User talk:Jessehutch19

Edits at Doreen Granpeesheh

Hi there. You said in your edit summary that We can provide any proof and documentation you need. While I don't want you to out yourself, I was wondering if you could elaborate briefly on who "we" are? Do you have a connection with Granpeesheh and/or CARD? If so, I would recommend reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest, and paid-contribution disclosures. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, but as someone who knows what she has done for the autism community, having slander on the page is not ok. There is enough misinformation in the autism space. You said it is "well documented" that she said that in the film. That is NOT the case. Citing Andrew Wakefield is not evidence. Though she was in the film, she didn't make any kind of statement about vaccines causing autism and it's reckless to insinuate as much. If you want to state that she said something she didn't, provide the timing in the movie or a transcript. Not "she agrees with everything Andrew Wakefield does" and provide no evidence to the fact. Jessehutch19 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we use secondary sources to verify content, particularly controversial content. Of the citations in that paragraph that I have access to, all of them verify Granpeesheh's participation within the documentary, as does the credits list for the film itself. The sentence 'not detoxifying from the vaccinations' and can be treated with detoxification is also verifiable via the review in Science-Based Medicine, the work by Metwally, the book by Berman, and the book Gøtzsche. The later two sources, the books by Berman and Gøtzsche are considered to be among the highest quality reliable sources that can be used on a Wikipedia article. Accordingly the verifiability policy threshold is met, as is our policy on biographies and content about living people.

As such, I'll ask you once, will you please self revert this second removal of the well sourced content, as it is completely improper to remove that content? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't revert a removal that is not factual. Have you, yourself, seen the documentary? You've stated her "participation" but not statements that SHE herself said. The paragraph talks about Andrew Wakefields views, so it shouldn't be on her page. Participating in a film is a long stretch from her participating and "stating that vaccinations cause autism". She didn't say that at any point.

So the paragraph, instead of a false narrative, should say that Dr. Granpeesheh participated in the documentary but disagrees with Andrew Wakefields positions. You can't state she said the words "vaccines cause autism" when that was never stated at any point. You've clearly not seen this and it's odd that you would want a statement so damaging on her Wikipedia page when there is no reference to HER actually saying the words. Go watch the documentary then comment back.

Anyone who watches documentaries knows that participants don't always agree with the documenter. Jessehutch19 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that I have reverted you. I have seen the documentary. I also rewatched the relevant bits before proposing and then adding that content. Anyway sideswipe is correct that your interpretation of the doc is irrelevant if we have reliable secondary sources. But as I said in my edit summary, see the 18 and 49 minute marks. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The Granpeesheh article is an editor minefield, to say the least. As someone who also knows what Granpeesheh has done I do believe she deserves a more complete and in-depth article describing her history and current work. Granpeesheh broke new scientific ground and innovated with her ABA treatments. I say this as somebody who has never met Granpeesheh or is in any way associated with her business. But I do have knowledge of the autism space. Unfortunately, a few strong-willed and opinionated editors who at various points have stated they believe she is a fraud or that ABA treatment is a fraud, have taken it upon themselves to control the article. As such, any informative or positive content has been removed. The material was removed even though it did have valid sources. Only negative content remains, and although there are claims the material is properly sourced anybody who actually watches the film will realize the filmmaker took her statements out of context.

Elsewhere much has been written about how women subjects in particular are treated poorly by Wikipedia. Granpeesheh is an example, IMO. The best solution is to gather a larger group of neutral editors to independently review and talk through the content. If anybody reviews the article's history it is easy to observe that the article was full featured at various points. So, given a group of neutral editors who understand Wikipedia's rules the article could be restored to a much better state. MarsTrombone (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jessehutch19 - I wholeheartedly agree with your attempted edit. However it is likely going to take somebody with a deep understanding of Wikipedia's living biography, neutral POV and slander guidelines to really make a difference here. A more productive approach would probably be to seek out recent and alternate interviews and news articles about Granpeesheh. MarsTrombone (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Doreen Granpeesheh

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Doreen Granpeesheh. Related to our discussion above, I've now asked for outside input at the BLP noticeboard. You may wish to participate at that location. Thanks Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Hello, Jessehutch19, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as MarsTrombone (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Not true at all. I have one account, this one. I don't know who owns that account. I don't edit much on Wiki. I saw some misinformation and tried to change it. That's all. But correcting wrong information to correct information seems to be difficult and not worth the efforts. At least people will see I tried and do their own research. 192.159.179.26 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith I find your accusation demeaning. It is inaccurate. For the record I do not know Jessehutch10, nor have I met with him or otherwise been 'coordinating' with Jesse. This talk page is the first I've noticed Jesse's edits. I would concur with Jesse though, that the current page on Granpeesheh is slander. MarsTrombone (talk) MarsTrombone (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunate. But that is how Wikipedia works. It's not about "facts". It's about which editors have more control. Obviously some have certain "opinions" of her and want to paint her in a way that fits their narrative. Anyone who takes 5 minutes to research her will see that the last paragraph of this page is complete crap. Jessehutch19 (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"Anyone who takes 5 minutes to research her will see that the last paragraph of this page is complete crap." In theory we can do this research and demonstrate the page's statement is false with sourced research. I can collaborate on research, but basically somebody needs to find a recent sourced counter-statement from Granpeesheh.

At one point this version of the article existed. This Granpeesheh content is sourced from multiple valid news sources. MarsTrombone (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I found two recent Primary Source references that show that Granpeesheh supports vaccines and supports giving vaccines to children. See - Granpeesheh interview Youtube of Oct 2022 Also a primary source Fox News interview from 2011 also appears neutral to pro-vaccine - See Fox News interview. Maybe there is something even more recent? At the least a well sourced pro-vaccine statement from Granpeesheh would be helpful.

In order to prevail there must be a strong counter-argument to the statement's inclusion. Here are some possible positions:

WP:MEDRS

Medical opinions, without evidence are strongly discouraged. Including any statements from Granpeesheh on vaccines in an encyclopedia is problematic because Granpeesheh is not a medical scientists, she's a psychologist. Her opinions whether positive or negative will be viewed as medical advice and ethically any article should not provide medical advice, even when presented as an opinion. This would be true whether her opinion was voiced in a documentary or given in a NY Times interview.

WP:ECREE

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;

Yes she did an interview for the film, but a claim that she's anti-vaccine requires exceptional sources especially given that no other such claims from her can be found anywhere.

WP:LIBEL

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. The material is sourced, but taken out of context.

WP:BLP

Biographies of Living Persons require extraordinary care to avoid defamation.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives

I'd propose picking the strongest position and making a counter-argument. MarsTrombone (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)