This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest and
neutral point of view.
|
|
|
Users are making claims that aren't verifiable. Cannot say consumers were dismayed without citing it. Cannot claim that Charlebois coined the term buttergate without citing it - it's actually not true, the first person to use the term in association with the issue was journalist Denise Wong well before Charlebois did ( https://twitter.com/DeniseTWong/status/1344049936975851522 ). Cannot claim farmers are feeding their cattle palm oil without citing it, that is misleading as the issue actually concerns small amounts of a feed supplement that contains a palm by-product - it's not like they are feeding them pure palm oil. Cannot claim there exists a social contract without citing it. Foodprofessor ( talk) 01:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have removed a comment here that seemed to be speculation about the identity of another editor. At Wikipedia, that is known as WP:OUTING and repetition will result in an indefinite block. It is clear that some off-wiki coordination has led to people with a variety of conflicts of interest arriving here. You must understand that article talk pages are available to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. If anyone attempts to mock living people on this page or in the article ("amazing", "brilliant") they will also be indefinitely blocked. Please pay attention to my previous comment at #Consumer Advocacy above: edits should improve the article; it is fine to use npr.org to briefly describe advocacy using neutral terms. Edit warring over that will lead to questions about whether those involved are here to help the encyclopedia or are here to settle an off-wiki squabble (in the latter case, indefinite blocks would be required). Questions can be asked here or at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
DALalumni is also reverted and GenesisPRO suspicious too on French Wikipedia.-- Pastelli ( talk) 17:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Continued edits by accounts already flagged for conflict of interest including 24.89.229.255. User's edit history includes SC and SC-related topics, likely COI with SC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoonersFan ( talk • contribs)
Hello, apologies because English is not my mother tongue. FYI I blocked editors on fr-wp. The article about Charlebois attracts many SPA. Janvez kept writing promotional content + deleted any criticism + used edit warring + sock-puppets in a debate. See RCU. On the opposite side (people writing criticism), there are also sockpuppets and edit war: DALalumni = GenesisPRO see RCU. So... there are people creating fake accounts on each side to fight about Charlebois: this is getting ridiculous. The page is now under ECP. Maybe fr-wp sysop should just kick any SPA who writes about Charlebois. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 10:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi scope_creep FYI Janvez = 24.138.40.15 = Atkcp fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/juin 2021#Janvez, 24.138.40.15, Atkcp - 5 juin - fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Janvez. Now the extended protection runs for 2 years on fr-wp. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 09:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This page is constantly vandalized by dairy farmers with the intent to damage Charlebois' reputation. It happened again yesterday. This page needs to be deleted or fully protected. 2605:B100:B25:7274:1D39:87D:A274:4B3F ( talk) 16:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Nosfer ariel65 is overstating what happened 4 years ago. It was not an highly publicized "scandal". I'M at Dalhousie, the university funded his Lab. No point adding irrelevant information about him as Dean, since this page is about him as a scholar. Ariel is attempting to vandalize the page as a few others did in the past. -- CFPR2021 ( talk) 16:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
NOSFER ariel65 is in brochure of the living person policy. Should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uuughhhh ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's my take on everything thus far, coloured through the lens of WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Neutral point of view:
I would rather not have to start handing out discretionary sanctions warnings or open an Arbitration case because the factions here refuse to talk and listen. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I just made two changes to clean some self-promotional content, abiding entirely by the rules set above. Jéské, I am doing my best to be unbiased and go by the book. I know it’s been a touchy topic lately, and I was in the midst of the debate. But i still see a lot of content violating your rules above, and I’m doing my best to clean it while being fair to Charlebois’ studies Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
How many of the lates edits are damaging Charlebois’ name?
The elimination of repeated sentences? The fact that I changed “100 published articles” to “multiple articles” based on evidence from google scholar and his own CV? Or was it the reorganization of his studies based on chronological order?
None of the multiple edits I made over the past few days, (after jenske sanction a suspected sock puppet) included a bad word about Charlebois. Quite the opposite, I cleaned the page, eliminated repeated passages, corrected grammar issues. I am not obsessed over Charlebois; I am simply ensuring this page is neutral and factual.
If you provide me a tangible example of a bad-faith edit from yesterday’s batch, I will personally revert the edit. I promise. But please give me an actual example.
I am simply cleaning the page from self-promoted references. Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Instead of throwing personal attacks, Let’s make this constructive, Mona. Please tell me which edit(s) are you concerned about, other than the investigation clause. I am not an admin, but I will be proactive in correcting any of my own edits if you let me know the source of disagreement. Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 14:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In fact Mona, I fact-checked every claim and source. for instance, I left the claim that mentioned the food price index bring one of the 50 greatest achievements at Guelph U over the past 50 years.
Indeed, this price index was recognized as one of the greatest achievements, and I left it untouched. Props to Charlebois for that.
I truly think this is his greatest achievement in his career. If I had a personal vendetta against him, this would have been the first passage to be targeted. Instead, a corrected a typo on this passage to improve its readability.
Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 15:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Following my promise, I fact-checked the two claims that Mona provided.
1) the first claim is Charlebois has over 200 academic articles: False. Charlebois’ own CV shows 74 publications. Google scholar does show over 100 publications, but the vast majority are op-Ed and magazine articles which are not peer reviewed. Removing non-peer-reviewed sources, the count falls below 100. Web of science shows 47. Still, we should go by Charlebois’ own CV, who is the one tracking his own academic citations diligently. If Charlebois himself doesn’t count more than 100 peer-reviewed articles on his own CV, why should we make that claim? I hardly see how going from “> 100” to “many” is an attempt to damage Charlebois.
2) the second claim is that Charlebois coined the term shelflation: Mona referenced an academic article from 2022 to make the point. In Twitter, the term was first defined in 2021 by Matt Burgress. It was the first reported definition of Shelflation; months before Charlebois’ first tweet defining the word (and also before the referenced article).Though Burgress’ tweet was the first definition of shelflation, forums users used the term in Reddit in 2019 and 2021––far before Charlebois’ article appeared. It is fair to say Charlebois made the term popular. Still, virtually every use of the term shelflation is related to an interview or discussion involving Charlebois, and the term has under 1000 hits in Twitter. Thus, there is no evidence that people are massively using the term shelflation, and most of uses are in reference to Charlebois.
This is my response to Mona’s comments, withholding my promise. Though, I’m sure, it won’t make a dent to change the mind of any of the sockpuppets.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrMattBurgess/status/1437395662140751874 Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 13:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
It has been quite a ride over the past few weeks. Though I feel that the page still has a bit of pro-Charlebois sentiment—particularly the studies section, which overemphasizes hand-picked studies—I will avoid touching it further. I believe I have had enough influence on this bio (though with the honest intention of balancing matters).
I would like the admins to entertain the possibility of raising the pages’ protection level. There are two reasons behind this request:
1) the episode we experienced last week has been a recurrent event over the past five years, since Charlebois’ scandal first appeared on the wiki. Going back through the page history, I witnessed multiple editing wars with the intent of censuring the scandal story. It is likely, from the history, that the pro-Charlebois sockpuppets are waiting for things to calm down to launch a new editing spree on the page. This brings me to point 2.
2) At the moment, there are at least two suspected sockpuppets lurking on Charlebois’ related pages, accumulating ten edits to get back on the fight. The suspected sockpuppets are Dairy Collusion and Not a Dairy Farmer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Dairy_collusion&action=view
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Not_a_dairy_farmer&redlink=1
Their strategy is the same that was adapted by Mona Merry Blue: slowly make edits until the sockpuppets get auto confirmed status, which grants them access to Charlebois’ page.
I hope the admins entertain my request for increased protection level.
Note that increasing the protection level will leave me incapacitated from further edits, so there is no personal editing power gained from this request. Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 17:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I will requested. I am OK being screwed over it; the page is *relatively* clean now. I’ll add the sockpuppets and request the protection here.
either way, this quarrel led me to move to other pages and become a regular wiki contributor—so maybe one day I’ll see you folks as an extended-auto confirmed user ^_^. Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 18:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed the attacks from the pro-Charlebois puppets are getting toxic towards me also.
The pro-Charlebois puppets are implying I’m from the dairy industry. I’m not, and I could care less about this industry.
I am, however, getting concerned by the defamatory nature of the accusations.
I will advice any of the sock-puppets to act with the same decor and integrity that they would in real life, and avoid defamatory comments. My little knowledge about internet security has taught me the web is less anonymous than we’d like to think, and that IP addresses are easily traceable; and that forum fights that go out of control have a tendency to end up in legal courts. I’m not implying anything via this warning, nor this is an implicit suggestion that I will do an offline investigation—I’ve in fact moved into cleaning a few other pages.
This is just a reminder to the pro-Charlebois puppets to act with integrity and civility, avoid getting personal, avoid attacking groups, and please don’t suggest that anyone receiving bribes without proof of it. Online defamation is a delicate matter that is never safeguarded by an illusory anonymity blanket.
Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 15:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The same point of view pushing that is happening here also seems to be happening over at Buttergate (an article I started). A WP:SPA account just added in some pro-Sylvain Charlebois content that is clearly true, but sourced from primary sources (his own Twitter). I'd welcome more eyes on the page and recent edits. CT55555 ( talk) 20:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I did an investigation on Buttergate and the origin of the scandal. There is a CBC article on the origin of the scandal, and there is no mention of Charlebois. The story clearly indicates that it was journalist Julie Van Roosendal the one who made the scandal viral:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/buttergate-goes-viral-putting-palm-oil-fat-supplements-in-spotlight-1.5927194
Going back to 2021, I did find a few tweet fights between Charlebois and social media users over who sparked buttergate. In these scoial media brawls, multiple users were complaining that the Charlebois jumped on the Buttergate wagon late while self-proclaiming as the father of the scandal (read the full threads):
https://twitter.com/cardamomaddict/status/1452411857134919685 https://twitter.com/FoodProfessor/status/1387096777837400066 https://twitter.com/simonhoupt/status/1365065487437205510 https://twitter.com/chincy17/status/1484699473636904967
In these tweet fights, Charlebois himself eventually admits that Francis Hanlin was the one who brought Buttergate to mainstream media. So by no accounts—-news media or Charlebois himself—-Buttergate originated through Sylvain Charlebois' work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosfer ariel65 ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDLY remove what appeared to be positioning (aka spin) on his 2023 commentary, moved that commentary to the studies / reports section and removed the unsourced claim of numerous publications. I think the article reads fairly neutrally now.
I see the connected contributor declarations above, which will remain in perpetuity. However, I think the {{
COI}}
template in the article can be removed, now that it is written in what I believe is a balanced style. I'll pause for comments before doing so.
Toddst1 (
talk) 15:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
If you notices, 30% of the content in the career section overlaps with the content in the lede section. Why not merging both, especially since both passages are quite shirt. Any opposition to this? 83.240.170.104 ( talk) 11:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest and
neutral point of view.
|
|
|
Users are making claims that aren't verifiable. Cannot say consumers were dismayed without citing it. Cannot claim that Charlebois coined the term buttergate without citing it - it's actually not true, the first person to use the term in association with the issue was journalist Denise Wong well before Charlebois did ( https://twitter.com/DeniseTWong/status/1344049936975851522 ). Cannot claim farmers are feeding their cattle palm oil without citing it, that is misleading as the issue actually concerns small amounts of a feed supplement that contains a palm by-product - it's not like they are feeding them pure palm oil. Cannot claim there exists a social contract without citing it. Foodprofessor ( talk) 01:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have removed a comment here that seemed to be speculation about the identity of another editor. At Wikipedia, that is known as WP:OUTING and repetition will result in an indefinite block. It is clear that some off-wiki coordination has led to people with a variety of conflicts of interest arriving here. You must understand that article talk pages are available to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. If anyone attempts to mock living people on this page or in the article ("amazing", "brilliant") they will also be indefinitely blocked. Please pay attention to my previous comment at #Consumer Advocacy above: edits should improve the article; it is fine to use npr.org to briefly describe advocacy using neutral terms. Edit warring over that will lead to questions about whether those involved are here to help the encyclopedia or are here to settle an off-wiki squabble (in the latter case, indefinite blocks would be required). Questions can be asked here or at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
DALalumni is also reverted and GenesisPRO suspicious too on French Wikipedia.-- Pastelli ( talk) 17:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Continued edits by accounts already flagged for conflict of interest including 24.89.229.255. User's edit history includes SC and SC-related topics, likely COI with SC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoonersFan ( talk • contribs)
Hello, apologies because English is not my mother tongue. FYI I blocked editors on fr-wp. The article about Charlebois attracts many SPA. Janvez kept writing promotional content + deleted any criticism + used edit warring + sock-puppets in a debate. See RCU. On the opposite side (people writing criticism), there are also sockpuppets and edit war: DALalumni = GenesisPRO see RCU. So... there are people creating fake accounts on each side to fight about Charlebois: this is getting ridiculous. The page is now under ECP. Maybe fr-wp sysop should just kick any SPA who writes about Charlebois. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 10:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi scope_creep FYI Janvez = 24.138.40.15 = Atkcp fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/juin 2021#Janvez, 24.138.40.15, Atkcp - 5 juin - fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Janvez. Now the extended protection runs for 2 years on fr-wp. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 09:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
This page is constantly vandalized by dairy farmers with the intent to damage Charlebois' reputation. It happened again yesterday. This page needs to be deleted or fully protected. 2605:B100:B25:7274:1D39:87D:A274:4B3F ( talk) 16:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Nosfer ariel65 is overstating what happened 4 years ago. It was not an highly publicized "scandal". I'M at Dalhousie, the university funded his Lab. No point adding irrelevant information about him as Dean, since this page is about him as a scholar. Ariel is attempting to vandalize the page as a few others did in the past. -- CFPR2021 ( talk) 16:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
NOSFER ariel65 is in brochure of the living person policy. Should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uuughhhh ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's my take on everything thus far, coloured through the lens of WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Neutral point of view:
I would rather not have to start handing out discretionary sanctions warnings or open an Arbitration case because the factions here refuse to talk and listen. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I just made two changes to clean some self-promotional content, abiding entirely by the rules set above. Jéské, I am doing my best to be unbiased and go by the book. I know it’s been a touchy topic lately, and I was in the midst of the debate. But i still see a lot of content violating your rules above, and I’m doing my best to clean it while being fair to Charlebois’ studies Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
How many of the lates edits are damaging Charlebois’ name?
The elimination of repeated sentences? The fact that I changed “100 published articles” to “multiple articles” based on evidence from google scholar and his own CV? Or was it the reorganization of his studies based on chronological order?
None of the multiple edits I made over the past few days, (after jenske sanction a suspected sock puppet) included a bad word about Charlebois. Quite the opposite, I cleaned the page, eliminated repeated passages, corrected grammar issues. I am not obsessed over Charlebois; I am simply ensuring this page is neutral and factual.
If you provide me a tangible example of a bad-faith edit from yesterday’s batch, I will personally revert the edit. I promise. But please give me an actual example.
I am simply cleaning the page from self-promoted references. Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Instead of throwing personal attacks, Let’s make this constructive, Mona. Please tell me which edit(s) are you concerned about, other than the investigation clause. I am not an admin, but I will be proactive in correcting any of my own edits if you let me know the source of disagreement. Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 14:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In fact Mona, I fact-checked every claim and source. for instance, I left the claim that mentioned the food price index bring one of the 50 greatest achievements at Guelph U over the past 50 years.
Indeed, this price index was recognized as one of the greatest achievements, and I left it untouched. Props to Charlebois for that.
I truly think this is his greatest achievement in his career. If I had a personal vendetta against him, this would have been the first passage to be targeted. Instead, a corrected a typo on this passage to improve its readability.
Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 15:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Following my promise, I fact-checked the two claims that Mona provided.
1) the first claim is Charlebois has over 200 academic articles: False. Charlebois’ own CV shows 74 publications. Google scholar does show over 100 publications, but the vast majority are op-Ed and magazine articles which are not peer reviewed. Removing non-peer-reviewed sources, the count falls below 100. Web of science shows 47. Still, we should go by Charlebois’ own CV, who is the one tracking his own academic citations diligently. If Charlebois himself doesn’t count more than 100 peer-reviewed articles on his own CV, why should we make that claim? I hardly see how going from “> 100” to “many” is an attempt to damage Charlebois.
2) the second claim is that Charlebois coined the term shelflation: Mona referenced an academic article from 2022 to make the point. In Twitter, the term was first defined in 2021 by Matt Burgress. It was the first reported definition of Shelflation; months before Charlebois’ first tweet defining the word (and also before the referenced article).Though Burgress’ tweet was the first definition of shelflation, forums users used the term in Reddit in 2019 and 2021––far before Charlebois’ article appeared. It is fair to say Charlebois made the term popular. Still, virtually every use of the term shelflation is related to an interview or discussion involving Charlebois, and the term has under 1000 hits in Twitter. Thus, there is no evidence that people are massively using the term shelflation, and most of uses are in reference to Charlebois.
This is my response to Mona’s comments, withholding my promise. Though, I’m sure, it won’t make a dent to change the mind of any of the sockpuppets.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrMattBurgess/status/1437395662140751874 Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 13:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
It has been quite a ride over the past few weeks. Though I feel that the page still has a bit of pro-Charlebois sentiment—particularly the studies section, which overemphasizes hand-picked studies—I will avoid touching it further. I believe I have had enough influence on this bio (though with the honest intention of balancing matters).
I would like the admins to entertain the possibility of raising the pages’ protection level. There are two reasons behind this request:
1) the episode we experienced last week has been a recurrent event over the past five years, since Charlebois’ scandal first appeared on the wiki. Going back through the page history, I witnessed multiple editing wars with the intent of censuring the scandal story. It is likely, from the history, that the pro-Charlebois sockpuppets are waiting for things to calm down to launch a new editing spree on the page. This brings me to point 2.
2) At the moment, there are at least two suspected sockpuppets lurking on Charlebois’ related pages, accumulating ten edits to get back on the fight. The suspected sockpuppets are Dairy Collusion and Not a Dairy Farmer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Dairy_collusion&action=view
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Not_a_dairy_farmer&redlink=1
Their strategy is the same that was adapted by Mona Merry Blue: slowly make edits until the sockpuppets get auto confirmed status, which grants them access to Charlebois’ page.
I hope the admins entertain my request for increased protection level.
Note that increasing the protection level will leave me incapacitated from further edits, so there is no personal editing power gained from this request. Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 17:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I will requested. I am OK being screwed over it; the page is *relatively* clean now. I’ll add the sockpuppets and request the protection here.
either way, this quarrel led me to move to other pages and become a regular wiki contributor—so maybe one day I’ll see you folks as an extended-auto confirmed user ^_^. Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 18:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed the attacks from the pro-Charlebois puppets are getting toxic towards me also.
The pro-Charlebois puppets are implying I’m from the dairy industry. I’m not, and I could care less about this industry.
I am, however, getting concerned by the defamatory nature of the accusations.
I will advice any of the sock-puppets to act with the same decor and integrity that they would in real life, and avoid defamatory comments. My little knowledge about internet security has taught me the web is less anonymous than we’d like to think, and that IP addresses are easily traceable; and that forum fights that go out of control have a tendency to end up in legal courts. I’m not implying anything via this warning, nor this is an implicit suggestion that I will do an offline investigation—I’ve in fact moved into cleaning a few other pages.
This is just a reminder to the pro-Charlebois puppets to act with integrity and civility, avoid getting personal, avoid attacking groups, and please don’t suggest that anyone receiving bribes without proof of it. Online defamation is a delicate matter that is never safeguarded by an illusory anonymity blanket.
Nosfer ariel65 ( talk) 15:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The same point of view pushing that is happening here also seems to be happening over at Buttergate (an article I started). A WP:SPA account just added in some pro-Sylvain Charlebois content that is clearly true, but sourced from primary sources (his own Twitter). I'd welcome more eyes on the page and recent edits. CT55555 ( talk) 20:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I did an investigation on Buttergate and the origin of the scandal. There is a CBC article on the origin of the scandal, and there is no mention of Charlebois. The story clearly indicates that it was journalist Julie Van Roosendal the one who made the scandal viral:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/buttergate-goes-viral-putting-palm-oil-fat-supplements-in-spotlight-1.5927194
Going back to 2021, I did find a few tweet fights between Charlebois and social media users over who sparked buttergate. In these scoial media brawls, multiple users were complaining that the Charlebois jumped on the Buttergate wagon late while self-proclaiming as the father of the scandal (read the full threads):
https://twitter.com/cardamomaddict/status/1452411857134919685 https://twitter.com/FoodProfessor/status/1387096777837400066 https://twitter.com/simonhoupt/status/1365065487437205510 https://twitter.com/chincy17/status/1484699473636904967
In these tweet fights, Charlebois himself eventually admits that Francis Hanlin was the one who brought Buttergate to mainstream media. So by no accounts—-news media or Charlebois himself—-Buttergate originated through Sylvain Charlebois' work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosfer ariel65 ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDLY remove what appeared to be positioning (aka spin) on his 2023 commentary, moved that commentary to the studies / reports section and removed the unsourced claim of numerous publications. I think the article reads fairly neutrally now.
I see the connected contributor declarations above, which will remain in perpetuity. However, I think the {{
COI}}
template in the article can be removed, now that it is written in what I believe is a balanced style. I'll pause for comments before doing so.
Toddst1 (
talk) 15:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
If you notices, 30% of the content in the career section overlaps with the content in the lede section. Why not merging both, especially since both passages are quite shirt. Any opposition to this? 83.240.170.104 ( talk) 11:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)