Talk:Jack Turban

Is this individual worthy of a Wikipedia page?
This article reads like a resume and advertisement. Should it be taken down? 73.17.143.115 (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * yes it should, he has only 50k followers in twitter. he's not even famous enough. 2804:1B3:7083:C57D:D95E:AF6E:D4BF:F221 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Why would you remove the citation to the conflict of interest? It's from the study's own disclosure? Readers should know that his research is funded through a grant from manufacturers of puberty blocker drugs. RaySmall88 RaySmall88 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NPOV, what "readers should know" is best decided based on what reliable, secondary sources focus on. One of the conflicts your edit included was not mentioned by the National Review source and should definitely not be included. For the rest, we're already affording the National Review piece as much weight as it merits by summarizing Levine's points. Further detail is undue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Jack Turban included it himself in the disclosures of his study. It doesn't get any more reliable than that.
 * "JLT received a pilot research award for general psychiatry residents from The American
 * Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, supported by Industry Sponsors (Arbor and
 * Pfizer),"
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357792124_Access_to_gender-affirming_hormones_during_adolescence_and_mental_health_outcomes_among_transgender_adults RaySmall88 (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with what has said. The allegation from Levine was already included with the requisite weight based on its merits, and consensus about the National Review is that statements from it should be attributed. The other two citations; the AACAP Pilot Research Award press release, and (presumably) the funding excerpt from a January 2022 paper, when used in this manner constitute WP:SYNTH and original research, and would be not allowed in the article space. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Child abuse
This page should be taken down or updated to reflect the fact this individual is actively promoting "gender affirming" child mutilation and chemical castration of minors with puberty blockers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:AAF0:6C9C:6D9D:85B6:3016 (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Information.svg Hello, I'm Andrevan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Andre🚐 04:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Blowback against gender affirming care needs to be part of Jack Turban's wikipedia page.
It is indisputable that there has been legislation and health authority directives to move away from the gender affirming care that Turban has advocated. This page should reflect that. Deanbill22 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Short answer no. This is not an article about gender-affirming care, so WP:COATRACK applies. With respect to the content you added and I've, per WP:UGC we cannot cite a Wikipedia article as a source in another article, and Realitys Last Stand appears to be a self-published Substack blog, so not a reliable source.
 * I would also heavily dispute health authority directives to move away from the gender affirming care. No major public health bodies have "moved away from gender-affirming care". It remains available for adults and youth in the countries you listed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, this reason is no longer valid. United Kingdom, Finland and Sweden and the rest of Europe are moving away from this care.
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/?sh=74a2d4cf7efb PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been many articles on Jack Turban's conflict of interest. Those opinions should be included on this page. PerseusMeredith (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Cass Review Should be Included
I'm struggling to understand why this continues to be taken off. You have a two year, independent review of gender affirming care performed by NHS. WSJ, Washington Post and NY Times have all covered the Cass Report. Turban's study was specifically cited and received a low-score. How is that misleading? The post specifically cited the report and the language was verbatim from the report. PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "Turban's study" is such a nonsensical phrase for someone who's been published dozens of times. The actual study in question was not part of the bundle mentioned just before the disputed text, and it wasn't about gender-affirming care (it was about social transition). The Cass Report wouldn't be the right thing to cite anyway, but rather Hall et al. 2024. As far as I'm aware, neither says anything about "cautioned that the results were not good enough to draw any firm conclusions". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with Hall, so I'm not sure what that it is. You raise a good point that "Turban's study" is ambiguous.  I'm fine with including the 2022 language to clarify.
 * That is the exact quote from Section 12.2 the Cass Report:
 * "The quality of the studies was not good enough to draw any firm conclusions, so all results should be interpreted with caution. "
 * https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf
 * If you want to provide the exact quote, I'm fine with that. PerseusMeredith (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly this to me screams WP:OR Snokalok (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And that’s before getting into the BLP concerns Snokalok (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."
 * Above is the definition of OR. The citation is directly from the Cass Report.  A multi-year review commissioned by the United Kingdom's NHS and widely cited and discussed in all major media.  The Cass Report specifically cites and reviews Turban's work and questions its quality.  I don't understand how this would be OR? PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also look at my comment below. Turban is a very low regarded scientist by many other scientists. Together with Florence Ashley they are the two main dominant TRA voices, but with the WPATH Files and Cass Review (and many preceeding publications) this is now under the attention that they were heavily wrong on GAC. ESCAP has now also joined the team of Genspect, Cass Review, WPATH Files (why is this not an article yet?!), SEGM, Zucker, Bailey, Blanchard, Bradley, Levine, Sapir, Shrier, Joyce, Soh, Hakeem, Stock, Moutot & Stern (French Transmania bestseller book), Kaltialo and many other prominent figures in this field. The consensus is moving rapidly and the lines are closing in fact.  2A02:A443:5030:1:6450:585E:5958:E7C3 (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you notice, the research is allowed on the wikipedia page. But the voluminous criticism, is not permitted. PerseusMeredith (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, but the Cass Review's criticisms of Jack Turban haven't been widely publicized, meaning that including it and citing the Cass Report would be using a primary source on a BLP (huge nono) and if you read the entire WP:OR page, you'd see that OR includes not having secondary or tertiary sources to establish notability. Snokalok (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * that’s a fair point. However, it is now getting coverage.  Dr. Turban referenced it and the Post has an opinion that references it.
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/03/transgender-puberty-blockers-science-cass-report/?isMobile=1
 * The panel notably includes Jack Turban, a University of California at San Francisco child psychiatrist and a vocal supporter of broad access to gender-transition treatment. This week, he lashed out at the Cass Review on X and asserted that the associated literature reviews “scored some of the studies incorrectly.” Turban didn’t mention the reviews deemed a few of his own widely referenced papers to be low quality. PerseusMeredith (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We’re citing a partisan opinion piece. That’s not no weight, it is definitely coverage in a major news source, but a single opinion piece is not enough to stand on its own for a BLP, particularly for declarations of fact. Snokalok (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)