Talk:Doreen Granpeesheh

WP:MEDRS

user:TheSunIsAStar147147: You have reverted this edit, with the comment that it appears unconstructive. While I don't blame you for the mistake, if you look closely at the sources I removed you will see that all of them fail WP:MEDRS. Therefore unless you object I will re-instate the edit. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPSELFPUB

I have placed a "Like resume" tag on the page and proposed its deletion. This page is entirely based on self-published materials, resembles a resume, and does not meet the guidelines for notability. Gershonmk (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert of June 27, 2022

GordonGlottal: - You have reverted a WP:BRD edit - GordonGlottal's revert edit with a comment that the material is promotional and unsourced. Normally you are obligated to begin a discussion on this Talk page prior to your revert.

First, the material is brand new as of June 26, 2022 and was not copied or otherwise derived from the Center for Autism and Related Disorders article, or even previous article revisions, as you claim.

Second, every sentence of this material is appropriately sourced from objective, third-party reliable sources. The sources are brand new and do not reflect my previous edits as you claim. Self-published sources by Granpeesheh were not used. Two independent sources were provided for each biographical fact. Elsvier is a well known and respected medical and science book publisher. Behavioral Health Business is less well known, however the reporter has a Masters graduate degree in Journalism from the Columbia School of Journalism. The article she wrote is well written and appears to be accurate. As a third source, biographical material from the U.S. State department web site must be assumed to be accurate.

Second, no promotional or self-published sources were used. It is not clear exactly what you mean by "promotional", however because facts regarding Granpeesheh's career and early life would not ordinarily be considered promotional given that she is already successful, is already well known in the field and has received numerous awards.

It is now your responsibility to explain your substantive reasons for the revert. Please be specific about your reasons. Please explain exactly which sources or sentences you consider not valid. MarsTrombone (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

GordonGlottal: I am adding an additional comment on self-published sources, per Wikipedia guidelines. Your interpretations of the Wikipedia Guidelines is incorrect. But for the record, I did not use any self-published sources for the edit in question. However, it is not true that self-published or primary sources cannot be used for biographies of living persons. The Wikipedia Biography Guideline WP:BLP states that:

WP:BLPSELFPUB

Using the subject as a self-published source

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Granpeesheh has given numerous interviews about her life and career and per the guidelines WP:BLPSELFPUB these facts and narratives can be used as references to biographical content when they involve the subject, and are reasonably authentic and true and are not unduly self-serving. No self-published reference sources were used in my edit, however it is allowable to use them in a biography of the subject.MarsTrombone (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

it is not unduly self-serving. You can't just outflank other editors by switching to a related page. There's no brute-force tactic that will work. We've seen them all before. This is not a BOLD edit, because you knew other editors objected before you made it. As I and other editors told you at CARD, you need reliable sources. Sources which are reliable according to WP:RS, not your personal rubric. "the reporter has a Masters graduate degree in Journalism from the Columbia School of Journalism. The article she wrote is well written" is not relevant, as several editors specifically told you, when you made this exact same argument, for the exact same source, and the exact same claims, at CARD. The site has none of the requisite qualities for a reliable source. Granpeesheh's own uncorroborated promotional claims, no matter in what forum she publishes them, will never be appropriate here.

It is inappropriate of you to try this tactic. If you want to use these sources and include these claims, you need to convince editors in the ongoing discussion at Center for Autism and Related Disorders. Adding the content here again without consensus -- which you knew you lacked even before this first illegal edit -- will have the same result as adding it to CARD itself. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The book published by Elsevier is the primary source for all the Granpeesheh biographical content. Elsevier actually has it's own Wikipedia article. You did not dispute the Elsevier reference source. Behavioral Health Business (BHB) describes itself as an independent source for breaking news and up-to-date information on the mental health and addiction recovery industry. This news source has not been flagged as being an unreliable source. I checked and they do employ journalists from credentialed schools and universities of journalism who write their news articles. Unless BHB has been flagged as being an unreliable source I see no legitimate reason not to use them as a source and especially since this source is only used as secondary confirmation of the the Elsevier source. Further the BHB reference source involved a direct interview with the subject which is allowed as a subject fact source per WP:BLPSELFPUB.

The biographical information itself is non-controversial as it is only dates and facts related to Granpeesheh's childhood, education and business. I'll assume you don't object to the accuracy of the information and if you did object you would state specifically what you believe is inaccurate. MarsTrombone (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The publisher of the book is irrelevant when IT WAS AUTHORED BY THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE TO PROMOTE HER BUSINESS. The BHB article involved only a direct interview with the subject of this article, and doesn't in any way corroborate her claims. The onus is on you to provide appropriate sourcing for every claim, not on other editors to provide contradictory information. Truly bare bio information might be OK, but you included mostly promotional information which, again, you knew beforehand was objected to by the other editors who weighed in at CARD.

I'm not going to discuss this at length here. You don't have the right to start endless identical discussions on different pages in the hope of finding one where fewer editors weigh in. You need to respect the other editors' views at CARD and stop trying this or make a real effort to understand their objections and change their minds or compromise. Do so there, where you know full well there is an ongoing discussion about exactly these issues with several editors involved.

I'm going to repeat myself again: There is no brute-force tactic that will work. There is no tricky argument that will convince your fellow editors to ignore or forget the rules. There's no path to getting what you want if it's against policy. You're just wasting everyone's time. Follow the rules, use only appropriate sources, and wait for consensus. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You state "IT WAS AUTHORED BY THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE TO PROMOTE HER BUSINESS". That is your opinion, not fact. I believe the opposite; it is educational material not promotional material.

The Elsevier book was co-authored by respected academic authors, including Adel Najdowski, Ph.D., BCBA-D is an Associate Professor and Director of the M.S. in Applied Behavior Analysis program at Pepperdine University and Dr. Jonathan Tarbox is the Co-Founder and Program Director of the Master of Science in Applied Behavior Analysis program at the University of Southern California. In any event any characterization of the author's motive is not relevant to whether the reference can be used as source. Given that you mischaracterize this book as "promotional" your view on this source lacks credibility.

Further read WP:RS

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves"

and

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material."

There are many examples across Wikipedia biographies:

In the Bill Gates biography three interviews are used as primary source references:

• Gates, Bill. "An exclusive interview with Bill Gates". Financial Times 1 (2013). online
• Gates, Bill. "Remarks of Bill Gates, Harvard Commencement 2007". The Harvard Gazette 7 (2007). Online
• Kinsley, Michael, and Conor Clarke, Eds. Creative Capitalism: A Conversation With Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Other Economic Leaders (Simon and Schuster, 2009).

Numerous interviews are used as reference source material for Oprah Winfrey

In mountain climber Jon Krakauer biography multiple first hand sections from his auto-biographical book are used as primary source material.

In summary it is common to use primary, auto-biographical references and interviews as source material in Wikipedia biographies of living persons.

Given this new information you were not familiar with regarding the use of sources in biographies, do you still object to this primary source? MarsTrombone (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the last time I will respond here until the CARD discussion is closed. You MUST wait for the conclusion of that discussion before continuing here.

You're not listening to me. You cannot add promotional content. You cannot add promotional content. The technical requirements for sourcing may not apply to all cases (like bare bio facts) but they do apply, in 100% of cases, to promotional content. You cannot add promotional content. 12:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC) GordonGlottal (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Granpeesheh was born in Tehran, Iran, and went to school in England and Switzerland. Her father was the advisor to Iran's ministry of finance before the Shah of Iran was overthrown."

How is this statement in any way, shape or form "promotional" content? Why are the biographical standards for Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey or Jon Krakauer different than Doreen Granpeesheh? MarsTrombone (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence is OK by me (in that exact language). The second is inappropriate for a couple of reasons. #1, it's a claim about a person other than herself who is entitled to normal wiki bio sourcing protections. #2, it may be an exaggeration and isn't corroborated by any other source. This strikes me as a danger area in which people often burnish their past. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted content of June 30, 2022

Substantive rationale for content removal.

Negative content and potentially libelous material about a Subject requires extraordinary care. See WP:ECREE and WP:LIBEL This material is defined as "Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation" The quote the editor highlights may be factual, but appears to be taken out of context. This film (never publicly released in a theatre) is from 2016 and we don't know her reasons for participating, the context for the statement or her current position. Highlighting a specific quote along with the editor's conclusion can be perceived or taken as original research WP:OR which is also forbidden.

Recent Primary Source references indicate that Granpeesheh supports vaccines and supports giving vaccines to children. See - Granpeesheh interview Youtube of Oct 2022 An primary source interview from 2011 also appears neutral to pro-vaccine - See Fox News interview.

Further without context, the encyclopedic value of this information is very low. Unless extraordinary care is taken, per policy WP:LIBEL the quote and material should be removed. MarsTrombone (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Making clear to all editors that this discussion is over the inclusion of the following content:

In 2016, Granpeesheh participated in Andrew Wakefield's Vaxxed, a documentary which pushes his widely-debunked theory that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Granpeesheh features prominently in the film, claiming autism is caused by children "not detoxifying from the vaccinations" and can be treated by detoxification. Granpeesheh had previously worked for Wakefield at his clinic Thoughtful House.

It is never WP:LIBEL to include information which has been included in multiple RS. I didn't "highlight" a particular quote -- the reliable sources did. It's the only quote that was notable enough to make it into multiple reliable sources. There's nothing potentially libelous -- the entire point of wikipedia is that it summarizes reporting in reliable sources, whether you think that reporting is "negative" or not. There's no conclusion in it from me, every word is from reliable sources. It doesn't matter in any way what other comments she made if they weren't picked up by RS, but if it makes you feel better note that in 2013 she said this about not vaccinating her own children and advising parents about how to skirt vaccine requirements, and that she says in the 2022 Fox interview that she supports MRNA vaccines because they're different, which doesn't in any way conflict with her 2016 position. The film wasn't released in theaters because of the massive controversy over it -- just look at the RS at Vaxxed -- not because it isn't important. Again, we don't get to decide what's important and what isn't, only RS do. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I restored the information. The material is properly sourced and actually quite generous in the characterization. MartinezMD (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The content is fine, well sourced, and as MartinezMD said quite generous in its characterisation given the circumstances and nature of what Granpeesheh said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a more important policy violation and a substantive objection: per WP:MEDRS unsubstantiated medical opinions are forbidden even when reliable sources exist. Granpeesheh is not qualified to opine on this topic, therefore her opinion is not relevant for an encyclopedia. Per WP:MEDRS this is not a site to endorse or hype, rumors or fringe medical theories. Second this theory is WP:FRINGE, therefore including it may be promoting the theory or the film. Promotions are not allowed on Wikipedia. Third, since the theory is WP:FRINGE we don't have the full context to understand Granpeesheh's unqualified 2016 opinion, especially today in 2022 when the view of vaccines has changed. In this sense, without context it will be viewed as WP:LIBEL defamation by most educated readers. For all three policy reason the edit should be removed. MarsTrombone (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

First, read WP:BRD. Second, you do not seem to understand libel. Third, don't edit war. Fourth, you don't seem to understand WP:MEDRS. We aren't making the medical claim, Granpeesheh is. MartinezMD (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The quote is attributed and on her page, so I doubt people will confuse it for a normal wiki medical statement, but I have responded to feedback from three editors here that the language is too generous and may inadvertently promote a fringe view by strengthening and clarifying the sentence. I have imported the description of Vaxxed that we use on its page ("pseudoscientific propaganda") and the description of this theory we use on various pages ("false"). I was initially concerned about WP:SYNTH, using only the description found in the Variety source itself, and hoped to avoid a fight by using generous language. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think being a little generous here isn't a bad thing, but making it clearer is certainly helpful. I was going to try to talk to the opposing editor, but I see he just got an indefinite ban for repeated editing issues. MartinezMD (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the content. If it is RS'd, then there's not an issue. If BLP is a concern, then it can be worded as "source X said Y" instead of "Y is true." BooleanQuackery (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

References