article about SEGM heavily relies on biased sources. Most of the criticism comes from various advocacy sources that cannot be neutral by definition and persons with an obvious conflict of interest. But most independent sources do not call SEGM fringe, as was mentioned above by others. For example, the BMJ is a reliable and well respected source. It refers to SEGM as "a group of researchers and clinicians that has pushed for systematic reviews and an evidence-based approach". The Economist refers to SEGM as "an international group of doctors and researchers" [29], and the Associated Press calls SEGM "a nonprofit group of health professionals who are concerned about medical transition risks for minors". [30]. These sources are listed as reliable at WP:RSP, unlike SPLC, which is listed as reliable, but biased. Also, SEGM does not advocate for conversion therapy. Psychotherapy is the first line of treatment in the UK, Finland and other countries. SEGM advocates for a similar approach. According to Undark, "SEGM believes psychological support should be offered as an alternative treatment", and "This emphasis on psychological support aligns with current health policy in several other countries, including Sweden, Finland and the U.K." Since psychological support is the health policy in a number of European countries, it definitely is not fringe. JonJ937 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, an appeal to state authority is not a response to the statement that pseudoscientific claims (such as the pushing of ROGD) and hate-activism (per the SPLC) make this a fringe outlet. Especially when one of the countries whose state authority is being claimed is the UK which is notorious for its hostility to Trans people. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  SPLC are radical leftist activists who slap the label of a "hate group" on people they disagree with. Their bias is obvious. UK authorities are not hostile to trans people and neither are all other European states that banned irreversible medical interventions into children's health. In today's news, Ireland became yet another European country that banned puberty blockers for minors. [31] Quote:

  Dr Paul Moran, a consultant psychiatrist at the National Gender Service, said he was relieved to see that implementing WPATH in Ireland was no longer a government aim. Instead, the 2025 programme says the Government will “ensure a transgender healthcare service that is based on clinical evidence, respect, inclusiveness and compassion”. “It is more complicated than the activists would lead you to believe, so we welcome the commitment to evidence-based care. The WPATH model of care was not evidence based and that has been shown by the Hilary Cass report. WPATH has come under scrutiny for suppressing evidence in America and has been significantly discredited. "As an advisory body, a lot of medical people have stepped away from it and it was increasingly controlled by lay people or activists. It promoted gender care that went against the best evidence such as of giving puberty blockers to children.”

  Are Ireland's health authorities also fringe? And what makes WPATH's shoddy scholarship that is being rejected globally, mainstream and SEGM's criticism of it fringe? JonJ937 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SPLC is generally reliable. The UK has been internationally criticized for its treatment of trans people[32]. No European states have banned trans healthcare. Governments are not MEDRS. And that is a quote from 1 doctor, who also opposes self-id for 16 year olds, a position supported by no medical organization anywhere in the world. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How about the rest of Europe? Finland, Sweden, Denmark, etc and now Ireland also banned or limited puberty blockers (not healthcare in general, no one banned it). Are they all transphobic? Health authorities employ medical professionals who rely on scholarly evidence. So far the evidence does not show benefits of puberty blockers and surgery on minors, which is why such treatments are getting banned all over the world now. JonJ937 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Jon, I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. The SPLC isn't necessarily Radical politics, unless you think that things like "opposing racism" is fundamentally changing the basis for society. (If so, then I believe that the current pope hopes you will consider the Catholic Church as being engaged in radical politics, too.)

  It is more or less true that the SPLC disagree with the groups they label as hate groups, but these are not exclusively associated with right-wing politics. For example, the New Black Panther Party and Nuwaubian Nation have been designated as hate groups because of their anti-white racism.

  Also, the point about the UK being hostile isn't necessarily, or even primarily, about the "UK authorities". It has a lot to do with the mainstream media landscape, which has spent a lot more time talking about (usually negatively) trans-related subjects than the US media did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see your point. But in any case, SPLC is an advocacy group and their opinions are just their opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC themselves in court says that “the term ‘hate group’ has a highly debatable and ambiguous meaning” The SPLC hate designation has become an area of notoriety for SPLC. Major left and left leaning outlets have said the following about SPLC:

Politico said of SPLC: “becoming more of a partisan progressive hit operation than a civil rights watchdog…the group abuses its position as an arbiter of hatred by labeling legitimate players “hate groups” and “extremists” to keep the attention of its liberal donors and grind a political ax.” Current Affairs: Editor-in-Chief scrutinized the SPLC “Hate Map” and found it to be an “outright fraud” and a “willful deception designed to scare older liberals into writing checks to the SPLC.” Evathedutch (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was saying. How can anyone rely on SPLC for statements of facts? Yet this is what is done in the article about SEGM, where SPLC cited more than 20 times, even for statements of facts in the lead. The whole article about SEGM lacks balance and extensively relies on sources such as SPLC or Science-Based Medicine which we are supposed to use with caution per consensus at WP:RSP. JonJ937 (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for "not fringe" voters: SEGM has argued that Canada's ban on conversion therapy shouldn't include gender identity[33] Stella O'Malley, SEGM advisor and Genspect founder has argued that US[34] and Ireland[35] shouldn't include gender identity in their conversion therapy bans.

How is saying conversion therapy bans shouldn't include "gender identity" in addition to "sexual orientation" not FRINGE, considering every health organization in the world defines conversion therapy as applying to both "sexual orientation" and "gender identity"? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a manipulation with terms, which the sources that you quote also confirm. SEGM never advocated for "conversion therapy". Their detractors deliberately call any psychotherapy for transgender people "conversion therapy", which SEGM always rejected. The Economist article that you quoted also makes it clear:

"Until recently the term “conversion therapy” was used to refer to the barbaric and pointless practice of trying to turn a gay person straight. Of late it has been widened to include talking therapy that explores why a person’s gender identity is at odds with their biological sex. ... This is not the same as trying to convince someone they are not gay. Sexual orientation and gender identity are different. Sexual orientation tends to be innate and fixed; gender identity can be nebulous and changeable. It also, increasingly, prompts medical interventions that can have irreversible, harmful effects. It has long been held that people with gender dysphoria should have therapy before drugs. Increasingly, however, such talking therapy has clashed with “gender-affirmative” care, which accepts patients’ self-diagnosis that they are trans. That is now considered best practice in America’s booming trans health-care field. Therapy has been dismissed as “gatekeeping”, even when applied to trans-identifying minors for whom gender-affirming drugs can be particularly harmful.

SEGM themselves always rejected such manipulations with terms. SEGM’s president, Roberto D’Angelo, is a gay man himself and a psychotherapist. He would not practice any conversion therapy on anyone. In his interview to Undark D’Angelo lamented the fact that psychotherapy has wrongly been conflated with conversion therapy, a harmful practice that attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Although D’Angelo does not write the referrals, some of his patients do receive medical treatment to transition, he said. “One of the basic rules of psychotherapy is that we don’t try to influence the patient to take any particular action." JonJ937 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"SEGM said it's not conversion therapy" is not a valid argument. Neither is "opinion piece in newspaper that is not a MEDRS said SEGM has a point". Medical organizations are globally in agreement that conversion therapy includes "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" and should be banned. Can you find WP:MEDRS that define conversion therapy as not applying to gender identity or that say conversion therapy bans shouldn't include gender identity? As Stella O'Malley explicitly said We believe the inclusion “suppression of gender identity” in the Bill’s definition risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This approach to defining conversion therapy is in danger of unnecessarily restricting the openness, efficacy and ethics of therapy in areas such as gender identity.[36] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cited the Economist yourself and now you are saying it is not MEDRS. Stella O'Malley is not SEGM. Not every type of psychotherapy is conversion therapy. Here is a peer reviewed article [37]

Looking at the situation from an international viewpoint, the upshot is that in nations and regions that have enacted conversion laws, many mental health professionals are barred, either in law or in fact, from providing psychological treatment from a neutral therapeutic stance to children with gender dysphoria. Therapists who provide neutral, conventional, exploratory therapy, which is mandated by professional ethics—and by evidence-based guidelines in Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—are consequently unable to address the needs of gender dysphoric youth. The legal and professional risks are simply too great. The ultimate consequence is that children who might well profit from a neutral therapeutic space may find it difficult to find a therapist who will take them on; instead, they will find themselves channelled to seek care from practitioners who take a “gender-affirming” position and who regard hormonal interventions—coupled with early social transition—as the preferred and first-line treatment for gender dysphoria. As noted in the systematic reviews discussed above, however, these medically oriented, gender-affirming hormonal treatments are experimental and not currently supported by evidence-based medicine.

JonJ937 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a MEDRS. It is reliable for the opinions of SEGM members. O'Malley is an advisor of SEGM and RS frequently note the overlap between SEGM and Genspect (which has an internal forum that helps parents find conversion therapists for their kids[38]). That article is a primary source, whose authors include SEGM's founder, Patrick Hunter (appointed by RonDesantis to justify his anti-trans healthcare ban opposed by all US medical organizations), Stella O'Malley, and conversion therapist Kenneth Zucker - a who's who of unreliable FRINGE activists. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a peer reviewed paper authored by 20 experts from various countries. You may disagree with it, but that does not stop it from being a scholarly research. JonJ937 (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes thats fringe, I'm really surprised to see anyone saying otherwise... But none of those saying otherwise are very convincing, if there is a solid argument to be made here it has eluded all of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly FRINGE, per YFNS, Aquillion, HenrikHolen, OsFish and others. That so many No !voters are distracting with paragraphs and paragraphs of comment about Cass and "but how can they be fringe if $publication prints what they say" is hardly a great sign either. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, fringe, by virtually every standard possible. Honestly I initially did not think it would even need saying, but seeing the weakness of opposing arguments, and the intensity to which they are pushed in spite of being very comprehensively refuted above, I figured that it could not hurt at this point. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 19:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes they are a fringe group. Their research endeavors are motivated by a desire to find a specific outcome which is in opposition to the medical consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reformatted this as RFC so pinging @Silver seren, @LokiTheLiar, and @Simonm223 in case they want to reformat/bold their statements. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also pinging past RSN participants[39]: @XOR'easter, @Rsjaffe, @Gwennie-nyan, @Skyerise, @ActivelyDisinterested, @BonCourage, @Chess, @Shibbolethink, @Jayron32, @Red-tailed hawk, @MariaGom

  NPOVN participants[40]: @Colaheed777, @Hob Gadling, @Mathglot, @DFlhb, @Hist9600, @Horse Eye's Back

  SEGM thread participants[41]: @Sean Waltz O'Connell, @LunaHasArrived, @Void if removed, @RelmC, @Evathedutch, @Aquillion, @HenrikHolen, @Zenomonoz, @JonJ937 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have notified the LGBT and Medicine Wikiprojects Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• While I think that this is necessary, I feel like if this RFC ends in a clear affirmative, it might be time (and might be more useful) to take an approach similar to what we did with Race and Intelligence regarding the hereditarian perspective and hold a broader RFC on the specific fringe theory being expressed here, in order to hopefully reach a broader consensus that it is fringe. That's a sweeping step and somewhat more difficult, but IMHO it was incredibly successful when it came to race and intelligence (in a single stroke, it settled down what had previously been one of the most heavily-disruptive areas on the wiki.) This assumes, of course, that such a line can be clearly drawn somewhere and a consensus found for it in this topic area - both of which are tricky - but we've been essentially rehashing and dancing around the same core dispute for years now. If we could establish a red line of "these positions are fringe", it might lend a bit of clarity and help settle things down. (Keeping in mind that even fringe opinions can be covered - and sometimes even must be - they'd just have to be covered as such and sources endorsing them treated with caution.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, the only issue is that there are so many fringe theories related to this (see transgender health care misinformation) that it'd be hard to sum all of them up in just one RFC question. We have PROFRINGE editors trying to claim that the majority of trans kids grow out of it, that kids just decide they're trans because they're mentally ill and/or caught trans from the internet, that trans kids should be forced through incongruent puberties and subjected to gender exploratory therapy, that LGB trans women are fetishists, etc. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On further reflection, and considering Loki's note about the political leading the fringe rather than vice versa, I do have ideas for the overarching questions: Is the view that transgender identities are / can be pathological FRINGE? and Is the view that the medical literature supports restrictions of transgender rights, including healthcare access, FRINGE? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These were my ideas for possible points that might be FRINGE, after thinking about the underlying disputes in the topic area (not all of these necessarily apply to SEGM, they're just worth asking if we're going to do an RFC):

  • The total rejection of any form of transitioning for anyone, including positions that treat trans-ness as entirely pathological, which fundimentially reject the idea that trans people exist, or which treat transitioning as fundimentially invalid. (This is the most low-hanging fruit but may be necessary simply because it seems like the incoming administration in the US is going to be pushing this perspective.)
  • The total rejection of any form of transitioning for anyone under 18, including social transitioning; also rejection of the idea that trans youth exist.
  • The rejection of the idea that transitioning is, broadly speaking, the best available treatment for most trans people; also the position that transitioning should be avoided as much as possible or that the number of people transitioning should be reduced.
  • Support for what is generally called "conversion therapy" and other attempts to "cure" trans people. (wording is complicated here because advocates generally insist that what they support is not conversion therapy due to the stark negative associations that term has gained; but I think there's still clear enough academic literature on this.)
  • The total rejection of puberty-blockers in children as a valid treatment for trans youths.

  Some of these could be trickier than others, but they are, I think, the main underlying points behind the topic-area's disputes, at least in terms of ones that can be properly seen as medical / scientific questions - and like some of my examples of other topics where aggressive WP:FRINGE enforcement has been necessary, they represent areas where political and media-heavy positions often diverge sharply from independent academic and scientific ones. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think these points are a very good break down of the underlying questions at play, while being actually actionable in ways that are precise enough once specific RfCs would have been run on them. Hopefully it will help clarify the terms of the discussion as well, because this one's scope has become a bit hopelessly blurred from the initial (specific) topic. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 15:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This hits at the crux of a lot of this

  One side believes in gender distress - a child has a sexed body (like any mammal) and a child can have distress with one's sex, which can be linked with other psychological factors which can be explored and addressed as a first line of treatment, because the evidence base (after many systematic reviews) show the benefits don't outweigh the harms of stopping puberty (stunting the development of a healthy human body) and leaving a human infertile and without sexual function.

  The other side believes in gender ideology eg it is actually a girl trapped in a boy's body, it's not pathological, but it needs treatment, and the only treatment is to change the body to match the inner gender, for which there is no scientific test, just self attestation and that can be fluid over time or on a given day.

  These are views that clash. Wikipedia allows for views to clash. It doesn't match the active, evolving international debate to dismiss one as fringe. Evathedutch (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The evidence doesn't show that, and the view that trans identities are pathological is FRINGE and blatantly offensive bullshit. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The medical field doesn't treat identities. Evathedutch (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This strikes me as (a) conflating metaphysical beliefs with medical/social policy positions, and (b) containing some claims that may be good candidates for asking, "Is this FRINGE"?

  The question of whether there's a gendered essence, as it were, is beyond the scope of this discussion. The disagreement is over how to address what you term "gender distress" (which I understand to be more commonly called "gender dysphoria") and the people who experience it (generally referred to as trans people). The prevailing view, as far as I'm aware, is that a variety of social and/or medical interventions may be appropriate depending on the circumstances, generally aimed at bringing a person's external presentation closer to their inner perception of their gender, and that this is broadly speaking a better approach (with regards to improving mental health and social functioning) than attempting to realign their internal experience of their own identity.

  You bring up several points that I think could be subjects of discussion in their own right:

  • That the evidence shows that the risks of puberty blockers outweigh the benefits;
    • That these risks specifically include infertility and lack of sexual function;
  • That gender dysphoria is generally pathological (I understand you to be implying that the "gender-distress" side believes this, because you contrast with the "gender-ideology" side that believes it's not pathological);
  • That non-transition-based approaches to gender dysphoria are typically the best first line of treatment;
  • That transition-based approaches to gender dysphoria are predicated on belief in a metaphysical gendered self ("gender ideology"), rather than on evidence.

  Some or all of these bullet points could be good candidates for WP:FRINGE discussions, in my opinion. Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically nobody is discussing any sort of metaphysical belief. What is being discussed is properly epistemological or ontological in character. There is also a significant ethical dimension that carries forward from these epistemological and ontological commitments. As it's ontological and epistemological in character a quest for a gendered essence is unnecessary. Gender is something learned and something experienced; it is not something that floats free-standing in the Realm of Ideal Forms. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll concede that I'm rusty with those sorts of distinctions; I believe I agree with everything you're saying.

  The point I was making was that the comment preceding mine seemed to imply that you and I, along with anyone else who supports people in shaping their lives to align with their gender identity, do believe in some free-standing Platonic form of gender, or something like that.

  Agreeable-absurdist (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I definitely think there are some fringe theories regarding trans medicine that would be pretty easy to win an RFC about (like ROGD or Blanchard's typology) but I don't think that we're going to have an easy win like with race and intelligence because the issue is a bunch of related fringe or dubious medical theories that all revolve around a single political conclusion, instead of a single obviously fringe theory.

  That being said, I do think it would be a good idea to have RFCs on the easy stuff because it means we could skip the argument about fringe-pushing organizations like SEGM easier when they're founded in the future. Loki (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I noticed above that might be workable is to focus on WPATH. A consensus that they represent the mainstream on on trans science and that sweeping attacks on their legitimacy are therefore generally indicative of a fringe perspective on trans medicine would cover a lot of ground without having to go over it one by one. Fairly startlingly aggressive rejections of WPATH are also pretty common in discussions within the topic area; resolving those and ending them going forwards could turn down the temperature and focus attention on more narrow and productive discussions. --Aquillion (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that could definitely work. An agreement that WPATH is the mainstream would help a lot with dealing with these small fringe organizations. Loki (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the question is, should we wait until this RFC ends to hold this one? So far this RFC seems fairly one-sided; if it is possible to reach a consensus that WPATH represents the mainstream on trans medicine and that sweeping attacks on its legitimacy are generally fringe, that could greatly reduce several of the most recurring arguments in the topic area. Most of the individual arguments and disputes in this discussion are downstream of that central disagreement. -Aquillion (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to this wall of text from @Void if removed [42] here to avoid the RFC ballooning (this is why we have a discussion section...) I didn't mention the counter-arguments because none hold any water.

1) WRT WP:SPLC - they are considered GREL on hategroups, including anti-LGBT groups, per WP:PARITY. VIR knows this and has argued they shouldn't be for years, but they are. Additionally, every single major medical organization in the US opposes trans healthcare bans and says they are based on misinformation. VIR is leaving out that on the one hand, you have every civil rights group and every major medical organization in the country testifying against such bans, and on the other you have SEGM and assorted fundamentalists

2) WRT the Endocrine Society - it is more reliable than the Cass Review (See criticisms). One is a global major medical org, the other was a non-peer reviewed report that actual peer reviewed literature calls out for bullshit claims. The paper he dismissed as sociological is 1) in the world's leading transgender health journal and highly cited and 2) only one of many criticisms, many of which come from medical organizations

3) WRT working with ACPeds, that is just one of many examples of collaboration, but VIR's argument seems to be they only occasionally co-author things with conversion therapists...

4) WRT social contagion, our articles on transgender health care misinformation and rapid onset gender dysphoria beg to differ. He's sought to change this and consensus was heavily against him, so he knows this.

5) See gender exploratory therapy and Cass Review#Gender exploratory therapy.

6) VIR quotes them arguing against a ban on conversion therapy, saying it only applies to LGB people, as evidence I was wrong for noting they oppose bans on conversion therapy and claim they only apply to LGB people. He cites an opinion piece from D'Angelo, a member of SEGM and Therapy First as evidence this isn't fringe

VIR, you have written thousands of words in the past few years across dozens of talk pages arguing these fringe things are not. Please, you said your piece, do not bludgeon this discussion. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar was fixing the formatting already when you asked me to thus there was an edit conflict and your ask got removed [43]. My bad, RFC's wreak havoc on my formatting when using the visual replier lol Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VIR added a statement about ROGD from the European Academy of Pediatrics to his message.[44] Crucially, unlike SEGM, it does not say ROGD is real. It says there are many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept (given over 100 signed a statement that there is no evidence for it and it's pathologizing junk) while the sentence However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes (29). is cited to conversion therapist Kenneth Zucker writing in the journal he's in charge of, the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't preemptively cast aspersions about bludgeoning, and then WP:BLUDGEON my vote. Please move your replies to me to discussion and disengage. Void if removed (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You left the largest post in vote section, starting with the personal attack Every single point made by YFNS in the opening of this RFC is specious, exaggerated, misrepresentation or arguable[45] I left the much shorter comment above[46] and noted it in the vote section[47], you amended your comment with a source[48], and I updated mine to cover the new point you raised.[49]

You left a new comment claiming My experience is that YFNS considers any MEDRS where anyone connected to SEGM is a co-author to be unusable FRINGE. and listed two sources[50] I noted I've never commented on either, and neither are MEDRS anyway.[51]

If another editor tells me that was bludgeoning, I'll disengage. If another editor tells you that was a personal attack, please strike it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there would be both advantages and disadvantages if the two of you silently(!) decided to not speak to each other for, say, the rest of the year.

As for personal attacks, one of the definitions we use (particularly if the community tends to agree with the speaker) means that "Your argument is ____" is never a personal attack, and that only "You are ____" would 'count'. I dislike this definition, because I think it's more complicated than that, but I mention this because trying to claim Wikipedia:No personal attacks violations is probably not a useful approach in such situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to @Evathedutch's comment: in the case of many US jurisdictions, both at the state and now at the federal level, there has been significant state capture by politicians with blatantly WP:PROFRINGE opinions both regarding trans people and many other issues. These figures have actively put their fingers on the scales in the US through the levers of state. The same could also arguably be said about the UK, a country so notoriously hostile to trans people that it earned the nickname "TERF Island". Edited to add that the known risk of state capture is a reason why we generally prefer international orgs for MEDRS. Simonm223 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like I mentioned above, this is a not-uncommon problem for a wide variety of WP:FRINGE issues. Things like the efficacy of faith healing, climate change, the origins of COVID-19, the creation-evolution controversy, or, most recently, the outcome of the 2020 US election (!!) have all at one time or another had governments or governmental organizations aggressively pushing WP:FRINGE theories on them. Papers, studies, surveys and so on produced by governments should by default be presumed to reflect the views of those governments and nothing else - this is not always true, of course, and if a specific government-funded source has a strong reputation for independence, fact-checking, and accuracy then it might be reliable. But that independence is (as we have seen in other contexts) easily lost, so you can't just go "well the government supported X, therefore it's not fringe." We define fringe-ness based on the best available sources, which are generally independent academic ones, not the sorts of papers governments put out to defend their pre-determined policies. --Aquillion (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a critical approach to the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors by puberty blockers and surgery is fringe, then the opposite must be a medical consensus, i.e. that puberty blockers and surgery are the only way to treat gender dysphoria. But is it so? If SEGM’s critical attitude is truly fringe, why have so many developed countries adopted it as state policy? And if the scholarly evidence is supposedly so clear-cut in favor of puberty blockers and surgery as the only treatment for gender dysphoria, why did the Cass Review find the evidence to be weak? Why does the European Academy of Paediatrics state that 'The fundamental question of whether biomedical treatments (including hormone therapy) for gender dysphoria are effective remains contested'? [52] Similarly, why would the American Society of Plastic Surgeons acknowledge that "ASPS currently understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty."? [53] ASPS is an important entity in this field, since the professionals it represents are the ones who are supposed to perform surgery on minors, yet they have reservations. How can anyone claim there is a definitive consensus when major medical organizations openly say otherwise? And the only reason that SEGM is being knocked by all the advocacy and WPATH activists is their criticism of certain medical transition practices of minors. This is from the recent editorial by the Washington Post, written not by an individual journalist, but the entire Editorial Board of WaPo:

"Multiple European health authorities have reviewed the available evidence and concluded that it was “very low certainty,” “lacking” and “limited by methodological weaknesses.” Last week, Britain banned the use of puberty blockers indefinitely due to safety concerns. “Children’s healthcare must always be evidence-led,” British Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said in a press release. “The independent expert Commission on Human Medicines found that the current prescribing and care pathway for gender dysphoria and incongruence presents an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people.”"

This is what SEGM has been saying all along. As it stands, I would say that SEGM's approach is certainly more mainstream than it is fringe. Even such liberal media outlets as The New York Times and WaPo known for their support for transgender rights question the situation with puberty blockers. User's personal views on SEGM aside, I find it strange to knock them as fringe when the positions of many medical & objective sources establish otherwise. Working off of valid and independent resources is what Wikipedia provides for and is supposed to maintain. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're an SPLC designated hate group. That's rather more telling than washington post having a credulous editorial. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are misunderstanding what “fringe” means. Being designated as a “hate group” by the SPLC does not make a group “fringe”. Spreading misinformation does not make a group “fringe”. Hate can be mainstream … misinformation can be mainstream. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They also spread disinformation such as promoting ROGD as if that condition existed. However, also, I've contended based on the extensive arguments put forward by Sartre in Anti-Semite and Jew and then expanded upon later by many academics including Alexander Reid Ross in Against the Fascist Creep that discursive dishonesty (effectively being unreliable) is a characteristic of hate groups. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Blueboar. This isn't really about the technical definition of FRINGE; it's about whether we hate them (and we do) and want to see their POV suppressed on wiki (and we do).

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

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

to:

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

and so forth. This feels more like a damnatio memoriae exercise than a consideration of whether SEGM represents "a minority POV" or "technically, a FRINGE POV". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this RFC is backwards.

WP:FRINGE is about pseudoscientific theories, so you need to first establish what theories you're talking about and then establish whether they are fringe - and then orgs which advocate for them are fringe.

This is why this issue spins out across so many topics - it encompasses multiple aspects of a contentious debate, to whit:

• Rates of desistance, detransition and regret
• Plausibility of social contagion
• Exploratory psychotherapy as a first line treatment
• The weak standard of evidence in gender medicine

These are all areas of legitimate debate in MEDRS, and accusations of "fringe" and "pseudoscience" are essentially hyperbole.

Even more than your anticipated stretching, I believe - based on the above discussions and months arguments about of exclusion of MEDRS because one of the co-authors is a "baddie" - that the result of this RFC will be to reason backwards from a finding that SEGM are fringe, to proof that all of the above legitimate and sourceable positions are therefore fringe too. Void if removed (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE is not about pseudoscientific theories, although there is an overlap. Fringe theories may be pseudoscientific, and often are, but fringe theories, like, say, time slowing down and bent starlight in 1905, can be both fringe and scientific at the same time. Conversely, pseudoscientific theories like cold fusion, polywater, miasma theory, and eugenics were non-fringe, even majority-supported for a while. Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing I guess one question we have to answer: does Wikipedia consider bigotry applied to science to be intrinsically pseudoscientific. I certainly hope Wikipedia does. If it does not we have big problems. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One indeed hopes that editors are decent human beings, but I'm not sure that's entirely relevant.

Bigotry often leads scientific-like work into pseudoscience. See, e.g., eugenics or phrenology.

But it is also possible for bigotry to motivate research that meets the ordinary standards of science. For example, bigotry is why the Thalidomide scandal happened: the ordinary scientific-minded researchers thought that pregnant women are so fragile that they should be protected from the risks of participating in a clinical trial to find out whether thalidomide was safe and effective in pregnancy. They thought that testing in pregnant women was unethical and infeasible. So they tested it in healthy young males, who were naturally not pregnant. But the work itself wasn't pseudoscientific; it was just stupid of us to say that since we didn't see many side effects in population A, then obviously it's safe to give to population B. Also, even if the stupidity had been pointed out by a certified misogynistic hate group, it was still stupid of us.

Similarly, we say that the Dutch protocol tested puberty blockers in their "population A" – early pubertal kids who are not autistic, have no unmanaged psychiatric comorbidities – and we want to apply this to a "population B" of older, post-pubertal autistic teens with poorly managed anxiety and depression. We claim that proper testing in this different population is unethical. Maybe this is motivated by a bigoted belief that population B is too fragile to withstand the test, or that autistic people are too unimportant to care whether they're getting the best treatment, especially if it might imperil treatment options for non-autistic trans people. It might be stupid of us to refuse to check that population A's results also obtain in population B (spoiler: They don't. For example, once a male hits Tanner stage 5, their voice has already changed, and puberty blockers can't reverse that), but it's not pseudoscience. Also, even if the stupidity is being pointed out by a certified anti-trans hate group, it might still be stupid of us.

IMO gender care medicine would benefit from some Adversarial collaboration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a bigoted belief that population B is too fragile to withstand the test, - the test is forcing trans kids to go through an incongruent puberty and irreversible changes.

that autistic people are too unimportant to care whether they're getting the best treatment, especially if it might imperil treatment options for non-autistic trans people. - this is a patronizing strawman. Medical organizations say autistic trans people might need more support and mental health care, but being autistic shouldn't be used to argue they can't be trans or force them through additional gatekeeping. Anti-trans groups argue that autistic trans kids only think they're trans because they're autistic. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While one could theoretically imagine a hate group that was in accordance with mainstream science, practically speaking it's not really possible. True scientific claims are not gonna get the SPLC to label you hateful. Lots of people say that men are stronger than women, and because that's true you don't get called a hate group for saying that. Because of this, calling them a "hate group" also implies that the SPLC thinks they're wrong.

Of course, if you read the SPLC source it's clear that the SPLC is not just calling them a hate group, it's explicitly laying out how they advance a political agenda under the guise of science and why those pseudoscientific claims contradict actual mainstream science. You should read it, it's clearly well-researched. Loki (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC is a biased source, as noted at WP:SPLC. Their opinions, however articulated, do not equate to facts. Labeling an organization as a 'hate group' is a subjective judgment rooted in advocacy perspectives, not a scientific determination. This is particularly relevant when discussing topics related to controversial social issues. Likewise your analogy to "Men stronger than women" scientific claims lacks relevance. That issue is not currently as heavily politicized as the one in question. Hence why SPLC labels SEGM as such. Moreover, The SPLC’s critique focuses on SEGM’s stance, not the methodological rigor of their scientific claims. Nonetheless, as mentioned - it's listed as a biased source, which makes its mention here unsuitable and a case of misdirection. Citing such a problematic entity in an attempt to prove that another entity is problematic or Fringe is simply misguided and lacks grounding. Keep in mind that SPLC is not MEDRS either, so even if it wasn't listed as a biased source, we cannot rely on their judgments on SEGM's medical approach. Per Wikipedia determinations, we should rely on independent, reliable sources—particularly those with subject-matter expertise—when assessing an organization’s scientific standing. Advocacy groups like the SPLC are not neutral arbiters in such discussions and should not be treated as definitive sources for determining scientific consensus. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, I think it's more complicated than that. We use POV as a marker for whether a group of "scientific" all the time. It usually works. If someone says that the Earth is flat, then we don't need to review "the methodological rigor of their scientific claims". We just need to know that they came up with a result that is so far from the mainstream scientific POV that it's guaranteed to be either pseudoscience or bad science.

Of course, sometimes the mainstream scientific POV is wrong, and sometimes antisocial POVs can be mixed up with methodologically sound science. (See, e.g., the key research on sugar causing tooth decay: the key study was both methodologically sound science and massively unethical [feeding sticky sweets to intellectually disabled institutionalized people, stopping them from brushing their teeth, and then waiting to see how much damage it did to their teeth].) But merely focusing on a group's stance is not inherently a bad thing.

Perhaps the thing for us to do is to remember that "hateful" is not the same thing as "scientifically wrong", just like "not hateful" is not the same as "scientifically correct". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure misinformation can be mainstream in the sense of WP:FRINGE or WP:MAINSTREAM. Misinformation, as such, can certainly be popular, but as misinformation, I think it has to be a WP:FRINGE claim essentially by definition. jps (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm confused about what this RfC is meant to achieve. On the one hand, the answer to whether this group is WP:FRINGE seems obviously no, only because WP:FRINGE is about theories, and this is a group and not a theory — are there other organizations or individuals who have been deemed WP:FRINGE? At the same time, per the RfC there is already a consensus that they are not a reliable source — what more would designating them WP:FRINGE do? I would endorse Aquillion and Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ's discussion above of making specific RfCs for specific claims. I understand that is a much greater lift, but even from the evidence presented against SEGM here, it doesn't seem that each of their positions is equally WP:FRINGE. And getting consensus around specific theories would have implications for how those topics are discussed (which I take to be the intent here, though I don't think a consensus on this RfC would achieve it). Carleas (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for pointing this out. I myself considered coming to the fringe notice board about SEGM, but I struggled with fringe theory vs org and I found very little precedent about how people make the case an org is or is not fringe. Nonetheless, from the starting question we are indeed talking about an org. Is this org fringe? Where else on Wikpedia have we taken an org that is t's frequently quoted by major papers and is published in major journals, and voted them fringe? Evathedutch (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the point is to give editors a way to exclude any source that can be connected to SEGM. If we declare the group to be WP:FRINGE, then you can look at a source and say:

  "Well, it meets the WP:MEDRS ideal because it's a systematic review published in a top-tier peer-reviewed medical journal, it doesn't rely on studies WP:IN MICE, and it complies with all the other details – but, look, the author is associated with this Very Bad Fringe Group, so none of that actually matters. We just can't cite Very Bad Fringe Groups; it'd almost be like citing Nazi human experimentation."

  (BTW, WP:MEDASSESS explicitly says that funders are not a reason to prefer weaker source types over stronger source types.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case we are embarking on one giant OR exercise to invalidate some of the biggest newspapers and medical journals in the world. That's not supported by Wikipedia. Evathedutch (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a very good point. WP:FRINGE applies to theories, not organizations. Which specific ideas advocated by SEGM are considered fringe? Is promoting an evidence-based approach to treating minors with dysphoria fringe? Is recommending psychotherapy as the first line of treatment—aligned with practices in the UK, Finland, and other European countries—fringe? Any RFC should focus on identifying particular ideas that are allegedly fringe. So far, there’s no clear evidence of such ideas, as SEGM’s positions are already implemented in various countries and, in many cases, reflect official health policies. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They claim Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is real and oppose bans on conversion therapy for trans people. Saying bans on conversion therapy shouldn't include gender identity is FRINGE and you have presented no evidence it isn't. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Saying that legal bans on <something> shouldn't include <something related> doesn't sound like a claim about Wikipedia:Biomedical information, so it's not a scientific claim. How to organize legal statutes and what to call things is not something science can speak to at all.

  What do you think the "particular field" (as in "the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field") would be for a claim that conversion therapy should be defined as ____, or that the same statute should address sexual orientation and gender identity? Offhand, I think Queer studies for the first and Legal studies for the second, but perhaps you would have a better idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Saying that legal bans on <something> shouldn't include <something related> doesn't sound like a claim about Wikipedia:Biomedical information, so it's not a scientific claim. - when medical organizations are in agreement that a pseudoscientific medical practice "X" consists of "A" and "B" and should be banned, it is a scientific claim. When a small org yells from the rooftops "X" doesn't include "B", we trust the MEDORGS. It is not "<something> and "<something related>" - according to MEDRS they are the same thing.

  What do you think the "particular field" (as in "the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field") would be for a claim that conversion therapy should be defined as ____ - Medical organizations first and foremost. No medical organization in the world defines conversion therapy as only applying to LGB people. We have an article Medical views of conversion therapy that links to statements from ones around the world defining it as including gender identity and/or calling for its ban. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think people should avoid strawmanning the discussion, in particular, importing grievances from discussions on talkpages for other articles. This RFC is not about whether the BMJ is a reliable source. It is not an RFC to say that any paper authored by anyone with any connection whatsoever to SEGM should be rejected as a reliable source. It is not to argue over whether the Cass report is fringe. It is not a general discussion of gender affirming medicine and its merits. Opening multiple irrelevant fronts does not help people understand the issue this RFC is specifically about.OsFish (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @OsFish if it is the case that It is not an RFC to say that any paper authored by anyone with any connection whatsoever to SEGM should be rejected as a reliable source., I would suggest the RFC text be amended to make this explicitly clear. Having had dozens and dozens of discussions on unrelated pages about RS derailed because something somehow connects to SEGM, and they are allegedly FRINGE and therefore the source is too, I think your interpretation is entirely wrong - this will absolutely be the effect in practice. My no vote is entirely based on encountering this very argument more times than I can count, and being forced into endless circular arguments about SEGM that go absolutely nowhere. This RFC will simply make those arguments impossible to have, because I am convinced that once this passes (and it looks certain to) the next effect will inevitably be sanctions for WP:PROFRINGE for arguing for those sources. Void if removed (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I think the RFC is fine as it is. There is no need to add straw men. You're arguing against a proposition that by your own admission has not been made on this page. In addition, WP:PROFRINGE is not about the use of certain authors. It is about the extent of scientific scrutiny and support (or rather, absence of those things) given to certain theories. If SEGM continues to be recognised as fringe, then using SEGM themselves as a source for theories (rather than a publication in MEDRS) will of course be difficult. I understand you may not like SEGM themselves being considered a bad source. But the thing is, if an editor continues to ignore consensus on an issue, it's actually standard procedure for them to be sanctioned. Is there really no better source than an organisation like SEGM for the material you think the encyclopedia should include? OsFish (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there really no better source than an organisation like SEGM for the material you think the encyclopedia should include

  I strongly disagree with this comment. I don't care about SEGM being used as a source. I have no desire to use SEGM as a source, directly, for anything, nor I don't believe have I ever argued such. None of my statements here or linked past discussions are about that.

  What I do care about is:

  • The exclusion of a relevant paper from 2019 because the author went on to become a SEGM advisor some years later
  • The exclusion of multiple relevant papers because one or more of the authors is associated with SEGM
  • The exclusion of a peer-reviewed source in the BMJ because it "platforms" SEGM
  • Referring to a paper's authors on talk as "conversion therapists" because one of them is associated with SEGM
  • The accusation that the Cass Review is fringe because one person involved in the advisory group has a relationship to SEGM or because it cited papers authored by people at SEGM, or supported viewpoints on medical matters SEGM also advances

  This is already happening. It has exhaustingly derailed discussions on multiple pages over the past year. I am drawing attention to all these past discussions not because this is an airing of grievances, but because the context of this RFC is plain to me, and I find the claims that this is not the context hard to credit.

  Stating this is about my wanting to cite SEGM directly is a straw man - I categorically do not. What I want is to not have discussions about peer-reviewed papers and the Cass Review descend over and over into arguments that go nowhere because of alleged FRINGEness-by-association that other editors repeatedly bring up.

  If what you say is true, then there should be no issue amending the RFC. Failing that, I can only hope you are correct, but past experience tells me otherwise. Void if removed (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I clearly did not say that you wanting to cite SEGM is a straw man. Please refrain from misrepresenting other editors. The only reason I discussed you wanting to cite SEGM was because I was trying to get you to focus on the topic of the RFC. I won't reply further here as I don't see any progress in this exchange.OsFish (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @OsFish: It's not a straw man if the man is literally made of straw. Editors are already using this RfC as evidence that academic papers published in the British Medical Journal are unreliable due to association with SEGM. It appears that the article relies significantly on letters from SEGM, which as you can see above the community agrees is an organization dedicated to pushing fringe theories. So at minimum the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable. [54] So yes, this RfC impinges on whether the BMJ is a reliable source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting this out here. Does the designation of SEGM as a WP:FRINGE organization mean that an academic article published by a member of or based partly on content from the SEGM can also be WP:FRINGE? Prompted by this discussion below in which an editor asserted a BMJ article is unreliable because it's based on letters from SEGM. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) When RS say NARTH, the American College of Pediatricians, or SEGM say a real WP:MEDORG is wrong - per WP:FRINGE we don't include that in medical articles, or the MEDORG's article.

2) SEGM doesn't tend to publish RS - it is well documented that they mostly write letters to the editor to launder their opinions as more scientifically backed than they are

3) That author has been criticized by the British Medical Association, Royal College of Surgeons LGBT chapter, and the UK's LGBT doctors association GLADD. You have consistently failed to address that point. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, I'd appreciate your answering the question: what does the designation of SEGM as a WP:FRINGE organization mean? What is the purpose of this RfC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one it would mean people wouldn't have to waste time arguing about whether SEGM editorials were due in various articles. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the intent, then the RfC should make that clear. Is there any other intended result? Also, if "fringe organization" simply means "an organization promoting fringe theory X" (or perhaps fringe theories (pl.) X, Y and Z), then it seems to me that an editorial advocating X is already guaranteed to be undue in most articles, by virtue of X being a fringe theory. I don't see what the added value is of designating the organization to be a fringe organization. And of course it's possible for an organization to promote multiple ideas, some of which are fringe theories and some of which aren't, and if they've written an editorial about their non-fringe ideas, then that editorial might be due. You may be interested in the discussion that WhatamIdoing started about whether a FRINGEORG section should be added to WP:FRINGE, and if so, what it would say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The short version is that SEGM doesn't just advocate one fringe theory, they advocate all sorts of misinformation about trans issues such that it'd be very hard to do RFCs on all of them. That's why the topics here are about organizations, not specific theories. Trust us, we'd like to if we could. Loki (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're evading the point. Here's the article from the British Medical Journal: [55] It is described as Provenance: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed. Using that article as an example, can you explain how SEGM's designation as a WP:FRINGE organization impacts an academic article's reliability?Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It very obviously is not and cannot be "peer reviewed", because it's journalism, not an academic paper. It may have gone through an editor but that makes it exactly the same as any other article in any newspaper.

As for why it impacts reliability: if an academic article cited the National Institute of Homoeopathy favorably and without any caveats I think you too would have serious concerns about it. Loki (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you're confirming that if any academic article cites SEGM favourably and without criticizing it, that makes said article unreliable.

It's not our job to decide homeopathy is pseudoscientific and reject academic articles on that. It's to look at medically reliable sources to determine if homeopathy is pseudoscientific. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is so far out the window here I don't even know what to say but that you should cease this unproductive and increasingly tendentious line of questioning. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess, Loki is pointing that the article in question is not an "academic article." That's why they said "it's journalism, not an academic paper." Please pay attention to what someone is actually saying instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions. The BMJ publishes a variety of works; they list some of them here. Some of what they publish is not peer-reviewed and not "academic." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm paying attention to what they are saying. What they appear to be saying is that the article is less reliable because it cited SEGM "favorably and without any caveats". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're paying attention to the part you want, and ignoring the part that's inconvenient to your argument, and you're making false claims based on things they did not say or imply. Do you see why your claim "So you're confirming that if any academic article cites SEGM favourably ..." is false? Loki did not say or imply anything about an academic article and so could not possibly be confirming something about an academic article. Loki made a claim about a news article that was not peer-reviewed. Why is it so hard for you to retract your false claims? It's not good to make false claims about other editors, and when someone points out to you that your claim was false, you should admit that it was false, not continue on the mistaken path that you started down. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion: OK, sure, let's delete the word "academic". Is an article (of any type) written by a member of or based partly on content from the SEGM also WP:FRINGE? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me? (Are you still making false assumptions about me, despite my pointing out here that they were baseless?) More importantly, why have you still not retracted any of your false claims? This is not good faith behavior on your end. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the medical recommendation that puberty blockers shouldn't be prescribed to children (outside of medical research) WP:FRINGE?

Gender dysphoria in children#Management spends the vast majority of its section explaining that puberty blockers are recommended for treating children and does not even mention an opposing view. Puberty blocker#Research status and Cass Review#Social transition and puberty blockers are two more examples of articles that treat this as a WP:FRINGE perspective, giving significant weight to the academic consensus that endorses puberty blockers in children. Likewise, Transgender health care misinformation#United Kingdom (a WP:Good article) spends most of its section arguing against the Cass Review.

Splitting this out from the above discussion on Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine since it's more productive to debate fringe theories rather than fringe organizations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those pages do not describe the position that puberty blockers should not be used as fringe. Those pages report the criticism of that view. That is not the same thing. Being a minority view among experts isn't the same as being fringe. So it's really not clear what action you think should be taken. OsFish (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That statement unqualified is very transparently WP:FRINGE because of precocious puberty.

I suspect you mean puberty blockers shouldn't be prescribed to children as treatment for gender dysphoria. That one is IMO WP:FRINGE/ALT: you can see it advocated by real doctors but the consensus of the field is still clearly against it. WPATH and the Endocrine Society, the two big WP:MEDORGs in the space, both explicitly say that puberty blockers are appropriate as part of treatment for gender dysphoria, and so do most big national WP:MEDORGs in relevant fields. And even the ones that don't say that mostly say something wishy-washy or equivocal rather than outright saying they shouldn't be used. Loki (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about my intended meaning. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worthwhile pointing out that Hilary Cass disagrees that puberty blockers should not be used. The Cass report wants further research. She confirms that position more clearly in an interview here. I think it's very important, if people cite the Cass Final Review, that they actually refer to what it says, and not make it stand for a rather more extreme (and fringe) position. This is something that has also plagued the RFC above this section.OsFish (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your intended meaning, given the definition of FRINGE in the lead sentence at WP:FRINGE, it cannot be said to be FRINGE outright. It might be minority opinion, even fringe depending on what you consider the universe of pollable opinion on the question, and in some contexts, even medical ones, it may be majority opinion. The whole field is undergoing a lot of ferment lately, including a more cautious approach recommended by the medical establishment just in the last year or two in certain countries, such as in the UK, Sweden, and Australia, where the view you express is probably majority opinion, based on a "too soon, more research needed"-kind of attitude currently, but it is not categorical and there are always exceptions. Note that this is a completely separate issue from whether it is true or not, but that's something Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding. By the way: feel free to add a few words to your section heading to make your intent clearer if you wish. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the medical recommendation that puberty blockers shouldn't be prescribed to children [for gender dysphoria] (outside of medical research) WP:FRINGE? - I appreciate you taking the initiative to start this and want to help refine your question. I agree that it's more productive to debate fringe theories rather than fringe organizations, but my issue is that's not a theory so much as a specific healthcare policy - it may sometimes be enacted by governments, medical institutions, or both, and revolves around an underlying medico-ethical question. Historically speaking:

• Puberty blockers emerged as a middle ground between kids wanting to just get on hormones / medically transition and doctors who thought they were too young to decide until 16-18 or so - but decided that the ethical issue of making them go through an explicitly unwanted semi-irreversible puberty and denying their autonomy justified halting unwanted pubertal changes, though not starting wanted ones until months-years of waiting and assessments.
• These days, medical/medico-ethical consensus mostly follows the gender-affirming care model which built on that - that transgender identities are not pathological and that care should be individualized based on pubertal development / informed consent / the minor's wishes and bodily autonomy. Trans kids don't necessarily have to start on blockers if old enough, or wait til 16 to start hormones.
• That first model was the medical consensus, and is now much less accepted though still kinda around, while the second supplanted it and is now the mainstream (and unlike the former, supported by mainstream international human rights groups and watchdogs). The medical recommendation that neither puberty blockers or hormones should be given, and trans kids should be required to go through an incongruent puberty is FRINGE and a regression to decades ago. If it's justified with "unless they sign up for a research trial", it's less FRINGE, but from a medico-ethical / human rights perspective it's still got issues. As the Council of Europe's LGBT healthcare report put it There are ethical implications of only offering treatment to a small group of patients, potentially violating the fundamental ethical principles governing research ... as for many young people the only way to receive treatment is to participate in the trial, therefore calling into question whether consent can be constituted as free and informed in these situations[56]

So if we are to have some kind of RFC (I'm assuming this is an RFCBEFORE), the overarching question should be something along the lines of Is the view that transgender children should go through an incongruent puberty WP:FRINGE? / Is the view that adolescents are incapable of providing informed consent to gender affirming hormone treatments or puberty blockers for gender dysphoria WP:FRINGE? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No There's two parts for this - is the evidence supporting their use weak, and does that mean they should be restricted to clinical trials.

For the former, we have at least 5 independent systematic reviews in the last five years:

• NICE 2020 (precipitated the Cass Review)
• Thompson et al 2023
• Zepf et al 2023 (Update to the NICE methodology with more recent papers)
• Taylor et al 2024 (part of Cass Review)
• Miroshnychenko et al 2025 (Part of a series of reviews commissioned by SEGM)

All of these concur the evidence is weak. The adolescent chapter in WPATH's SOC8 states they could not do a systematic review due to lack of evidence and that A short narrative review is provided instead, ie a lower standard of evidence.

For the latter, we have:

• Sweden restricted use to clinical trials
• Finland restricted use to two centralised clinics as part of a research programme
• NHS England's decision to restrict usage to clinical trials after the Cass Review
• The UK Government (initially Tory, then endorsed by the subsequent Labour government) decision to apply the same restrictions to private prescriptions
• Scotland following suit, saying Based on the latest evidence, the specialists in this field of medicine developed a consensus that is that it is considered no longer safe to continue to prescribe these medicines without further evidence developed within the clinical trial settings that would normally apply to all other medicines.
• The commission on human medicines saying they were an unacceptable safety risk until a clinical trial had been carried out.

Meanwhile this 2024 systematic review investigated existing guidelines and found them weak and circular, stating The findings from this review, therefore, raise questions about the credibility of currently available guidance

These are not fringe positions - this is healthcare in a contentious area becoming more cautious due to a lack of evidence.

As described in the BMJ, there is a steadily widening difference of opinion between medical bodies, however the state of our articles on these and other related subjects does not neutrally describe this. Void if removed (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is certainly not fringe. I would even say that it is becoming mainstream in the last couple of years. It is the health policy in many developed countries now that puberty blockers are either outright banned, or strictly limited to trials or exceptional situations. [57] [58] For example, the UK fully banned puberty blockers. Another problem is that WPATH guidelines that many countries initially followed turned out to be not evidence based: [59] [60] [61] Now these guidelines are being rejected. Ireland has become the most recent one to do it: [62] A few days ago Australia has also announced a review of their standards of care, which I expect will result in a similar restriction or ban: [63] In addition, there has never been a scholarly consensus that puberty blockers were the best way to treat dysphoria in children. For example, the European Academy of Paediatrics stated that 'The fundamental question of whether biomedical treatments (including hormone therapy) for gender dysphoria are effective remains contested'. [64] So I don't think we can say that the medical recommendation that puberty blockers shouldn't be prescribed to children is fringe. It is not an opinion held by a tiny minority, but the prevailing view in many countries backed by recent researches. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No not Fringe This is the current position of major National Health authorities (very high on WP:MEDORG) such as Finland, Sweden, and England because their use is not supported by EBM for example Sweden said “the studies conducted to date are small, uncontrolled observational studies providing low quality evidence that the treatments have the desired effect, and that we have very little knowledge about their safety in the long term.” Finland said “as far as minors are concerned, there are no medical treatment that can be considered evidence-based” England said “puberty blockers are not available to children and young people for gender incongruence or gender dysphoria because there is not enough evidence of safety and clinical effectiveness.” In addition WHO will not issue guidelines for children because “the evidence base for children and adolescents is limited and variable regarding the longer term outcomes of gender affirming care" Evathedutch (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the exact sort of statement I called out as "wishy-washy" above. Do you have any examples of big WP:MEDORGs saying explicitly they think puberty blockers should not be used? Or just "we don't know" or "the evidence is low quality"? Loki (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not transgender adolescents should be prescribed puberty blockers is an expression of opinion, not of objective fact, and so it may not be appropriate to describe this as a theory. That being said, the overwhelming majority of medical organizations support their use for treating gender dysphoria. Take the recent Amici Curiae to the US Supreme Court where the APA, AAP and AMA among many other all expressed their support for the use of GAC for treatment of gender dysphoria:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/323964/20240903155151548_23-477%20tsac%20Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20AAP%20et%20al..pdf

For this reason, as a medical recommendation, I would consider this WP:FRINGE/ALT HenrikHolen (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So my vote is for Fringe/Alt HenrikHolen (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly not, given that the nonpartisan regulatory bodies of progressive countries such as Sweden, Denmark, France, and the UK have considered the contraindications to be sufficiently compelling to warrant its curtailment. Btw seems most of the arguments on this so far are US-centric. See Evathedutch’s comment for related details. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the countries you have listed, only the UK has stopped the use of puberty blockers outside medical trials, with France recently publishing a review which was strongly in support of GAC:

  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929693X24001763#tbl0001

  Moreover, the UK ban was the result of an order by the Health Secretary (Victoria Atkins and later Wes Streeting) and then by a vote in parliament. This was not decided by regulatory bodies. HenrikHolen (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, The National Academy of Medicine of France is quite skeptical of the use of puberty blockers and advises for "a great medical caution" in children and adolescents. [65]

  The medical demand is accompanied by an increasing supply of care, in the form of consultations or treatment in specialized clinics, because of the distress it causes rather than a mental illness per se. Many medical specialties in the field of pediatrics are concerned. First of all psychiatry, then, if the transidentity appears real or if the malaise persists, endocrinology gynecology and finally surgery are concerned. However, a great medical caution must be taken in children and adolescents, given the vulnerability, particularly psychological, of this population and the many undesirable effects, and even serious complications, that some of the available therapies can cause. In this respect, it is important to recall the recent decision (May 2021) of the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm to ban the use of hormone blockers. Although, in France, the use of hormone blockers or hormones of the opposite sex is possible with parental authorization at any age, the greatest reserve is required in their use, given the side effects such as impact on growth, bone fragility, risk of sterility, emotional and intellectual consequences and, for girls, symptoms reminiscent of menopause. As for surgical treatments, in particular mastectomy, which is authorized in France from the age of 14, and those involving the external genitalia (vulva, penis), their irreversible nature must be emphasized.

  JonJ937 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither fringe nor unfringe per HenrikHolen and Loki. Absolute general statement is not useful to work with for definition of fringe, especially for medicine. Loki pointed out Precocious puberty is the archetypical example for majority of puberty blocker usage. some literature has identified its usage in multiple other uses such as Endometriosis, etc. for decades with no long-lasting side effects.[66]

an analogous statement would be "abortion has medical harms for women"... in general, not mainstream by longshot, but maybe exists some case study or some specific condition where a specific abortion drug could be contraindicated. many abortion procedures for vast majority are well studied for decades. That an absolute, poorly specified statement is not necessarily fringe does not make it mainstream or applicable for most cases. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, not fringe. This is the stance of many health authorities around the world, Europe in particular. To say it is fringe means to say all those authorities are fringe, or support fringe theories. Plus, many medical experts and professional unions question the benefits of puberty blockers too. That is hardly fringe.--JonJ937 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Poorly constructed question Per Bluethricemcreamman this question is acting as something of a lampshade. While there may be circumstances under which the prescription of any given medicine to any given child may be counter indicated, the broadest use case of these drugs is Precocious puberty - the treatment of which is necessarily one given to children. Attempts to carve out that puberty blockers somehow become magically harmful if given to a trans child are largely grounded in innuendo and "we don't really know" statements rather than evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that seems to have come up repeatedly above; starkly divergent views on WPATH seem to underline a lot of debate in the topic area and a lot of discussion about which sources are WP:FRINGE. Therefore, my intent is to do some RFCBEFORE for a possible RFC to establish its role. My understanding is that WPATH generally reflects the mainstream scholarly consensus - I am picturing an RFC along the lines of WPATH broadly represents the mainstream on trans medicine; sweeping attacks on its legitimacy are generally fringe. Note that this would not mean that measured disagreement with its recommendations is fringe (obviously); no organization is so authoritative that it could entirely determine the scope of mainstream discourse on its own. The "broadly" and "sweeping" there are intended to be load-bearing words. But my intent is to establish that WPATH, overall, sits comfortably at the center of mainstream academic discourse on trans healthcare, such that positions that seek to discredit it entirely, or which fundimentially treat it as illegitimate, are firmly on the fringes of academia. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes With a focus on patient-centric care and informed consent WPATH is not only the gold standard for research on trans healthcare it is also the framework for trans healthcare with the greatest adherence to medical ethics. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Transparently yes. WPATH is the big international WP:MEDORG in the topic area. Big national WP:MEDORGs from Canada to Japan explicitly rely on its recommendations, as do other big international WP:MEDORGs like the Endocrine Society. It basically defines the mainstream. Loki (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes - same reasoning as simon and Loki Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WPATH is not just a professional organization; it is also an advocacy group for the notion that transgender healthcare is necessary.[67] They've been influenced by the US government in the past: this article in the BMJ says as the SOC8 guidelines were nearing publication in summer 2022, WPATH was under external pressure from high up in the US Department of Health and Human Services to make a last minute change. Specifically, Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health, asked authors to remove minimum age recommendations16 for gender related hormones and surgeries.

If discrediting WPATH is fringe, then the BMJ is fringe. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) It's not surprising or concerning that other big WP:MEDORGs such as HHS influenced WPATH's guidelines.

B) The gist of the article is that the WHO itself is going to be relying on WPATH's guidelines. I can't think of anything that would make it more clear that WPATH is the organization that defines the mainstream.

C) It appears that the article relies significantly on letters from SEGM, which as you can see above the community agrees is an organization dedicated to pushing fringe theories. So at minimum the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable. Loki (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the article relies significantly on letters from SEGM, which as you can see above the community agrees is an organization dedicated to pushing fringe theories. So at minimum the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable.

Arguing that the BMJ is unreliable because it conflicts with the opinions of Wikipedia editors is absurd. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that the BMJ is unreliable... is either a strawman or a bad misinterpretation on your end. No one has argued that the BMJ is unreliable. In the sentence "at minimum the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable," the word "it" refers to "this article," not to the BMJ as a journal. This is not the only comment where you've mischaracterized Loki's claim. You also did it above where you quoted Loki and then claimed describing it as WP:FRINGE would mean that articles published in respected academic journals would be unreliable if they had any involvement with SEBGM in any way. Loki made a statement about a single column by Jennifer Block that "relies significantly on letters from SEGM," not about any other columns, much less about "any involvement with SEBGM in any way." Your overgeneralizations are not productive. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This peer-reviewed article in the BMJ is unreliable because it's associated with SEGM is exactly the type of argument I thought was a strawman in the above discussion until I saw it with my own eyes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed my point: Loki made a claim about a single article (and not a even a research article, only a News/Features column). You turned it into claims about other articles and about the BMJ as a journal. Your overgeneralizations are absolutely a strawman, and the appropriate response on your end would be to acknowledge your mistake, not double down on it. On top of that, you're misusing "strawman." Loki's statement did not attribute a position to an opponent; they simply stated their own belief. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article, which is relatively long and broken into numerous sections, mentions the SEGM letter in two paragraphs. Is this really “significantly” relying on the SEGM letter? How do editors determine when “significantly relies on X” means we should not cite reliable sources?

Additionally, I am curious as to how the SEGM letter indicates “the BMJ did not check this article closely enough for facts for it to be reliable”. Considering that this comment is about @Chess citing the BMJ for a quote regarding Rachel Levine’s interference in SOC8, are you proposing that the mention of the SEGM letter means the quote is potentially false or misleading?

Lastly, are there any parts of the article that you believe to be unreliable and in turn make you question the articles oversight? Or is it solely the inclusion of SEGM that makes the article unreliable? PositivelyUncertain (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) The claim that WPATH is an "advocacy group" is not backed by an RS, but by an opinion piece[68] When I looked up "WPATH" AND "Advocacy group" there were no RS agreeing, just unreliable sources like Stephen B. Levine, the WP:NYPOST, and opinion pieces.

2) That BMJ piece[69] was written by Jennifer Block. The British Medical Association said this about a previous article of hers We have recently written to the BMJ, which is editorially independent, to challenge its article “Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement” and express our concern, that alongside criticisms made by LGTBQ+ organisations such as GLADD and neurodivergent doctors, in our view, it lacks equality, diversity and inclusion awareness and patient voice. That the article has been used by transphobic lobby groups around the world is of particular concern to us. GLADD, the UK's LGBT doctor's association and PRISM, the LGBT chapter of the Royal College of Surgeons said her writing sets a needlessly charged and adversarial tone which would be out of place in a respectable medical journal, reinforc[es] the increasingly hostile environment experienced by gender diverse young people today, and falls significantly below the journalistic standards that are expected of the BMJ[70]. PRISM also issued an individual response that the assertions made are in some cases unsupported by reference, and in others are based on only some of the available evidence.[71] That's all in addition to the fact that, as Loki noted, the piece is criticizing the World Health Organization for following WPATH.

So your arguments against WPATH's status as the leading MEDORG in the field are 1) a description that no RS supports and 2) an investigatory piece (ie, WP:PRIMARY source) complaining that the WHO supports WPATH by a freelance journalist (not healthcare professional) who the British Medical Association, GLADD, and the LGBT chapter of the Royal College of Surgeons have called out for bias, misleading statements, omission of trans people? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: My argument is that it's not WP:FRINGE to have that position. The goal of this RfC is to prevent any criticism of WPATH from making it into articles.

Aquillion states Note that this would not mean that measured disagreement with its recommendations is fringe (obviously). Name me one or two disagreements with that aren't fringe, then. Give me some examples where someone criticizes WPATH in the present day that that you would accept in its article. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Within the field of transgender healthcare, there is no specialized group that comes close to WPATH in terms of membership. HenrikHolen (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that WPATH represents the mainstream thinking (and advocacy) in the US… but NOT the mainstream for the UK or Europe. And this may be an important distinction. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is incorrect to say WPATH represents only the US and not Europe (and Australia, New Zealand, Asia, etc)

  Here's a systematic review which looked at trans healthcare guidelines around the world and said The links examined show that early versions of two international guidelines, the Endocrine Society and World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines (specifically the 2009 Endocrine Society guideline and WPATH V.7 published in 2012) have influenced nearly all the national and regional guidelines identified. The two guidelines also have close links, with WPATH adopting Endocrine Society recommendations in its own guideline and acting as a cosponsor for and providing input on drafts of the Endocrine Society guideline.[72] That was part of the Cass Review, which was critical of WPATH's guidelines - so even critics of the guidelines admit they're the world's standard.

  I'd agree it's no longer mainstream in the UK but even then, until the last few years, it was. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So, I agree that the UK is an exception here, but WPATH represents the mainstream thinking in everywhere but Europe (and arguably really just the UK), not just the US. I cited a position paper from a major Japanese WP:MEDORG above that cites them and it's frankly not hard to find similar things from other major international WP:MEDORGs. Even the WHO positively mentions WPATH in its (very short) most recent guidelines, and at least according to the article Chess posted above they're going to rely on them more when they post more comprehensive ones soon. Loki (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to make the distinction between what governments and popular opinion follow, and what the academic establishment follows. There are numerous governments, and plenty of public polling, that supports WP:FRINGE positions on (for instance) climate change, or the origins of COVID, or vaccines, or things like that; but we wouldn't consider that when determining the academic perspective, which is how we write our articles on the relevant cores of those topics. The best practices in medicine are fundimentially academic questions. --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the UK an exception? And are we not falling into a trap of focussing on one specific issue (the use of blockers) whereas WPATH covers the whole spectrum of health care for trans people.

• The British Society for Endocrinology cites WPATH first on its list of resources on its page about gender identity disorder.
• The British Medical Association cites WPATH Standards of Care on its page about inclusive care of trans and non-binary patients.

So it looks like British experts do actually consider WPATH mainstream. I'm limited through language to establish the view of expert bodies in other major European countries, but out of the big ones I see:

• in France, Trans-Santé participated in revising the latest WPATH standards of care.
• In France, the 2024 Expert consensus of the French Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology working group on endocrine management of transgender adolescents, while not mentioning WPATH, seems very much in line with it on the hot button issue of transgender youth. Adolescent health is also only one part of WPATH's remit.
• In Italy, the Gender identity service at the University of Rome [73] says it operates "by the guidelines of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH), the Endocrine Society and the latest position statement of SIGIS (Italian Society of Gender, Identity and Health) - SIAMS (Italian Society of Andrology and Medicine of Sexuality) - SIE (Italian Society of Endocrinology)" which sounds to me like Italian experts are consistent with WPATH.

The culture war being fought against trans access to healthcare does make it difficult to wade through the contributions from fringe and anti-trans groups, but at the moment, when I manage to locate anything like a position statement, I'm generally seeing explicit endorsement of or alignment with WPATH in general.OsFish (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's happening is a lot of people on the "no" end of this discussion are confusing government legislation and popular opinion for academic consensus. WP:FRINGE discussions are about the latter rather than either of the former. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Several countries allowing alternative medicine [sic] on their national healthcare plans. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it really does seem to be, as per the evidence from Loki, and also per that which I provided against claims that it isn't, in specific parts of Europe. Even in the UK, expert bodies refer to it. And yes, the issue really is about attempts to discredit WPATH entirely as a source of expertise across a broad range of issues affecting health care for trans people and others, as part of a general campaign against gender affirming care. As such, one should be wary of conspiracy theory style arguments against WPATH designed to somehow pull back the curtain.OsFish (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per discussion above. Relm (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously yes. They've been setting the standard for the past few decade. Arguments it is US-only are clearly factually incorrect - as shown above it's globally the standard from the WHO and Endocrine Society to health bodies in most countries that offer transgender care. Even critics note they're the standard, which they don't like and criticize, but the standard nonetheless.[74] Opinion pieces[75][76] and investigative reports[77] (from an author criticized by the British Medical Association, Royal College of Surgeons' LGBTQ chapter, and the UK's LGBT Doctor's association for bias, selective use of evidence, omission of trans people when writing about their healthcare, and usage by hate groups[78][79][80]) are not weighty sources.

The claim that WPATH only dropped age limits from the SOC8 because of pressure from Rachael Levine is false at best, conspiratorial/transphobic at worst. The sources people are citing are the NYT[81] (who says James Cantor - famous for FRINGE nonsense like the claim all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists, raised the issue to defend a ban on trans healthcare for minors opposed by every major MEDORG in the country...) the Hill[82] and the aforementioned BMJ piece by a questionably reliable author[83]. None of whom say it was Levine, just that she "urged"/"shared her view". The NYT and BMJ pieces actually said it was the American Academy of Pediatrics, a top-tier MEDORG, who said they'd withdraw support if age limits were kept in (because age limits aren't generally a thing for most kinds of health care).

@Aquillion, I know you meant this as an RFCBEFORE but it seems to be rolling along as an RFC, I think the wording of WPATH broadly represents the mainstream on trans medicine; sweeping attacks on its legitimacy are generally fringe covers it well if you want to reformat it as one. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously Not WPATH cannot reasonably be considered a 'gold standard.' If it were, why are its guidelines being rejected across multiple countries? Ireland is the latest example, abandoning plans that align with WPATH recommendations. [84]

Many European countries have already banned or severely restricted puberty blockers and surgeries for minors. Even in the US, there’s no uniform consensus regarding WPATH guidelines. For instance, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons state that "ASPS has not endorsed any organization's practice recommendations for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria. ASPS currently understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy of the use of chest and genital surgical interventions for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty." [85]

Why would a major medical organization involved in transgender care decline to endorse WPATH if it were the gold standard? I'm leaving aside the fact that WPATH's guidelines have been banned in at least 24 US states, and The Supreme Court is likely to uphold the ban. Additionally, The European Academy of Paediatrics stated that 'The fundamental question of whether biomedical treatments (including hormone therapy) for gender dysphoria are effective remains contested'. [86], so clearly there is no scholarly consensus for the use of puberty blockers on minors that WPATH guidelines endorse. In addition, it has recently been revealed that WPATH guidelines are not evidence-based, and have been developed with manipulation of scholarly evidence. In particular, as reported by the Economist and the BMJ, WPATH suppressed publication of systematic reviews that they had commissioned from Johns Hopkins University, because Hopkins team research did not deliver the results that WPATH wanted. In fact, the Hopkins team reported that they “found little to no evidence about children and adolescents”, contrary to the WPATH guidelines. In addition, as reported by a number of mainstream publications, in particular The New York Times [87] [88], The Hill [89] and others, WPATH removed minimum ages for surgery on minors from the latest revision of their “Standards of Care” under the pressure from Dr. Rachel Levine of HHS. This information led to an extensive public discussion, with many major news outlets such as the Washington Post [90] [91], The New York Times [92] and others publishing critical editorials and op-eds.

This was the biggest misinformation controversy on this topic, which got widely publicized in the mainstream media, but it has unfortunately not been adequately covered in our articles. I should also note that NYT and Economist are listed as reliable at WP:RSP, and this is not a place to question their reliability. I also find it strange that YFNS repeats the claim that the Economist article is an opinion piece, when the Wikipedia community has already rejected that claim: [93] To be a 'gold standard,' guidelines must have widespread, international acceptance. WPATH’s do not. They face increasing scrutiny from both medical bodies and governments worldwide, undermining any claim to universal authority.

PS: To illustrate how much of a reach this 'Gold standard' suggestion as it pertains to Wpath is: even in fields with far greater global consensus—like cancer treatment—no single set of guidelines is considered the universal 'gold standard.' For example, the NCCN Guidelines are highly influential in the U.S., but Europe often relies on ESMO Guidelines, and treatment protocols vary globally based on emerging evidence, national health policies, and regional expertise. Despite their widespread use, neither is universally accepted as the sole authoritative standard. If such variability exists in areas like oncology, it’s unrealistic to claim that WPATH’s guidelines—amid growing international rejection—represent a universal gold standard. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it were, why are its guidelines being rejected across multiple countries?

Because politics are intervening in healthcare. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the process of that intervention is described clearly in academic literature. [94] Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. We can't treat elected governments themselves as a valid source of medical information, and we can't pretend that the current warpath many governments are on against trans people is rooted in science. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you are saying that all the European states (France, Finland, Norway, Sweden, etc) rejecting WPATH guidelines do it due to political reasons? I don't think it is so. Every country conducted its own research, and the results are not in favor of WPATH guidelines. In fact, if you want to make such an assertion the onus is on you to show that these governments are totally acting politically and not in accordance with the prevailing medical establishment. One cannot just discredit the majority position based on postulations. Please see the relevant medical (not political) sources that support what I'm saying: Here's the one from Norway that recommended designating puberty blockers and surgery on minors as "experimental treatment". [95] The National Board of Health and Welfare of Sweden concluded that: "At group level (i.e. for the group of adolescents with gender dysphoria, as a whole), the National Board of Health and Welfare currently assesses that the risks of puberty blockers and gender-affirming treatment are likely to outweigh the expected benefits of these treatments". [96] And this is the Swedish research supporting this [97] Moreover, here is Finland's position, which gives priority to psychotherapy over medical transition [98] I don't think anyone can present strong evidence that Scandinavian states reject WPATH guidelines for political reasons. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, insofar as anything is: While there may be variation at the edges, this is basic trans healthcare guidelines. We don't put weight on Uganda making homosexuality illegal in our coverage of that, or in India's inclusion of Ayurveda in its official medical organizations. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 12:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]