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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove controversy section due to unreliable sources from opinion pieces, not confirmed news, malicious intent in including non factual information. 77TynyCae (talk). Bayanihan 00:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "In 2021, Mabulo's The Cacao Project was exposed as "fake", "exploits farmers", and "for-profit" by several social media content creators including Nas Daily and Project Nightfall. Nas explained that when they intended to feature Mabulo's project, they discovered on-ground that the cacao plants "were tiny and all dying" and that the only healthy cacao crops were those in the land of the Mabulo clan.[18] Nas further concluded that "there was no story" in The Cacao Project and that the awards it received were "just awards" as the 200 farmers claimed by Mabulo does not exist Mabulo's former classmate also called the project "not a social enterprise" as the land was owned by the Mabulo family." to "In 2021, Mabulo engaged in an online debacle with vlogger Nas Daily, which was investigated by the Philippine Commission on Human Rights for Nas Daily's behaviour and exploitation against Filipinos."
Language in original post is biased and one sided. Based on speculative unconfirmed information, when existing sources also refute claims [1]
Section only includes claims sourced from opinion piece vlog, not reputable confirmed source. 77TynyCae (talk). Bayanihan 01:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole section on "Controversy" should be removed, as well as the tags. The claims of The Cacao Project being fake have only one source and is a disputed one (the opinion of a vlogger). The original article had over 10 references, but now some of the tags are saying that "it needs more sources". I think it's against the reliable sources policy to accept the opinion of a vlogger to be of more weight than other of the references being added here (such as the UN or Forbes, to name a few). There's a clear intention to discredit the work that Louise has been doing and there might be a conflict of interest on the user doing some of these edits (the user has been editing the Tagani article which I understand is a competitor of Louise's work). This looks more like a personal attack on Louise and I'm afraid it might be against the BLP policies. Scann (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
