Talk:Johanna Olson-Kennedy

Addition on financial compensation

Twice now I've reverted @Socksage:'s recent addition of a paragraph relating to Olson-Kennedy's financial compensation. There's three issues with this content as I see it. The first is that it's sourced only to primary sources, a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, the second is that because of this it reads like original research and synthesis of the three sources in an improper way, and the third is that because of the lack of secondary sources discussing Olson-Kennedy's financial compensation it is giving undue weight to a non-noteworthy aspect of her biography. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Socksage: I've now had to remove this content three times. Please do not restore it again without gaining a consensus on this talk page first. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In more detail:

• The first citation is to a 2015 case report authored by several authors including Olson-Kennedy. In the disclosure section it states that during the authoring of the report, Olson-Kennedy had no relevant financial affiliations with any drug or medical device manufacturer, and that post submission she had attended a single meeting of the AbbVie Advisory Board describing the use of GnRHAs for trans youth, for which she was compensated.
• The second citation is to a chapter of a 2012 book, describing the use of GnRHAs. While it does state that they are off-label for gender dysphoria, it makes no distinction between gender dysphoria in youth or adults and no mention of Olson-Kennedy.
• The third citation is an information pamphlet published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on recognising incorrect off-label use of any medication. It makes no specific mention of GnRHAs, or Olson-Kennedy.

What we have here then are three primary sources; a case report from Olson-Kennedy that states a one time financial payment for consulting work, a book chapter describing the use of GnRHAs that makes no mention of Olson-Kenedy, and an information pamphlet that makes no mention of either GnRHAs or Olson-Kennedy. Because of the lack of connection between the three sources, this reads like original research and synthesis of unrelated sources. When looking at the criteria of WP:BLPREMOVE this content fails two of the four listed tests; this information is contentious, poorly sourced, and an original interpretation or synthesis of unrelated sources.

Accordingly, per WP:BLPREMOVE I have removed this paragraph. Not only does a consensus need to be reached here before it can be added, secondary sources need to be provided to address the OR and SYNTH issues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Controversy section

@96.36.47.50 To answer your questions, according to the project's main page (https://reporter.nih.gov/search/OPTb_4f5-kOe2wU2YYzolA/project-details/10615754) 13 of the studies were coauthored by Olson-Kennedy. I don't know yet exactly how many showed positive results since I'm not done reading them all yet, but so far I've read 6 that had positive results. No, it's not original research. All of them are listed on the project's main page. I believe it's noteworthy because it appears that the study in question was the only one not published out of nearly 30, which I think is an important thing to add. The fact that studies that showed positive results were published, but this one which didn't wasn't published also seems important to mention as part of the "controversy". Plus Olson-Kennedy coauthored many of these other studies and also led the project overall so all of this is related to her.

Usr Trj (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Usr Trj! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of the article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at the issue on this page, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you.

96.36.47.50 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I won't do it again. I just wanted to make everyone aware that I had started a discussion here. Sorry. Do you have any response to the discussion I started here? Usr Trj (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There's currently issues with the reversion from multiple users, so we have to deal with that first.

It appears that you're doing personal research WP:OR when you allege that the results are positive. There's several things to examine, amongst which is whether it even matters that other studies were published.

96.36.47.50 (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that it is original research. For example, in this study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2206297 They found that the participant's "appearance congruence, positive affect, and life satisfaction increased, and depression and anxiety symptoms decreased" after hormones. And the overall conclusion was that hormones "improved appearance congruence and psychosocial functioning". I think it's pretty obvious that this is a positive result and that's essentially what they're saying.

I think it matters that the studies that had positive results were published, but one that apparently wasn't positive wasn't published. That seems like an important detail in the controversy. Usr Trj (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "positive" when you say "positive result"? 96.36.47.50 (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean that the results showed improvements. Usr Trj (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not correct however. The interpretation of results could be such that, but results themselves are neutral. Hence why I believe that is more of WP:OR. There is a difference between the results of a study and what the authors believe it means. The controversy in particular was not related to the interpretation of results, but rather that the author chose not to publish them. We do not know what the interpretation of the results was, because the author did not publish the study. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the other study I linked above as an example (https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2206297) which was published as apart of the same project and straight up said that there were improvements in psychosocial functioning, decrease in depression and anxiety symptoms etc. Obviously we don't know the exact results of the study that was not published but the New York Times article made it clear that there were no improvements in results of that one which is why Olson-Kennedy was worried about it being weaponized.

However, the fact that the study which was not published showed no improvements in the results, while others in the project that did were published is apart of the controversy since the New York Times article and other articles covering the controversy have mentioned that. Usr Trj (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The section labeled Results in the Abstract is part of the interpretation of the study. The results are below. For example, they include two suicides. How many suicides are acceptable for you? The authors can decide what their interpretation of the results is, but are you willing to include two suicides in the Wikipedia article when speaking of the improvements in psychosocial functioning, etc?

Again, this all constitutes WP:OR in my opinion. Moreover, the publishing of studies is not controversial, no matter what the contents are; what is controversial is that a study was not published because of the authors feelings of it. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously no suicides are acceptable and no, I don't think the part about suicides should be included. However, that doesn't change the fact that the overall results and conclusion showed improvements in the majority of participants. Again, saying it shows improvements is not original research since that's how the study described it. Usr Trj (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think that suicides should not be mentioned? The NYTimes article mentions:

(Two of the 315 patients died by suicide, a rate much higher than the general population.)

It mentions suicide in other places too. On the other hand, the 28 other research articles are not mentioned in the NYTimes article, and therefore should be removed according to WP:BLP. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not the conclusion or main finding of the study. Not every little detail of the study needs to be mention. Usr Trj (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The controversy is not about the study, it is about the results not published. Do you understand that the same reasoning applies here? We should not mention the other results. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Usr Trj this is accurate. She co-authored several other studies based on this same NIH grant funded studies some of which did show positive benefit. Leaving that out removes the context and makes it seem like she didn't publish any research at all on this data Esqueer (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not revert before a consensus has been reached.

96.36.47.50 (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What is your response to the points I made above? So far no one has argued against them. Usr Trj (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@96.36.47.50 you don't even have an account and aren't responding to substantive points. You're solely reverting to prevent properly sourced context from being added. Esqueer (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus may be reached within minutes, hours, or days. You should allow some time for the discussion to take place.

96.36.47.50 (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point too. Leaving that out could also make it seem like nothing positive came out of the larger project as a whole. Usr Trj (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

In a typical controversy section, only the controversial material is placed there. It is not controversial that studies were published, and therefore it is not clear why those need to be mentioned. What do you mean by "positive"? 96.36.47.50 (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It is controversial that the study that wasn't published did not have a positive result while the ones that did have positive results were published. I gave an example of a study with a positive result above, but I could give more if needed. Usr Trj (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The evaluation of results as positive or negative appears to be WP:OR. The original controversy as reported by the New York Times was that the author did not publish the study because she was worried about its use. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's a personal evaluation. That one study I previously mentioned as an example pretty obviously had positive results. I guess they don't outright describe the results as positive, but they describe it as other things that mean positive, so I see it more as paraphrasing. Usr Trj (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "positive"? It doesn't seem to be related to the controversy of the withholding of the publishing of the study. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, both of these individuals are radical leftist trans activists. They are only interested in trying to invalidate anything that questions their narrative and support for child abuse. 2601:18C:9083:B7F0:DCB7:74E6:18A0:E1D0 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if that were true, that does not invalidate any of the points I made. Why don't you try to actually make a point on why this information should or shouldn't be included instead of attacking the editors? Usr Trj (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the study which did not find improvements was not published, while other studies that did find improvements were published is apart of the controversy. Even the New York Times article mentioned this. Usr Trj (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should be reworded like: "Olson-Kennedy did not publish the results of a study from a 29-something studies project because she was worried that ...". What do you think? 96.36.47.50 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That rewording doesn't address the fact that the one study that wasn't published did not show improvements while many of the ones that were published did. Again, this is mentioned in the New York Times article. Usr Trj (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you're overly simplifying the research by categorizing as improvements or not improvements. You are also making your own evaluations of it. There is not a single mention of the word "positive" in the NYTimes article . 96.36.47.50 (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing with the word "positive" in that instance. I meant the New York Times article mentioned that the study that wasn't published "did not lead to mental health improvements" and that studies from the project that were published "showed improvements in life and body satisfaction, and patients taking testosterone showed declines in depression and anxiety". This is not a personal evaluation. Those are direct quotes from the article. The article even hyperlinked to that study I previously mentioned as an example of this. (https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2206297).

If you don't think this means it's a positive result and would rather use an exact quote, we could just use the word "improvements" instead of "positive". But I don't think there's much of a difference between the two words in this context. Usr Trj (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit oversimplified, but that could be because the New York Times article does not describe the results of the studies much beyond what I quoted above. However, when adding this information to this article, I don't think it's really necessary to go in depth with any potential nuances in the studies. Just describing it as improvements or not improvements as the New York Times article did is enough to get the point across. Usr Trj (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the controversy section is not to summarize the NYTimes article, but to specifically zero in on the part that made the controversy.

I definitely believe that the word "positive" should not be used. Instead we can use a direct quote for the parts that you think should be in there. I still contest that we should not include them because they are not part of the controversy; they are part of the article on the controversy. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I still think the fact that the study in question found no improvements while the studies that were published did find improvements is apart of the controversy and worth mentioning as it makes the fact that the study wasn't published much more damning. If the results of the study were unknown or showed improvements, I doubt the story about it being suppressed would have been as big or as widely covered. Usr Trj (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether you believe it would be more or less covered is not related to the fact that it is controversial nonetheless, as any study that is not published because an author is worried about the interpretation of its results is a controversy. As such, to focus on the controversy, I believe that the other studies are unrelated and should not be mentioned, as they are not part of the controversy. According to WP:BLP we should not do original research, such as your mention of 28 other research articles and their results; this is not supported in the NYTimes article. Therefore that part needs to be deleted. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Original research is defined as content that it not attributed to a reliable source or containing a analysis that is not clearly stated by the source. That is not what this is. The NYT article very clearly mentions those other articles and their results and there are other articles that mention it too. Usr Trj (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that there's 28 other research articles is original research as the NYTimes does not mention that. Please quote the relevant parts from the article that you are referring to. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)