Talk:Sylvain Charlebois

Consumer Advocacy
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 am watching this article to see if administrative action might be needed. Edits must improve an article. Your recent changes to remove advertorial text are good, but leaving it at "Charlebois wrote an op-ed on 21 February 2021" is not. It is fine to note attributed claims in the op-ed without the flowery language. The npr.org report seems to be suitable for that. Please strive to fix the article rather than taking it to the opposite of how you found it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Purpose of talk pages
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 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)
 * Can you check if there's a probably link between and ?  is blocked on French Wikipedia. It should be blocked here and probably  also. Thank you.

is also reverted and suspicious too on French Wikipedia.--Pastelli (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Continued edits by accounts already flagged for conflict of interest including. User's edit history includes SC and SC-related topics, likely COI with SC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoonersFan (talk • contribs)
 * Anything to declare, ?--- Possibly (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For years multiple accounts have been allowed to contribute puffery and whitewash particular elements of the subject's background and advance the subject's narrative. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a source... SchoonersFan (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The situation on fr-wp
Hello, apologies because English is not my mother tongue. FYI I blocked editors on fr-wp. The article about Charlebois attracts many SPA. 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: =  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 Thanks for that. I will post your comment content, up to coin.    scope_creep Talk  12:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi  =  See RCU. What a surprise, another sockpuppet! Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 12:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bédévore and scope creep. I have added extended-confirmed protection to the page for three months and I have indef blocked Janvez, Yaskyask, DALalumni, and GenesisPRO based on the evidence from French Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations and their behaviour here. Foodprofessor is already username-softblocked. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, there's another suckpuppet on fr-wiki : check. The Professor should have mercy on that great fan of his and send them a signed copy of all his books, it will be the ultimate gift for the sockpuppeter. Anyway there's a page on the Janvez's sockpuppets fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Janvez. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 17:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Yip, another one. The pace of change on the article has stopped now, which is good.  I did a search for that editor and couldn't see it, so perhaps they have given up the ghost, although I suspect somebody will be in, in the next 2-3 months to update it. Maybe the CU guys will check on it, if it flairs up again. I will keep an eye on it.   scope_creep Talk  17:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi FYI Janvez = 24.138.40.15 = Atkcp fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/juin 2021 - 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)
 * I requested the same protection here to, the situation is back here too.--CAQeux (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * = : see Sockpuppet_investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline--Jean-Mahmood (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Recurrent vandalism
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)


 * I was the one who did the edits this page. I am not from the dairy industry (in fact, lactose intolerant).
 * There is no agenda from my part. I simply reinstated a story from Sylvain Charlebois, which was highly publicized, and factual. I provided news sources and properly referenced the page. This is ultimately an important story that gained national attention and led to the stepping down of a dean from a high-profile university. However, this story was completely removed.
 * I believe there is an agenda to whitewash Sylvain Charlebois' name and completely erase this story. I don't believe that Sylvain Charlebois should be demonized for the bullying investigation done against him. I simply think it's important to prevent this story from being completely removed from his bio (as has been attempted multiple times). Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's actually been editors with agendas both pro- and con-Charlebois, both here and on the French Wikipedia (see above). This is why I treated you with suspicion initially, Ariel.  —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 16:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you jekse, and I actually agree that maybe I did a bit of overemphasis on the investigation scandal, which is why I think the current version in the Charlebois article is a happy unbiased medium.
 * One more thing. You reinstated the "consumer advocacy" subsection on his page. But note that this "consumer advocacy" subsection is redundant with two paragraphs on his "studies" section. Should I go ahead and try to remove this section again? Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 16:41, 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)
 * Neutrality cuts both ways. You can't 86 a claim that has reliable sourcing (the CBC) to back it up. And unlike the source that was pushed in the past, this CBC source is explicit that it was due to the investigation, where the prior source merely implied it - something I explained to Ariel last time, so good on them for taking the criticism to heart. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This page should either be deleted or protected even further. CFPR2021 (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no over stating. It is mentioned in one sentence. It is history, and whether it happened ffour years ago or last week has no relevance over the matter. The fact is that Sylvain Charlebois quit his position as dean, partly because of an investigation against him for bullying (Charlebois admits himself that the investigation played a role in the resignation). There are seven national media sources mentioning the story, and the page count on this story is the largest from all sources about Charlebois in google news. So it is perhaps the largest news story about him (by google news page count metrics).
 * Why is a one-clause mention an overstatement? No one is accussing charlebois of being guilty, nor there is mention of wrong-doing rom his part.
 * Going to such length at erasing this event is quite suspicious, though. Especially since CFPR2021 belongs to the same institution as Charlebois belongs. It does show that there are private interests in erasing this story about an scandal involving him. Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about celebrating people; it is about providing a reliable bio. Fact of the matter is that this is Charlebois' most read news piece on google news (by hit count).
 * I am not here to celebrate nor demonize Charlebois. I know nothing about him, not I am aware about his off-wiki fights. I am, however, against arbitrary attempts to control information about him—be it positive or negative. There is a clear attempt to erase a big controversial story about him, on the basis that it is irrelevant information. Let the reader decide whether his story is relevant or not.
 * There is information control and censuring to advance a living person's cause, and I am against this. Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nosfer, I'm going to tell you the same thing I just told CFPR - do NOT play at guessing at anything involving a user's real life identity. We take it seriously enough to the point that even incorrect guesses are met with indefinite blocks. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 21:14, 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)
 * Keep this up, and you'll be the one facing sanctions. Nosfer's edits have been by-the-book. Even when I did revert him it was mainly over WP:COATRACK concerns, not for want of sourcing. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

With respect to the recent edits
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^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 23:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The investigation should be in the article - but it should only be a one-sentence mention, be sourced, and it cannot be in the lede section. This edit was not acceptable.
 * The biographical claims which are sourced almost entirely to his writings need to be removed unless no reasonable person could feasibly contest them.
 * The neologism-related claims need to stay out unless there's evidence people other than him are using them.
 * Timeframe for any given claims is irrelevant. Saying something was "4 years ago" completely misses the point of an encyclopaedia article. All that matters is that it is (1) sourced and (2) given appropriate weight.
 * Editorialising in edits should be avoided, full fucking stop. This edit is a good example, as it blatantly assumes the position that Charlebois' assertions are correct.


 * Thank you jéské and I apologize for any wrongdoing in any of my edits or in the talk page. I’m learning about how to edit biographies and want to make sure that this page (like any other biography) is accurately represented.


 * I agree to abide over the rules you have set, and will make edits in accordance to them (not only here but extrapolating these rules to any other page). Likewise, I will watch out for any edit violating the rules set above.
 * I appreciate your mediation and mentoring on this case. Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And since I posted this, CFPR2021's been blocked as a sockpuppet, apparently based on technical evidence, of User:Janvez, who's the main "pro-Charlebois" sockmaster. Bear in mind that this is not a licence to bias the article in any way. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. Another sockpuppet use by Janvez, that's hilarious. Always the same argument: "other people want to harm his reputation and they're paid by his opponents among agricultural producers". Janvez never admits that they're here to "enhance" Charlebois's reputation in every possible way and, of course, they never admit they use multiple accounts. - Bédévore [knock knock] 19:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In my defence, I'm not as familiar with Janvez as I am with other sockmasters, since I generally don't edit in this topic area. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * An editor, swearing using the F-word. Classy. Just classy. Nosfer ariel65 knows Charlebois personally and doesn't like him, but uses Wikipedia as a forum for revenge. Trashing people just because you disagree with him is not ok. Mona merry Blue (talk) 11:48, 27 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)


 * I wouldn't characterise it as "my" rules so much as it is my summary of Wikipedia policy as it applies here. I never intended it to be seen as my attempting to dictate article content and if I came across that way I apologise. Still, keep doing good work; the more we can bring this to a neutral, well-sourced state, the better. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 03:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nosfer ariel65 has a personal vendetta against Charlebois, and you can't even see it. He's made countless changes in the last 5 days, clearly an obsession. Quite pathetic frankly. With your blessing, it appears Wikipedia can easily be morally bought. Shame on you. Mona merry Blue (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What is your connexion to CFPR2021? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:52, 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)


 * I've filed a sockpuppet investigation. I don't think this is a disinterested new editor; I'm thinking it's another Janvez sockpuppet and if so they're not going to give you the time of day. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:55, 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)


 * For example, Charlebois did indeed coined the term "shelflation". Just do one search on google scholar. He's first author of the first study that comes up: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/14/2059. Also, he has over 200 publications, just on google scholar. Look it up. He's top in the world in food traceability, food value chains. Your 48 minimizes his work. Thirdly, the CWB did critic Charlebois' report on the Daily Price Contract, but they ended the program just weeks after Charlebois' publication came out. Source: https://www.producer.com/news/new-cwb-program-replaces-daily-price-contract/ Mona merry Blue (talk) 00:28, 28 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.

https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/faculty/management/school-of-public-administration/SCharlebois.pdf

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 won't, but putting stuff like this down is still a good idea anyway, as it cuts off any wP:BLP-related shenanigans they try to pull. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 19:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Possibility of an increased protection level
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/w/index.php?title=User:Dairy_collusion&action=view

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)


 * There is a sockpuppet investigation currently live for this guy; I'd add the sockpuppets there. The problem with upping the prot is that it'd screw you over as well, as the next level up from semi-protection (10 edits/4 days) is extended-confirmed (500 edits/30 days), which may weigh against granting it. Nevertheless, if you feel it's needed, you can request at WP:Requests for page protection/Increase. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 17:56, 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)


 * As an update, the two most recent accounts are now off the board, thanks to CheckUser. Janvez is also starting to target me, but after you've dealt with a guy who believes Colonel Sanders and Tupac are alive and fighting aliens and a man whose entire modus operandi is off-wiki harassment nothing he does intimidates me. (And for the record, I don't know Charlebois from Adam and could care less about his views. What matters to me is the extensive history of sockpuppetry here.) —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:36, 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)


 * @Jéské Couriano I believed we had settled matters over how Sylvain Charlebois' edits would be portrayed regarding the scandal. It does seem like there was a new edit again trying to whitewash his name, emphasizing that he was innocent in the scandal.
 * We're going to go back to the same edit was that's been going on repeatedly Jervis49 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit doesn't seem to be coming from a sock puppet, unlike the ones made before. But I believe there might be a conflict of interest. The user who edited the passage has edited multiple times the National Post, where Sylvain Charlebois is a regular contributor. While this is not a clear-cut conflict of interest, I would like to be clear in two theories: (i) This was not the result of suck-puppet acitivity but; (ii) there is a latent possibility of a conflict of interest, which is hard to prove, but that also should not be fully ignored. Jervis49 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Buttergate
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)


 * Have you filed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Janvez? From the looks of it their only edits are to boost Charlebois, which fits Janvez' MO. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not. I do not have experience of making such filings. If you want to do this, please go ahead. If I ought to, I'll try to figure it out. CT55555 (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Evidently this is a sock that had been held in reserve; French Wikipedia blocked them indef in March as a CU-verified sock. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 01:15, 20 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)

COI tag
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 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)

Should ‘career’ move to lede section?
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)


 * The purpose of the lede is to summarise the most important aspects of the article, so naturally there will be overlap. Ben MacLeod (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)