Talk:Sherri Tenpenny

Expanding Article

This woman has been in the news a lot lately and I think it should be expanded. I'll give it my best shot and see what is out there on her. I'm going to work on this "live" so please feel free to throw your hat in.Sgerbic (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay I think I'm done. Added all the recent articles about Tenpenny, all seem to be about the recent cancellation of her Australian lecture tour. If someone can find mroe, maybe about her life, career and education it might help the article. I've also listed her four books.Sgerbic (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct name for her Doctoral degree

Tenpenny's published CV here refers to her degree as a "Doctor of Osteopathy", which is what the article currently says. An IP editor has suggested changing this to a "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine", citing the comment at her profile here which says she "received her training as an osteopathic medical doctor".

Can anybody provide a reliable, independent source which can settle the question definitively?--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The correct name is "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/about-osteopathic-medicine/Pages/default.aspx or from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine139.52.17.25 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Those seem to support that there is such a degree as a "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine", but nothing there indicates that Tenpenny obtained that particular degree. Indeed, they do not refer to her at all. So we are in the same position - the only reference which makes a specific statement about Tenpenny's degree is her CV, which refers to her degree as a "Doctor of Osteopathy".--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite the same position. If one degree exists (her college says so) and the other doesn't, she can only have the one that's real. And it's a pretty reasonable assumption that what she wrote on her CV refers to the degree that does appear to exist, “Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.” (Still, it would be nice to get the college to verify her degree specifically.) –P₁h₃r₁e₃d₁₃ (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This source says that she received a D.O. from the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine in 1984. Apparently D.O. stands for "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine", according to the WP page Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. Thus, I support changing it as proposed by the IP. Everymorning talk 14:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

" which oppose established scientific consensus." You have a link that suggests verification of that statement. But is not verification of that statement. wikipedia misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.184.226.102 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

I am concerned that there is no information about her post medical school training. It is highly irregular to graduate residency and be "director of emergency services" for a hospital prior to a residency. (She is listed as such merely 2 years after graduation. Typically this is a position that held by a physician who has an emergency medicine residency (4 years after medical school), board certification, and around 10 years of experience.)

Sincerely a concerned physician. 2600:100F:B05A:7EDB:6D78:2722:AED2:815D (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

While this may be the case, the only source we have states that she was employed as an emergency department director during this period. - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Info box extentions

I'm all for the expanded info box for Tenpenny. Shown here in this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sherri_Tenpenny&oldid=1028189970 Sgerbic (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I'd hoped we were done with the major issues in all the articles listed at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Anti-vax_report_published_in_The_Hill. I hope this is the last. I've avoided infobox disputes, even before I became aware of the sanctions for them: WP:ARBINFOBOX2, and am not very familiar with the general consensus around them beyond the need to keep them brief and highly focused on notability, with the exception of some general information. Even if there weren't multiple other articles where nearly identical problems had apparently already been resolved, this looks like rather blatant RECENTISM. Copied below for discussion: --Hipal (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine activism, advocacy for alternative medicine, and spreading misinformation, including COVID-19 misinformation

References

@Hipal: Is it WP:RECENTISM if it covers over two decades? £0.10's anti-vaccine activism didn't start with COVID-19.

Who writes these articles?

I'm guessing Far Left Liberals write these articles that accuse people who they don't agree with of being Conspiracy theorists..Instead of Claiming that these people spew out Disinformation you should prove that they are spewing out Disinformation. Sopranos44449 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see she's actually characterized as a conspiracy theorist. The lengthy section on misinformation is extensively supported by reliable sources, which are our bread and butter here. soibangla (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Way to show your agenda Soprano4449. Sgerbic (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Soprano4449: Accusations of us simply being far left liberals without evidence are disruptive to Wikipedia and are prohibited. If you have an actual content complaint, you will need to clearly specify it. Your comment as is is not actionable. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Twitter ban

Tenpenny was suspended from Twitter in early June 2021: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/09/sherri-tenpennys-bizarre-anti-vaccine-testimony-was-long-time-coming/, https://www.techtimes.com/articles/262335/20210702/anti-vaxxer-covid-19-vaccines-magnetic-suspended-twitter.htm, https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/07/01/twitter-suspends-account-ohio-doctor-who-claimed-covid-19-vaccine-causes-magnetism/

PPP loan relevancy

Just starting a discussion re. the PPP loan section started by Ari T. Benchaim. Soibangla undid it with questions about notability. Is it notable considering she is known for spreading/perpetuating COVID-19 misinformation, and this loan was to mitigate the effects of the pandemic? Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I would consider this to be relevant information for three reasons. First, it is a matter of public interest, in that it pertains to public funds. Two, I believe that a reader coming to this article trying to understand the character of any subject of a BLP is entitled to know about potential sources of influence, just as it is common to mention large donors to charities where the charity is kept up by the donation of a single large donor. Finally, it is relevant because it rounds out the picture of her economic activities. Since there's no doubt as to the veracity of the facts involved, and the information is not unduly prejudicial or presented in that way, there's no reason why it should not be mentioned. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Her anti-vaccination activism predates Covid by several years and she appears to be using the pandemic as a new channel to advance her long-held beliefs, unlike others who have specifically raised doubts about the legitimacy of the pandemic itself, and the vaccines specifically related to it. Thus I don't see a strong case for hypocrisy worthy of inclusion, and I don't find any other argument other than hypocrisy to justify its inclusion. If others disagree and it is included, I hope they will at least agree that it is not worthy of its own section. soibangla (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

As the original offender, I'm potentially inclined to not put into a separate heading.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe you're the original offender at all, but please provide a diff. --Hipal (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2021‎ (UTC)

I am. Diff [here]. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

January, as I mentioned. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

There's been edit-warring across multiple articles like this, with original additions going back to at least January, where PPP loans were given to people and organizations that deny the medical consensus around COVID. I don't recall in any of the multiple cases that clear, encyclopedic reasons have been provided for inclusion. It's a factoid, used to shame the subject. --Hipal (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You are making this point across a number of entries of people who have received PPP loans. There's an underlying assumption that being in receipt of federal funds you are legally entitled to is "shaming". I am unconvinced. Not only is this public and verifiable information, it is also a highly subjective interpretation. The article does not comment on it or make any complex statements about right or wrong, but simply reiterates a fact. I doubt a hypothetical reasonable person would think more or less of the subject but for the fact that they got a PPP loan. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

On the shaming: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/ppp-naming-and-shaming-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things/613894/

I did not say that it is impossible to construe evidence of receiving PPP loans as derogatory, but rather that such an interpretation is not necessarily common, nor self-evident (the way a negative conclusion about a person is more or less self-evident if one were to assert culpability for a serious crime, gross moral indecency or some 'loathsome disease'). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Do explain what encyclopedic context the references give, if it's something else. --Hipal (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

One, I am not on trial here. Two, kindly WP:AGF. Three, as a general rule, any funds received by anyone engaging in scientific discourse, or claiming to do so, is highly relevant (which is why journals require authors to disclose them). Four, it is not uncommon at all to discuss significant funders of e.g. 501(c)(3)s, and such discussion is legitimate. Five, the previous point is all the more valid where the funding is from the public budget. Six, it is absolutely preposterous that certain statements you think are derogatory towards a particular person need an express justification for inclusion if they are well-attested, well-referenced, true, relevant and not defamatory. Is there a good reason why such information should not be included? It would be regrettable if the decision as to whether to include Tenpenny's receipt of a PPP loan hinged on one person's subjective determination that such a statement constitutes 'shaming'. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no "trial" here. Please retract.

I've provided a reference that it's likely shaming. No one has demonstrated that it's something else by relying on the references. --Hipal (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you have provided an opinion piece in which the author claims that it is shaming. I might be more disposed towards your point of view if you had provided empirical evidence that a statistically non-insignificant proportion of people (say, at least a third, but preferably a plurality) consider it shaming or derogatory. I have given you alternative explanations for why this content might be relevant. There are objective, encyclopedic facts about people that some people will perceive as lowering the person in their estimation. The categories for what is unambiguously shaming have long been recognized: incompetence, crime, moral turpitude, 'loathsome diseases', the like. None of these is alleged here. Just as we do not stop including statements about, say, the Jewish origins or faith of some people just because it may lower them in the estimation of a vicious anti-Semite, there's no good reason to exclude content because some people may have a particularly unusual interpretation of it.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The ref is written by a staff writer at The Atlantic, and so shouldn't be ignored in favor of personal opinions. As there are no references being used to support any other viewpoint on the matter, we're at an impasse. --Hipal (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

By whom the article is written is blindingly irrelevant. The opinions of any one individual, no matter how eminent, are not a useful proxy for public opinion. Opinion writers at the Atlantic, or any other publication for that matter, regularly present opinions that are shared by no more than a tiny fraction of the population. It would take much more than an opinion piece here or there to lend credence to the assertion that information about PPP loans is derogatory of the person, or seen as such by a not insignificant part of the population. I think we are hardly at an impasse. We have here a piece of information we have no reason to doubt, information that is relevant and connected to the subject and not unduly derogatory. And we have one editor, so far, who believes that it is unfairly prejudicial because it is used for "shaming". And we are called to believe that this is indeed so based on a single source, rather than anything indicating that society at large considers receipt of PPP funds as shameful. I would note at this point that recipients of the PPP loans have expressly consented to the publication of their loan receipt and the size of their PPP loan. It is hard to make the case that someone is being shamed by disclosing an action they expressly agreed to having disclosed. I see little evidence for an impasse in the absence of a consensus emerging that would support your position. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

BLP requires consensus, and we're not making any progress toward it. --Hipal (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

WP:NOTHERE soibangla (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is a sudo-encyclopedia spreading lies and missinformation. you all need to be jailed or worse! Wikipedia is not a Linux root command. soibangla (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Use of Whitepapers / Over-reliance on news articles

Given that this page deals in part with scholarly topics it would be wise to use them rather than fact check sites and general news don't you think? Something like the selection here perhaps: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15&q=covid+19+vaccine+side+effects&btnG= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.210.91.213 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No. This article is about the person. --Hipal (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

POV lead

While not disputing the apparent craziness of her beliefs, it seems like the intro for this article could really be toned down a little, eh? Do we really need "disproven", "falsely" and a whole sentence about one cancelled lecture right in the first paragraph? Full disclosure: I'm an old boomer on this site, mostly inactive for the last decade, but I don't think this would've gone over well back in the day. WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPSTYLE and all that. Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I think the lede is fine as is. Sgerbic (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is too. It accurately reflects reality and no toning down is needed. It's all factual and well-supported by appropriate references. Yes, we do need disproven (many people mistakenly still think vaccines cause autism even though they don't so I think it's very important we are crystal clear about that). I disagree with your invoking BLPBALANCE and BLPSTYLE in this instance. And yes, with the rampant amounts of COVID-19 misinformation/disinformation, I think falsely should stay to appropriate characterize her statements as the pseudoscientific bunk they are. Frankly, this adherence to reality is a breath of fresh air. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you really think people who think vaccines cause autism are going to be swayed by a blatantly biased intro like this? I tend to think the opposite is true, i.e. they'll just stop trusting Wikipedia as a neutral source of information. That's why BLPBALANCE stresses a disinterested tone. I notice neither of you said why you disagree with my BLPBALANCE referral. Wknight94 ^talk 04:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not "blatantly biased" except in this sense: WP:YWAB.

It is not Wikipedia's job to try to convince as many loons as possible that they are wrong, but to outlay what the reliable sources say. When the reliable sources say that something is not real and that some person's ideas are rejected by experts, we say that. You should read WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning "back then, we used to do it differently" is not likely to convince any competent person. You need to give actual reasons instead. You know, reasons with substance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, and that's why I think Wikipedia used to be a trusted source, and now it's not. Now it's a series of soapboxes. Wknight94 ^talk 12:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wknight, I think perhaps you've misunderstood the purpose of this article. This is an encyclopedia, it was not written as a persuasive essay designed to convince people who mistakenly believe vaccines cause autism. Encyclopedic articles are simply meant to reflect the facts. This article does that. I agree with Hob. What you (WKnight) call a soapbox, I would call an unapologetically accurate depiction of Tenpenny. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Right. If we want to prevent people who mistakenly believe vaccines cause autism from stopping to trust Wikipedia as a neutral source of information, the only way to do that is to stop being a neutral source of information by pandering to their belief and pretending it is a viable hypothesis. If that happened, I would stop trusting Wikipedia as a neutral source of information. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what this has to do with the original question; if something's false, we can just say that it's false. I don't see a difference in the factual statement being made by "the false claim" and "the false, unproven, debunked, refuted, untrue, baseless claim that is untrue and false", other than that the second one is far longer and says the same thing multiple times. jp×g 03:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

We have already spent too much time trying to explain to WhiteKnight that the argument of "back in my day" isn't going to cut slack today. We don't "balance" articles about fringe topics or people. Done Now get off my lawn you meddling kids! Sgerbic (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: I don't understand this comment—who is "WhiteKnight"? jp×g 20:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Wknight94 has a valid point, in that it is possible to have a factual lead that is still biased. In this case I think the lead does need to be rewritten. To go through it line by line:

"Sherri J. Tenpenny is an American anti-vaccination activist who supports the disproven hypothesis that vaccines cause autism."

There is no mention of autism in the article except in this one instance in the lead. It is raised in the ref, but it is not emphasised and is only one of a number of things the ref says that she claims. As far as I know, Tenpenny is anti-vax in general, and isn't particularly focused on autism, so perhaps this should not be the first thing we emphasis.

"An osteopathic physician, she is the author of four books opposing vaccination."

Seems fair enough, and tells me who she is and what she does. Would make more sense as part of the first sentence rather than the second.

"A 2015 lecture tour of Australia was canceled due to a public outcry over her views on vaccination, which oppose established scientific consensus."

Absolutly true, but a relatively minor part of the article (one sentence under Anti-vaccination activism). Proportionally, it has much greater emphasis in the lead than in the body. I don;t think it meeds that much emphasis.

"A 2021 Center for Countering Digital Hate analysis concluded that Tenpenny is among the top twelve people spreading COVID-19 misinformation and pseudoscientific anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms."

Relevant, and I think significant enough to be in the lead.

"She has falsely asserted the vaccines magnetize people and connect them with cellphone towers."

Funny, but seems to suffer from recentism. What I'd be inclined to do is lead with a statement statement of who she is and her position (osteopathic physician, anti-vaccination activist, author), then a statement of her claims (more general than just autism) and a clear statement that her stance on vacciation does not match the scientific consenus. Then a statement about COIVD - probably the Countering Digital Hate claim - and the response (banned from Twitter, cancellation of lecture tour, etc). - Bilby (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The magnetisms must stay, it might feel recent but it went all over the media. I also think keeping the cancelled lectures should remain and expand the article about it happening. Sgerbic (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Autism

Contradicting a postulate is not "disproving" it. The problem with vaccines causing autism is that it would be quite difficult to proof although there are cases where autism-like conditions occurred after vaccinations. There is always the possibility that other potential causes had been present. --105.12.4.204 (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Read post hoc ergo propter hoc. Given two events that happen sometimes, it is unavoidable that one happens after the other now and then, without both being causally connected in any way. Also, read WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)