User talk:Dr vulpes#c-Compassionate727-20250208140200-Questions about your closure

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/Lichen task force/Newsletters/2022-October}}

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

File:New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to {{Noping|MPGuy2824}}), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to {{no ping|John B123}} for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: {{Noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{Noping|MPGuy2824}} have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

File:2022-10-16 NPP backlog chart.jpg

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:File:Everlasting Fireworks looped.gif Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

{{-}}

{{refbegin}}

;Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord], where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

{{refend}}

{{User:Joseywales1961/Holidays 2023}}

Hi can u protect 2025 India-Pakistan conflict protests only extended user access since it is a ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan? 141.156.233.91 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, you can request page protection over at WP:RFPP. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, there. Thanks for protecting my user talk page at the moment.

Also, the IP accounts that were pushing for Li Jun Li's inclusion in the infobox at Talk:Sinners (2025 film) (such as {{IP|2603:7000:2702:425:D4E5:FD7C:CC3C:AF89}}, {{IP|2603:7000:2702:425:FDC4:6918:2679:B412}}, {{IP|2603:7000:2702:425:85EA:FF99:9C68:17A5}}, etc.) might be one and the same since they're based in the New York City and Orange County (New York) areas according to WHOIS, but I could be wrong. Can you please look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I am out of town right now and have limited internet. If you could ask someone else to look into it I would appreciate it. Sorry! Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::No problem. I'm contacting {{admin|Sergecross73}} about this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::👍 Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{talkback|User talk:TonySt|ts=00:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)}}

—tony^{st (talk)} 00:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the request have been archived, so I'd replied here, sorry if this isn't the right place. The copyvio material is located at this section (Rail transport in Indonesia#Village railway), where the IP user basically took some paragraphs, ran it through machine translations from Indonesian to English, and posted it. The copyvio materials itself was taken from [https://www.merdeka.com/trending/molek-transportasi-legendaris-yang-dibangun-belanda-ratusan-tahun-lalu-dulunya-dipakai-angkut-emas-75393-mvk.html#:~:text=Molek%20adalah%20transportasi%20legendaris%20asal,penumpang%20dan%20logistik%20antar%20desa.&text=%C2%A9merdeka.com)-,Molek%20adalah%20transportasi%20legendaris%20asal%20Bengkulu%20yang%20digunakan,penumpang%20dan%20logistik%20antar%20desa the only cited source] of that section.

Previously I had removed the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rail_transport_in_Indonesia&oldid=1289054307 copyvio materials], yet the IP user has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rail_transport_in_Indonesia&oldid=1289724353 undo it] without any explanation. Jauhsekali (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the closure of the move discussion at Willie Gallacher (politician). I might be biased as a Scottish person but he is literally taught at schools as part of the "Red Clydeside" period, see for example [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9020kjy51xo this recent BBC article] which states "From as early as the 1900s, Maclean is organising economics classes across the city and hundreds and hundreds of people are learning about Marxism, and learning what capitalism is and what it is doing to them in their everyday lives. The key figures of Red Clydeside - like Willie Gallacher, Helen Crawfurd, Jimmy Maxton, Davie Kirkwood - these people came up through his classes." You stated that there was a "few articles with this name" which is not true. William Gallacher (footballer) does not appear to be known as "Willie", so there is only one other article with the name Willie Gallacher (footballer). Sahaib (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Sahaib When there is more than one person with the same name they get tagged for what they are known for. In this case he was a member of parliament. There are more than one Willie Gallacher on Wikipedia that meet the notability and sourcing guidelines. So if we follow WP:NCPDAB it would appear everything was followed correctly. I'm not really sure what the big deal is here, he's such a minor politician that an entire section of the article had to be sourced from his autobiography, see WP:AUTOBIO. But if you disagree strongly with my closing of this RM you are as always free to appeal it. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Polygnotus, ha thanks! Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the close of the RfC - it seems a fairly daunting task. I'm trying to work out the impact of your close for a discussion I'm having, and I would welcome clarification. Some editors argued (before your close) that [https://adc.bmj.com/content/110/4/251 this article] in Archives of Disease in Childhood should not be cited, as one of the authors is affiliated to SEGM. Is the intent of your close that this (or similar) articles would be considered {{tq|SEGM based evidence}}? Samuelshraga (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'll just add that since the close I've been told, in addition to the one I raised above, that these two sources[https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/27/research-into-trans-medicine-has-been-manipulated][https://bmjgroup.com/the-bmj-investigates-dispute-over-us-groups-involvement-in-whos-trans-health-guideline/] are unacceptable on the basis of the RfC close. Could you also confirm if the BMJ piece (the second link) is the one you said {{tq|looked fine}} in the close? And whether the intent of the close would exclude pieces like the Economist one? Samuelshraga (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Samuelshraga Just to clarify - while administrators have the ability to do some things you and I cannot, they don't have any special authority in content discussions. Their opinions on article content carry the same weight as any other editor's. Wikipedia works on community consensus rather than a hierarchy.

::See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_administrators for more information. Polygnotus (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think we can question the immediate consequences of the RFC closure and whether they are in line with the closer's intent. I don't envy the closer making the effort, but the ramifications of this are considerable. It doesn't matter what the intent was - the argument is now expanding to disallow comment from Gordon Guyatt because he's "connected to SEGM". Honestly, when people are seriously arguing that "the father of evidence based medicine" cannot be cited for his opinion on whether some medicine is evidence-based, something has gone very badly wrong. Void if removed (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Void if removed But that is obviously not a discussion for this talkpage. I think we can all agree on that, right? The community has spoken, Dr vulpes' close reflects the consensus, and figuring out what the implications of this consensus are (and aren't) is not something that should happen here, but on the relevant talkpage(s). Polygnotus (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Asking the closer to expand on their intended meaning of the close in light of real scenarios seems fair enough to me? Void if removed (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Void if removed Even in the context that their opinions on article content carry the same weight as any other editor's? It is the community who decides what implications this consensus will have, not the closer of the discussion who was forced to read through roughly 88 pages of text according to my calculations. Polygnotus (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Polygnotus, I think given the freshness of the close, if the closer sees that the close has been taken in a way different to how they intended it, they might amend it to remove ambiguities. Adding a link to the specific BMJ piece they reference in the close might help for one thing. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Last try.

::::::::You both act as if the closing statement itself has consequences, but that is not how consensus on Wikipedia works.

::::::::The closing statement is just a goodfaith attempt to summarize the novella below it. If Dr vulpes changes the closing statement, that won't win you the discussions you're having, because Dr vulpes' opinion has the same weight as everyone else's. And the close reflects the consensus. What is in dispute is what consequences that consensus should have, if any.

::::::::What you want is community consensus that the actions you are complaining about (which are apparently presented as logical consequences of the consensus) are wrong. And for that, this talkpage is the wrong location; you need a far more public forum. Hope this helps, Polygnotus (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Polygnotus sorry if I'm trying your patience. @Dr vulpes said at the end of the close: {{tq|If I missed something or need to clarify any part of this I’ll update the closing note}}, so I don't think we're out of line. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You're not; I just suck at explaining things, and I know others are far more eloquent (but not as cute). And of course you aren't out of line; I just don't think that it will help you if you get what you are asking for. Oh well, that's life. Polygnotus (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note that in this specific case it seems moreso that it's the SEGM authorship plus the fact the paper is seemingly a letter and not peer-reviewed: #c-Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist-20250526195800-Void_if_removed-20250526184600. Assuming it indeed isn't, would that be disqualifying of the source? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Aaron Liu in fact that's not the specific case I raised above. What I raised and (linked to) is not a letter, and is peer-reviewed. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah, I misread the replies buried among the walls of text. Sorry! Aaron Liu (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Samuelshraga, @Polygnotus, @Void if removed, and @Aaron Liu. I am pretty tired/getting sick so if this isn't more clear I'm sorry. I wrote a bunch for @Sean Waltz O'Connell's comment below that might be helpful.

:Do not treat the close as a universal blacklist. Affiliation is not an automatic failure. If a mainstream peer reviewed article happens to have a SEGM coauthor or quotes a SEGM spokesperson then the source/content must still be evaluated for it's own reliability. In the close I said that "Funding a study does not give an organization legitimacy ... Tobacco companies publish research ... Funding alone is not a disqualifier." It is reasonable that if a tobacco company published a paper that said smoking does not cause cancer the evaluation of the claim would fail at WP:RSN even if it was peer reviewed. But it would still be evaluated based on it's merits. For any individual source that someone claims has become unusable due to SEGM authorship or funding, open a thread at WP:RSN so the wider community can weigh independence, peer-review quality, and context. Let normal WP:RS, WP:MEDRS criteria decide if the source is reliable. How does this close affect sourcing? Review the cited policies from the close WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. I said in the close that the "Addition or use of material from or sponsored by SEGM should go under greater scrutiny as exceptional or controversial claims require strong sourcing WP:RS." I think the confusion comes from WP:UNDUE where I said "By accepting this organization's statements as equal to the scientific consensus we would violate WP:UNDUE."

:If an editor claims that this close bars every thing SEGM has ever touched then they have either misread the close/policy, or are a little confused. I explicitly and at great length made it clear that just because content from or affiliated with SEGM does not blacklist it. The content does need to be evaluated carefully and in line with the policies previously cited above. If someone wants to propose that we blacklist SEGM then there are places to have that discussion, this was not such a place.

:As an aside from this I just want to be clear, just because I'm an admin does not give me any authority over other editors. The close was a synthesis of community consensus with explanations of how policy lined up with some of the questions/issues that were raised at the RfC. There is always a chance that I misread or misunderstood something, hence why on my userpage there's a tab for a list of my mistakes because I make them. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I hope you feel better soon. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@FactOrOpinion thanks at least it's a holiday here today so I can stay home and chill! Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I hope you feel better. Thanks for this. I do share @FactOrOpinion's concerns below, but I am glad to read {{tq|If an editor claims that this close bars every thing SEGM has ever touched then they have either misread the close/policy, or are a little confused. I explicitly and at great length made it clear that just because content from or affiliated with SEGM does not blacklist it.}} I appreciate that it must have been a considerable effort to sift through all that, even if II disagree with some aspects of the outcome. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Absolutely - on a pure show of hands basis this close could only go one way. My personal view is that too much weight was given to a handful of non-independent sources saying "FRINGE" and no weight was given to the independent sources that did not - but I can hardly fault the closer for that when that is what voters favoured.

:::On the close though, I would nitpick that the "multiple RS" cited are, essentially, the same (one being an interview with the author of the other about what they said in that social science paper, alongside the opinions of SPLC). Void if removed (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wasn't involved in this RfC but was curious and read through the very long discussion. I think this closing is deficient in several aspects. First, it doesn't summarize the arguments on both sides. In reading through the discussion I felt both sides made reasoned arguments and both sides also offered rebuttals. None of that was offered in the closing and made it hard to decide if this was closed based only on weight of numbers or on weight of argument. The second issue I see is that, while the for group had numbers, most provided little more than IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. A RfC like this really should be decided on the merits of the claims, not based on numbers alone. Yes, if the strength of logic suggests a RfC should go to A but the numbers suggest B then we shouldn't pick A. Instead we should say no consensus. That is effectively what we have here. Those against did make strong arguments. Are they sufficient to show the organization isn't fringe? No. Are they sufficient to undermine the arguments for fringe? Yes. For this reason, and for the reason that ideas, not organizations are fringe, this should have been a no consensus close. Springee (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm afraid I just don't recognise that characterisation of the discussion. There were a lot of people citing material, and specifically material about the standing of SEGM among experts in the area, and regarding the various claims SEGM made about transgender health and healthcare. !Voters stating that they agree as per nom and others that RS sources assert the fringe status of SEGM is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As for the discussion on this page, people are simply raising again issues that were addressed by others during the RFC. We've all been in situations where we didn't like the outcome of a closing.OsFish (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There was also material that refuted the characterizations. When you combine that with material that appears to align with them as well as the questionable application of Wikipedia's FRINGE it gets to a point of no consensus based on the strength of the arguments. This is a very politically charged topic in real life, as well as here, we should be cautious and err on the side of not taking sides, when the arguments presented support a no consensus close. Springee (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Climate change and vaccine effectiveness are also charged topics in real life. Does that mean we compromise our coverage? OsFish (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, since you closed the RFC, could you please clarify a few points? We have policies regarding fringe theories, but not specifically about fringe organizations. If there is no rule defining what constitutes a fringe organization, wouldn’t labeling an organization as fringe be against Wikipedia policies? The RFC question states that SEGM "only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints".

Other users pointed out that RfC did not identify SEGM's fringe viewpoints or provide evidence of the viewpoints being fringe rather than minority, nor did it provide sufficient evidence SEGM exists solely to promote fringe viewpoints, as opposed to supporting a range of views, only some of which may be considered fringe. You alluded to the RFC being something of a long, protracted discussion, and I believe this would naturally be the case when trying to designate an entire organisation as "Fringe" due to the fact that such an undertaking would not be so cut and dry and hasn't been done before. I believe establishing an organization as fringe sets a dangerous precedent, as now, even well-proven or consensus-based statements released by the organization in the future will be disregarded as "Fringe" no matter what the substantive content is. Surely, such a blanket label is untenable considering the core purpose of Wikipedia. According to Undark Magazine: “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.” [https://undark.org/2024/05/20/pediatric-transgender-care-contentious-segm/] If all of SEGM's views are fringe, that would imply that the views of many major European medical institutions are fringe as well, which seems like an overly bold claim.

We had a parallel RFC on the main SEGM position on the same board, and there was a consensus that recommendation that puberty blockers shouldn't be prescribed to children outside of medical research is not a fringe view: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_104#Puberty_blockers_in_children]. That means SEGM’s central position, that these drugs shouldn’t be prescribed to children outside research settings, is not fringe. [https://segm.org/NICE_gender_medicine_systematic_review_finds_poor_quality_evidence] How do we reconcile the consensus that SEGM's main position is not fringe with the statement that SEGM only exists to promote fringe views? I believe these concerns need to be addressed too. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:All these claims were addressed in the RFC. I know, because I was one of the people addressing them. So it's incorrect to say they were ignored or went unchallenged. There needs to be a procedural problem with the closing. OsFish (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Where did people address the lack of consensus about what "fringe organization" means? After several days, at my prompting, YFNS stated what she personally meant by that phrase, but I have no idea whether other editors interpreted the phrase in the same way (or will interpret it in the same way in the future, if the phrase is used on other talk pages without reference to YFNS's statement), especially for the editors who !voted before YFNS said what she meant by it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The third paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The third paragraph of what? Would you mind linking to whatever you're referring to? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The third paragraph of the close statement we all saw. Regardless I think Vulpes has restated and expanded upon it now. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The third paragraph of the close statement makes no mention of "fringe organization," much less does it address that there is no consensus among editors about what "fringe organization" means. Moreover, OsFish's claim that I asked about was "All these claims were addressed in the RFC. I know, because I was one of the people addressing them," which was not a statement about Dr vulpes' close, but about the discussion that occurred before the close. I was asking OsFish where they think that issue was addressed in the RfC discussion.

::::::It's possible that you and I are talking past each other a bit. When I use the phrase "fringe organization," I'm not limiting it to that one RfC and whether SEGM is/isn't a "fringe organization." When I refer to consensus among editors, I'm not talking about the editors who participated in that one RfC, but about WP editors in general. My impression is that you're talking only about whether SEGM is a "fringe organization" per the editors who participated in the RfC and per the definition that YFNS gave. Am I right about that? If so, then you and I are talking about different things.

::::::In the RfC, there was very little discussion about how editors interpret "fringe organization", though it led some of us to start a discussion at WT:FT § FRINGEORG re: whether there should be a FRINGEORG section in WP:FT, and if so, what it might say. (We workshopped some possible text with the thought of taking it to VPP, but that never happened. Maybe I should bring that up again there.)

::::::As for what Dr vulpes wrote below, I disagree that "This policy still covers organizations since the RfC asked whether SEGM 'only exists to promote fringe viewpoints about trans healthcare'". The policy itself makes no mention whatsoever of fringe organizations. None. There is no consensus among editors about what "fringe organization" does or should mean, as there's been little discussion of whether it makes sense to define it in the first place, and if so, what we as a group think it should mean. All that happened in the RfC is that YFNS added a statement to the RfC four days after it opened in which she clarified what she meant by "fringe organization" in the specific context of trans healthcare. Over half of the people who responded to the RfC never even saw her clarification, as they responded before she posted it. And for those who did see it, most simply accepted that for the purpose of the RfC, that was what "fringe organization" meant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tqb|My impression is that you're talking only about whether SEGM is a "fringe organization"}}Yes, but my impression was also that this would be precedent for "fringe organizations" in the future. The third paragraph is effectively a FRINGEORG essay already. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I remain confused about what you're referring to in the third paragraph. The third paragraph of the close starts {{tq|What does this mean for SEGM here? SEGM’s publications or views can not be used to contradict well sourced scientific information in other articles as per WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI.}} I don't see how that paragraph "is effectively a FRINGEORG essay already."

::::::::And I'm not talking about an essay, which any editor can write and need not represent consensus, but about adding text to the WP:FRINGE guideline. I would absolutely object to this RfC or close being a precedent for "fringe organization." If editors want to be able to refer to fringe organizations, there needs to be a community discussion of what that means. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's a good reason to call an organization a "fringe organization," any more than I would call a person a "fringe person." I think it's more productive to identify the fringe theories that a person or organization promotes, and to assess whether the person or organization if primarily notable for promoting fringe theories; or notable for a mix of things, where the notability is only partly based on promotion of fringe theories; or notable entirely for non-fringe things, even if they also advocate a fringe theory. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@FactOrOpinion If an entity's primary, public facing purpose is to advance theories that meet the WP:FRINGE definition, we apply WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE to that entity's own publications and advocacy because the organization is inseparable from the fringe ideas it promotes. Forget the label "fringe organization" used in the RfC. Would any of the views or content of SEGM pass WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE? If SEGM can pass those two tests then their content doesn't need additional scrutiny/review. If SEGM can not pass those two tests than their content is out of the mainstream and the rules laid out in WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE come into play. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I agree about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and I have no problem applying those as written. But neither of them are about the organization itself. If people are going to use the term "fringe organization" as if it's meaningful, then there should be some consensus about what it means / implies. I can't forget about the label when other people are using it. For example, in the discussion I referred you to, YFNS said that if an organization promotes a mix of fringe and mainstream ideas, even its mainstream publications should never be used as sources, because she thinks that they could not possibly be the best sources for those mainstream ideas. She wanted that to be part of WP's guideline about fringe organizations. These are the kinds of things that should be discussed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP:FRINGE already covers organizations even if it is not explicitly spelled out in the policy. When a group or organization's primary mission is to push a fringe idea WP:FRINGE applies to that entity. For example in WP:PARITY we see that sources that are unreliable shouldn't be used. SEGM would fall into the same camp as the Creation Research Society or the Journal Homeopathy. Note that no where does the policy say fringe organizations but the application of WP:FRINGE is the same. We treat the organisation as fringe because the ideas it primarily promotes are fringe. The absence of the specific two-word phrase in the policy text does not mean organisations are exempt; it simply reflects that the ideas drive the classification. As I said in the close "Under the ... policies we can define a fringe organisation as one whose ideas about medical care are drastically out of step with the medical consensus and described by reliable sources as promoting pseudoscience ... SEGM meets this standard." That is not a new rule, it is a direct application of WP:FRINGE/UNDUE/RS to the evidence the RfC participants provided. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I encourage you to read the discussion at WT:FT § FRINGEORG. Among the issues that were raised: what if an organization promotes a fringe theory but also promotes mainstream or minority views — should we call that organization a "fringe organization"? Re: "we can define a fringe organisation as ...," sure, we can do that, but that doesn't imply that we should do that. Shouldn't we check whether there's consensus for it?

::::::::Re: "We treat the organisation as fringe because the ideas it primarily promotes are fringe", what does it mean to treat an organization as fringe, as distinct from treating the ideas as fringe? FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tqb|If there is no rule defining what constitutes a fringe organization, wouldn’t labeling an organization as fringe be against Wikipedia policies?}}Why would it? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hey @Sean Waltz O'Connell, thanks for bringing up these points I'll try to address your points and include quotes from the close if possible. I'm coming down with something so I'm a little woozy right now.

:WP:FRINGE defines a fringe theory as an idea that "departs significantly from prevailing views or mainstream views in it's particular field". This policy still covers organizations since the RfC asked whether SEGM "only exists to promote fringe viewpoints about trans healthcare". The community evaluated SEGM's ideas (social contagion model, gender exploratory therapy, blanket statements that standard gender-affirming care is harmful, etc.) against the medical consensus and found those ideas to be fringe. Once the ideas are fringe, an organisation that exists primarily to advance them can be treated under the same policy logic. That is exactly what I wrote in the close "Under the previously mentioned policies we can define a fringe organization as one whose ideas about medical care are drastically out of step with the medical consensus and described by reliable sources as promoting pseudoscience or discredited viewpoints. It would appear that SEGM meets this standard." So there is no conflict with policy: we are not inventing a new guideline, we are applying WP:FRINGE to the ideas and noting that reliable secondary sources already describe SEGM itself as a fringe medical organisation. Wikipedia is reflecting, not coining, that description.

:The close explicitly does not impose a blanket ban on everything that SEGM touches. "On the topic of peer-reviewed papers funded by SEGM those papers can still be cited and should be handled on a case-by-case basis." What changes is how much scrutiny and weight we give to SEGM content. Self-published material (blog posts, white papers, legislative testimony, letters to editors) are still usable as a primary source for what SEGM says, but not as reliable evidence against medical consensus. Independent peer reviewed work in which a SEGM member is an author or SEGM provided funding we would evaluate exactly the same way we evaluate a published peer reviewed paper with a possible COI. Review the journal quality, methodology, independence of the editorial process, and MEDRS standards. If it passes that evaluation then we can cite it and might have to note a possible COI. When looking at mainstream secondary sources that quote SEGM (Economist, Undark, etc.) the content is still a reliable source. In those cases SEGM's quote is attributed, and the article's own editorial judgment determines reliability. This is why I said in the close "Funding a study does not give an organization legitimacy, it only means that they have money ... Funding alone is not a disqualifier."

:Regarding the puberty blockers RfC it should be noted that RfC asked about one specific clinical claim, not about SEGM's broader platform (social contagion, anti-affirming conversion therapy, etc.). That RfC does not negate the wider evidence that SEGM as an organization advances and holds positions that have been rejected by many major professional medical bodies in the US and worldwide. In the close I noted that "SEGM's publications or views cannot be used to contradict well-sourced scientific information ... Editors can remove or challenge any SEGM-based evidence in a medical topic citing consensus ... Peer-reviewed papers funded by SEGM can still be cited and should be handled on a case by case basis." So if SBU or the Cass Review says "use puberty blockers only in research settings" we cite that directly to SBU or Cass, not to SEGM. If SEGM publishes a self authored paper arguing the same position, we may mention that SEGM agrees, but we cannot rely on SEGM's analysis. That is WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS at work.

:For any individual source (BMJ review, Economist article, etc.) that someone claims has become unusable, open a short thread at WP:RSN. Let normal RS/MEDRS criteria decide.If you believe the close itself is unclear, feel free to quote this explanation. If you think WP:FRINGE needs an explicit subsection on fringe organisations, please join the discussion at WT:FRINGE; several editors are already drafting language. That will give all of us firmer ground in the future. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Re: "This policy still covers organizations since the RfC asked whether SEGM 'only exists to promote fringe viewpoints about trans healthcare'", the RfC question posted on 2/2 was only "Is the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a WP:FRINGE organization?"

::At my prompting, four days later YFNS added "by 'WP:FRINGE organization,' I mean an organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare and whose members generally promote FRINGE viewpoints." More than half of the !votes were posted before YFNS added that. We have no way of knowing how those people were interpreting "fringe organization" when they responded.

::I disagree that WP:FRINGE as a policy covers organizations in the sense that there is any agreed-on meaning among editors about what a "fringe organization" is. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@FactOrOpinion I did my best with the over 35,000 words of text over 114 days in the RfC. If you believe that my conclusion and synthesis of community consensus is wrong you are as always more than welcome to challenge it. As I've said before I'm human and I make mistakes, I don't think I made a mistake here with this RfC but there are people here with a lot more knowledge and experience than myself. The instructions for challenging a close can be found at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, you'll need to post to WP:AN, it would also be a good idea to review WP:CON before starting. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As I said earlier (below), I appreciate your having taken on that daunting task. I'm not sure if this will make sense: my concern is about the RfC question (and with the unsettled more general question of whether the community wants to characterize some organizations as fringe, and if so, what we think the meaning of "fringe organization" should be) rather than with your close of the RfC responses. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

First, I appreciate your having taken on the task of closing that extremely long discussion. However, I was sorry to see that you didn't really address the concern that WP:FRINGE does not define or otherwise address what it means for an organization to be a "fringe organization," only providing a guideline on fringe theories. (In fact, I just looked at the guideline again, and the word "organization" only appears once, in the sense of "the act of organizing.") The RfC actually prompted a discussion, WT:FT § FRINGEORG re: whether there should be a FRINGEORG section in WP:FT, and if so, what it might say. Some progress was made, but people generally agreed that if we wanted to introduce text about this, there should first be a broader discussion at VPP. Although I agree that there was consensus that SEGM is a "fringe organization," it still concerns me that editors would come to that conclusion when there is no consensus about what the community means by that phrase, nor an explicit list of what fringe theories SEGM promotes along with discussion of whether they're fringe vs. minority. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Dr vulpes, I appreciate your efforts in handling this complex RFC, but I still believe the closure leaves more questions than answers.

I agree with FactOrOpinion regarding the procedural issues. We cannot declare an organization to be fringe before establishing clear policies that define what a fringe organization is. It is not appropriate to label an organization as fringe and then determine what that means according to Wikipedia policies afterward. The designation must be based on pre-existing policy, not determined retroactively. In addition, modifying the question after votes have been cast is inconsistent with established Wikipedia policies.

Fringe ideas must be evaluated individually to determine whether they meet the criteria for that designation. We did not have individual discussions on all the specific ideas that SEGM promotes. The Undark article, which is the only source that conducted dedicated research on SEGM, states that SEGM’s views align with the health policies of several European countries. Does this RFC closure imply that the health policies of those countries are also considered fringe? That would be a problematic and far-reaching conclusion.

Furthermore, most of the criticism of SEGM comes from activist groups and some medical organizations in the United States. However, the U.S. is increasingly viewed as a global outlier in transgender healthcare, while many other countries are adopting a more cautious approach [https://www.wsj.com/politics/u-s-becomes-transgender-care-outlier-as-more-in-europe-urge-caution-6c70b5e0]. SEGM refers to those international policies and advocates for similar approaches in the United States. Its views should be assessed in a global context. Even the World Health Organization has acknowledged that the evidence for the benefits of puberty blockers and gender-affirming care remains limited, which aligns with SEGM’s position.

The RFC question asserted that SEGM exists solely to promote fringe views. However, there was broad consensus that SEGM’s main position regarding puberty blockers is not fringe. This directly contradicts the premise of the RFC and undermines the rationale for categorizing the entire organization as fringe. You stated that the RFC on puberty blockers was not about SEGM’s broader platform, but that is precisely the issue. The fringe RFC question claimed that every idea SEGM promotes is fringe, yet the community clearly agreed that this is not the case. This contradiction between the two RFCs was not addressed. The question was not whether SEGM promotes some or mostly fringe ideas, it explicitly asserted that EVERY idea SEGM promotes is fringe, and that claim has been disproven. If SEGM’s main position is not considered fringe, it is logically inconsistent to conclude that the organization exists solely to promote fringe views. Such a conclusion disregards the consensus from the RFC on puberty blockers. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:To forestall one potential objection to this, even if the position "There is insufficient evidence to establish that puberty blockers are a beneficial treatment for gender dysphoria" is not SEGM's main position, it is at least a position they hold. If (and this is a question depending on article and context) their opinion would otherwise be WP:DUE because of its prominence in reliable sources, does categorising it as a "fringe organization" change that? This seems to me to be the minimalist reading of the close, and it begs the question: on what basis does an RfC about an organisation at WP:FTN override the application of central and longstanding norms like WP:DUE and WP:RS? Unfortunately the close doesn't contemplate the possibility that SEGM may also hold and promote some non-fringe viewpoints, despite this being a viewpoint expressed in the RfC. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

for your assistance today, and for your empathy when dealing with the situation. Vandals seem to enjoy targeting my userspace at times, and I'm very much used to it, but it is still very much a bother to deal with; the fact you were, evidently, understanding of that, means a lot. You are a kind individual, and we need more of that here. Best -- Patient Zero^talk 05:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate the time and effort you put into handling SEGM RFC. However, I believe this is a very complex issue that would benefit from a broader consensus on closure. Therefore, I have initiated a closure review at WP:AN.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#RfC_closure_review_request_at_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Society_for_Evidence-Based_Gender_Medicine] Thank you again. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hey @Sean Waltz O'Connell, No worries it's all part of the process and it's my first time with an appeal so I'll be learning something new which is always excite. No hard feelings or anything, it'll be a good experience for all of us to grow as editors. If you ever think of an article or project you want to collaborate on feel free to reach out🙂. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)