Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Revert of removal of claim based on MEDRS sourcing requirements

An editor reverted my removal of very broad biomedical claims about human health in the article that absolutely does not meed MEDRS sourcing requirements. David Gerard, would you please explain your action beyond the edit reason given of "that's not what MEDRS says"?

Why i deleted that claim from the article: I removed the claim as it is a review-level claim (a review statement of the sort that would be sourced properly to a peer-reviewed review article in a medical journal) regarding human health, which would require MEDRS sourcing standard, and the source used is definitely not up to par in that regard. Also, the claim in the article is flawed anyway. It's based on this sentence in the source, which is an op-ed style essay: "It’s important to stress that experts in science and medicine have time and again debunked Hari’s claims that the ingredients discussed in this piece are as dangerous as she claims." Well, as i explain about Hari's claim regarding aluminum and disease in the next paragraph, the source distorted that claim's magnitude, and her claim does hold some truth. Aluminum has some link to breast cancer, and to Alzheimer's. Neither is definitive but assert potential links (read below the first para in the link regarding breast cancer), but Hari's claim is indeed nuanced in line with these reliable sources. (This double distortion of Hari's claims is emblematic of the nature of the bias that i see in the article, especially as it stood a couple days ago before some corrective edits were made.)

The claim in the article is "Hari claims that aluminum in deodorants leads to breast cancer" whereas the source reads "Hari links aluminum in modern deodorants to horrific diseases such as breast cancer and Alzheimer’s" and when i go to Hari's own writing on which this is based, i find she actually wrote this: "I researched the ingredient Aluminum, and found out it is linked to all sorts of diseases, including 2 that I sadly personally have witnessed in close friends and family members – Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. The link of aluminum to these diseases is hotly debated, some studies find a low risk factor (probably those funded by the chemical companies) and some find horrible results, like those studies that find aluminum accumulating in breast tissue or breaking the blood brain barrier leading to Alzheimer’s." So, there seems to be two levels of some distortion going on -- from Hari to the source, and then from the source to the Wikipedia article. Each distortion leans toward making Hari look bad. Hari does appear to have made a mistake there, and does recommend a deodorant that does contain alum, which does contain aluminum. That's her mistake. On the other hand, this article cannot use a blog to source a claim that aluminum is not linked to any disease, or any other claim involved. That's not ok, according to MEDRS, which is relevant here because this is a strong claim about human health.

Please take a deep breath and consider these things. SageRad (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Since this is discussion of WP:FRINGE claims, we utilize WP:PARITY to respond to Hari's claims here because by definition, mainstream sources described by MEDRS generally ignore fringe claims rather than spending time to debunk them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The claim in the Wikipedia article is that "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine." Among the chemicals in question is aluminum, perhaps the most prominent in the CSI source. Therefore by reasons of logic, this claim in the Wikipedia article is that experts in science and medicine refute that aluminum is dangerous... at all. And that is contradicted directly by a source that does meet MEDRS standards. Something is wrong here.

What qualifies the idea that aluminum is linked to Alzheimer's as "fringe"? On what basis are you citing fringe? What exactly are you calling fringe? Are you calling Hari as a person herself "fringe"? Or are you calling concern for exposure to some chemicals "fringe"? What exactly? Thanks in advance for clarifying. SageRad (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If I take forty-five seconds to look at Aluminium#Alzheimer.27s_disease, I see that "According to the Alzheimer's Society, the medical and scientific opinion is that studies have not convincingly demonstrated a causal relationship between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease." There are a number of single-study refutations tacked on after that, although single studies don't actually meet MEDRS - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It takes 30 seconds to click the link to the review-level article in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease that i provided above. Who are you or i to make the call on a complex topic on which we are not experts? SageRad (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a valid revert for the most part, as the article in questions cites a lot of articles and research by scientists. My one concern is regarding the 4-mel aspect. Technically Hari is right about 4-mel being a carcinogen, but as the article notes, so is pretty much everything else. Would this count as a valid claim of danger? Should this somehow be reworded to note that her claims of danger are "wrong or exaggerated?" Brustopher (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Technically, she's also right about there being "links" between aluminum exposure in bioavailable forms and Alzheimer's and breast cancer, as well. Who are we, or anyone except a MEDRS compliant source to make that judgment call? We're not known to be experts on the subject matter, as a matter of principle, in the editing process here.

I don't actually see any peer-reviewed articles cited by the CSI source. There are only links to two other blogs in terms of supporting documents: those of Mark Crislip and David Gorski, both seemingly polemics at another "skeptic" site. There seems to be no serious research done by the blog author, and even if there were, it still would not pass MEDRS. SageRad (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The article cites "Wang, S., S. Dusza, and H. Lim. 2010. Safety of retinyl palmitate in sunscreens: A critical analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 63(5): 903–906." Brustopher (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it does. I missed that one. Thank you for correcting me. That is a 2010 review, while Hari in her [http://foodbabe.com/2013/05/05/what-you-need-to-know-before-you-ever-buy-sunscreen-again/ cautions about sunscreens] cites the [http://www.ewg.org/2015sunscreen/report/the-problem-with-vitamin-a/ EWG report on sunscreens], which cites this study from 2012 by the National Toxicology Program which contains a study on mice exposed to solar sunlight that concludes that "Inclusion of retinoic acid or retinyl palmitate in the cream increased the number of tumors and decreased the time to appearance of tumors compared to animals given just the carrier cream." In the case of this chemical, the CSI source is using a 2010 review article, but Hari is using a source that listed a 2012 clinical study on mice that did show a correlation between retinyl palmitate and increased levels of skin cancer as well as the 2009 NTP data that showed the same. I'd say this is evidence that Hari was accurate when she wrote in 2013 that "A 2009 study by U.S. government scientists released by the National Toxicology Program found when this is applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, it may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions." The 2012 NTP paper did get poor peer review, to be fair, but i think Hari's quote is fairly correct in reporting the results of the NTP study. She could have but did not report the review article's conclusions. So the CSI source reports on one ingredient in its list of issues with Hari's cautionary warnings, and it's even one ingredient in her article on sunscreens that was cherry-picked to make a point, and Hari does cite later research than the 2010 review article in her warning on retinyl palmitate. I still have issues with the claim that is in the Wikipedia article currently. The CSI source does not show using MEDRS sourcing that Hari's warnings "have been strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine". It shows that for one ingredient of many mentioned, there is one review article that says RP is not an issue, and Hari uses later data than that review article. SageRad (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for answers from Kingofaces43 regarding what is "fringe" in this case? What domain is being called "fringe"? Still waiting for an answer from David Gerard to expand on the edit reason given in the revert: would you please explain your action beyond the edit reason given of "that's not what MEDRS says"? SageRad (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear why we should take this guy's opinion about a whole list of chemicals and their effects on human health to make a sweeping biomedical statement in Wikivoice:

Mark Aaron Alsip writes the skeptical science blog Bad Science Debunked (badscidebunked.wordpress.com). He has a bachelor’s degree in computer science with concentrations in math, life sciences, and electronics. His past work includes programming for the IDEX II project currently on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.

SageRad (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to realise that nobody is required to respond to your querulous demands to justify everything according to your own idiosyncratic reading of policy. Still waiting for you to understand the implications of your being in a minority of one.

Hari's claims are not made in the scientific literature. A few are directly contradicted by the scientific literature, but for the most part it is sciencey-sounding bullshit, and the expected venue for criticism and correction is the science advocacy community, and that includes people like Gorski and Novella. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring all of your derogatory adjectives and tone, i will answer you:

Yes, i expect Wikipedia editors to source claims properly, especially wide-reaching extraordinary claims about human health, which are subject to MEDRS.

Why would that be surprising? By the way, Gorski and Novella are nothing special. They're guys who blog. We are talking about real sources and about evidence here. That's the essence of skepticism. Skepticism is an attitude, not a lemming-like movement. The latter is ironically opposed to true skepticism. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You really do lack any talent for self-criticism, don't you? Aping the style of your querulous demands should have caused you to pause and consider the tone you are using. Instead, as always with you, the problem is everybody else.

Gorski and Novella are specialists in investigating questionable and fringe claims. It is what they are known for. Both are qualified academic physicians, Gorski in particular has a lot of research work to his name, they are scientists more than doctors, and critiquing pseudoscientific and pseudomedical bullshit is what they do. Hari's claims fall squarely within their remit, as far as I can see none of her work has been published in orthodox peer-reviewed journals so the most likely source of reality-based criticism will be precisely what we see here: professional scientists investigating bullshit in their spare time.

Skepticism puts the burden of proof for any claim on the person making it. That is a burden Hari fails to carry, and when she's busted, as for example on aircraft anf microwave ovens, she uses the one area in which she is qualified, SEO, to disappear the evidence to the best of her ability. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is clear. You are wrong. I do not engage with you. You are hounding me and you have outed me.

MEDRS is clear about what constitutes adequate sourcing for a medical claim about human health.

Thoughts on "skepticism movement" related but not about article content directly

Gorski and Novella are activists pushing a very strong POV and masquerading as "skeptics" when they are actually averse to skepticism that challenges their own agenda. I could pick my own "bullshit detection expert" and cite them, and yet it would not satisfy MEDRS. Guidelines on sourcing exist for a reason, and that is to prevent POV pushing as you are attempting to do here. "Skepticism" in the vein of Gorski and the source discussed in this section is not a coherent body and it is also not the dictum to which Wikipedia operates. It is a harmful ideology that is infecting Wikipedia at the moment, and it is very far from invoking the ideals implied by the word "skepticism", and seems more focused on vengeful takedowns of people who cross its own agenda which seems closely allied to the chemical industry. That's what i see, sociologically speaking. Skepticism is great, but the "skeptic movement" is anything but, and thankfully it is not the creator of Wikipedia nor is it in control of Wikipedia according to guidelines. Actual skepticism is in control of Wikipedia and that is how it must remain. True skepticism underlies science, and in questions regarding medical claims, Wikipedia is even more committed to following this true skepticism as embodied by the best scientific practice, to source all statements regarding medicine. There is no room for sourcing to ideologically biased people who pose as "skeptics" and yet do not practice actual skepticism.

Please drop all the personal insults and toxicity. It's not alright. SageRad (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The National Toxicology Program paper about vitamin A and similar compounds in creams uses a control cream that does not contain any UV-blocking agents. It's not sunscreen, it's skin cream with vitamin A. There's nothing wrong with the source, but it can't be used to make any conclusion at all about sunscreens, because vitamin A in the presence of sunscreens may cause a completely different effect. So, was there a specific issue with that paper? Also, how do you know it got poor peer review? Normally the actual review isn't published; the reception of a paper by the scientific community is a different thing than peer review in the sense of "peer reviewed journal." Roches (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I could comment on the content of your comment, but my main point here is that neither you nor i nor the computer programmer who wrote the CSI source piece are qualified to make such a judgment as you're making in your comment above about the relevance or the lack thereof of the NTP studies in regard to human use of sunscreen. (As an aside, though, the NTP paper published a peer-review session within the document itself, in lieu of peer-reviewed publishing.) As Wikipedia editors, we are tasked with assembling good and reliable sources for every claim if it is challenged by other editors, and in the case of claims about human health, these must meet MEDRS standards. What does a computer scientist with a bone to pick with Vani Hari know about assessing medical claims in specialized fields? SageRad (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is irrelevant because, as Guy said, Hari's claims are not made in the scientific/medical literature. WP:PARITY allows us to use sources that would normally not satisfy MEDRS for challenging her claims. Given your statements in this talk page section, Sage, you seem to have some very deep personal feelings about Gorski, Novella and the like. This may not be the best topic area for you to be involved in. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

yup, exactly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Editors may have opinions and expecting them not to is foolish. Editors may edit in areas about which they have opinions. NPOV does not mean that an editor must be a zombie. It means that the resulting article strives for an ideal of NPOV. Your recommendation for me to go away because i see Gorski and Novella as towing ideological agendas is unfounded and i reject it. I even think it's rather unfriendly here.

Secondly, there is a very strong claim about human health and medicine being made in the Wikivoice in this article. I have yet to hear why Hari's cautioning about presence of aluminum in deodorant, for instance, is a fringe theory on par with moon landing conspiracy theories or creationism, for instance, which are examples used in the WP:PARITY guideline. I have asked Kingofaces43 to explain why they make this classification, and i ask the same question to anyone who has used this reasoning to say that Alsip's piece should be considered a reliable source in this instance about claims about human health.

What we have here is a man who hates Hari with a vitriol, who is a computer scientist and an adherent of pseudoskepticism and who has smelled blood in the water and written a "takedown" piece by his estimation, and currently the Wikipedia article is echoing his voice. We are currently granting this guy the Wikivoice, to speak against a person, in a BLP. We have given the Wikivoice to a living person's ideological enemy, in a biography of a living person. How is this okay?

This article is speaking through the voice of the pseudoskepticism that has been attacking Hari recently in a concerted effort to "take her down" and that is not the role of Wikipedia according to its ideals. It ought to see this situation from a bird's eye view and report on the players in this human drama as such. It is not supposed to ally with one side of this conflict and speak in its voice. SageRad (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In support of the above, i offer this from Wikipedia guidelines: "It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate." Please take this to heart. Please do not recommend me to go away just because i dislike the pseudoskepticism and vile meanness of Gorski and Novella and Alsip. Please recognize that the goal is to make an article that is unbiased, and in fact other editors here are seriously standing in the way of this goal. SageRad (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In terms of completeness of dialog, and integrity of dialog, i am still waiting for answers from Kingofaces43 regarding what is "fringe" in this case? What domain is being called "fringe"?

Still waiting for an answer from David Gerard to expand on the edit reason given in the revert: would you please explain your action beyond the edit reason given of "that's not what MEDRS says"?

This is the second time in several days that i have pinged these two to request clarification on their edits and reasoning. When people object to something and then are asked a question to clarify, and notified, and then don't respond, it appears to indicate that they're not in dialog on the subject. SageRad (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would first like evidence that you will take in responses at all, since on this talk page you have singularly failed to do so when I've responded to you previously. But fundamentally you don't appear to understand MEDRS at all, and attempt to misapply it as a bludgeon.

In addition, your continued habit of personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with you on any point on this page makes interacting with you a burden at best. You've been asked by multiple people not to do this, and yet you persist. This is not the behaviour of someone it would be useful to the article to interact with.

Fundamentally, you need to understand and acknowledge that these two problems are problems, and correct your behaviour; then interaction will have a chance to be productive. If you don't, then it won't - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is clear evidence that i take in responses. I do. That's your assessment. I may hear you and not agree with you, and that still constitutes hearing your response. Secondly, you are here accusing me of personal attacks upon others? What's the specific? What's the personal attack you're alleging? Please, because that allegation in itself is a personal attack if not justified. You have to learn that i do not have to agree with you. I do not need to agree with your assertions about my behavior being wrong, and to modify it accordingly. You might be wrong, you know? You're not the boss here.

Lastly, how about commenting on the content not the contributor, which is what i was asking you to do. To explain your comment a bit more about why MEDRS does not apply. You still haven't replied to this. SageRad (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You might have a point if it weren't for the painfully obvious fact that you are a minority of one. David's not the boss, but you aren't either, not least because you lack any trace of self-analysis. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What I think is most important to note here is that WP:CONSENSUS is one of the primary bases of wikipedia. We don't all have to agree, admittedly, but, if one editor is consistently engaging in tendentious or disruptive editing because, apparently, that individual is unwilling to accept consensus, then there can be and sometimes are thought to be sufficient bases for possible attention from administrators regarding the behavior in question. WP:DROPTHESTICK might be another useful page to read in this situation. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, please read WP:VOLUNTEER. If I didn't have a chance to be online yet to respond to your first ping, three pings are not going speed that up. Folks like Guy, Someguy1221, and Dbrodbeck have commented on how parity applies here, so since your question has been answered, there's no need for me to reply to that at this point anyways. As John Carter mentioned above, the community here has decided it's time to move on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not time to move on until the dialogue is complete. I am insisting that guidelines be followed. A computer dude writing a blog is not sufficient sourcing for claims about human health, and that is what is currently embedded in the article, in Wikivoice. There is gang rule happening here and that's not ok. SageRad (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

" A computer dude writing a blog"

That sort of deliberate misrepresentation is why you've worn out everyone's patience (mine at least) and why there is increasingly less attention paid to anything you write. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you represent the author of the article? SageRad (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't represent anyone here, other than myself.

I am wondering though if you're another one of our Facebook visitors from the "Food Babe Army"? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that did not go well. You said that "a computer dude writing a blog" is not a good representation of the source's author, and you seem to be against changing the article according to my arguments, but you will not say how you'd represent the source's author, and then you go on yet another ad hominem in the long string of ad hom BS in this so-called "dialog". So... where does that leave me, a person who is honestly attempting to get clarity on the issues here? Basically obstruction and derailment by ad hom... I am not buying it. Back to the question. How do you represent the author of the source then? He does not have qualifications that i can find in his bio to ascertain these health claims that he is being cited as source for, i think. You think differently? Please support. SageRad (talk)

And i repeat for the Nth time, my question as to what exactly is being called "fringe" here? It matters. Is Hari as a person a "fringe person" -- or is her body of work "fringe work" and by what standard? She's often citing scientific research and cautioning against using ingesting or using certain chemicals. How is this fringe? Fringe, i thought, is stuff like moon landing conspiracies, lizard illumanati, flat earth, etc. How i cautioning against using aluminum containing deodorant while citing research that shows links between aluminum and Alzheimer's a fringe position? Sounds like a rational and cautionary position to me. SageRad (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I know, like that time she said that airlines are putting nitrogen in plane atmospheres! Now that is some solid science. <--- this is sarcasm. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Um... that's not an answer. SageRad (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Um... 'SageRad, please read WP:VOLUNTEER. If I didn't have a chance to be online yet to respond to your first ping, three pings are not going speed that up. Folks like Guy, Someguy1221, and Dbrodbeck have commented on how parity applies here, so since your question has been answered, there's no need for me to reply to that at this point anyways. As John Carter mentioned above, the community here has decided it's time to move on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)'. There's your answer. You might consider reading WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to your very recent comment, so i don't see the point of raising WP:VOLUNTEER. You nitrogen comment seemed like a flip non-answer. If you don't have time to answer then don't. SageRad (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I as part of the community have not moved on. There are serious unresolved issued here. SageRad (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"what exactly is being called "fringe" here?"

In this specific issue, nothing.

" cautioning against using aluminum containing deodorant"

That's not the issue here. It doesn't matter whether aluminium is good or bad for you: Hari is saying "Someone else's aluminium is bad for you. My product though is good for you." Yet she's selling aluminium too. This is an issue of hypocrisy, and some basic chemistry, not MEDRS. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. Kingofaces43 did write "Since this is discussion of WP:FRINGE claims, we utilize WP:PARITY to respond to Hari's claims here because by definition, mainstream sources described by MEDRS generally ignore fringe claims rather than spending time to debunk them." Therefore something was being called "fringe" and that was the rationale used to excuse the claim from needing MEDRS quality sources. As you say nothing is being called fringe, then i think MEDRS quality sources are needed for claims about human health.

If someone claimed that red LEDs can program human brains, then we wouldn't need a review paper saying that red LEDs cannot program the human brain. However, Hari has cited some research that does suggest a link between Alzheimer's and aluminum, among several other claims that Alsip writes about. And, it is clearly an issue that is still current in scientific debate, and has not definitively been crystallized into a consensus. Therefore, that claim in itself is not fringe, when it's properly represented (as Hari said science suggests a link, and not that it's absolutely causal). Therefore i'd think MEDRS i needed if we wish the article to say it's been refuted speaking in Wikivoice -- or else attribute to the particular source explicitly as i tried to do (and was reverted).

As for her then recommending a deodorant that contains aluminum, that is of course her mistake. We can point that out. However, the claim currently in the article really does assert that experts in science and medicine have refuted her claims (implying all her claims, and therefore including the one about aluminum, and every other one that Alsip mentions, by common interpretation). SageRad (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a point of fact, Sage, where you are incorrect. Science may suggest a link between Aluminium and Alzheimers, but it isn't the same as what Hari says. She doesn't understand the science. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 21:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Here exact words were, " I researched the ingredient Aluminum, and found out it is linked to all sorts of diseases, including 2 that I sadly personally have witnessed in close friends and family members – Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. The link of aluminum to these diseases is hotly debated, some studies find a low risk factor (probably those funded by the chemical companies) and some find horrible results, like those studies that find aluminum accumulating in breast tissue or breaking the blood brain barrier leading to Alzheimer’s." She in fact says that some studies find a low risk factor and some find "horrible results" but then defines that phrase as aluminum's presence in the breast tissue or the brain. She does in fact say that science says there is a link and outlines that there is a range of risk assessment and two specific vectors. SageRad (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No-one understands Alzheimers. The jury is still out on aluminium. There is no simple answer, either way, as to whether it is safe or not. It is not unreasonable for anyone to decide, "I shall avoid aluminium, as I do not trust it."

This is still not the problem with Hari, as the marketing organisation (rather than the dietician). She instead is saying "Your aluminium is bad, but my product is good" when at the same time, her product contains just as much alum as the other product does. That is a much simpler issue, and does not depend definitively on the health risks of aluminium. Why is it OK for Hari to sell people alum-based anti-perspirants, when she is so set against it from others? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

True, though there is also the issue of turning a grey area into black and white, which is also a recurrent theme in Hari's writing (e.g. "no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever"). I think the scientific community's biggest issue with Hari is precisely that tendency to make simplistic (and often completely wrong) absolute statements on complex issues. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that's one of three separate issues: her dietary judgements and their competence, her absolutist positions and (in this particular case, and source) the use of ingredients that she decries from others. We should keep them separate, as making a clearer article.

I don't even think that "Vani Hari thinks aluminium is harmful" is a significant point or worth stating here for anything more than backstory. It really is an unclear issue, it's not an unreasonable position for her to take. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple points of clarification regarding the preceding comments:

• Hari isn't saying "Your aluminium is bad, but my product is good." She says that aluminum is likely to be bad and that science on it shows a link to harms. The fact that she recommends a product that also contains aluminum is her mistake. Her explicit position is that aluminum is worth avoiding.
• Regarding the "scientific community's biggest issue with Hari", it strikes me that there is a certain contingent of people who have mined her body of work to find quotable quotes like "any chemical, ever" and the contradictions between her recommendations and what happens to be in a few products that she recommends, and then to frame her as an idiot and a scheming profiteer. That is promoted actively by a small group of people whom i would describe as pseudoskeptics, like Gorski (who was on the NBC segment about her) and this person Alsip, who are part of a certain sort of "skepticism" community. SageRad (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

So she makes mistakes, by recommending products that contain the same ingredients that she says are likely to be bad. I'm glad you agree. That is what this section should state, and what the source for it claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Give Dingley a lever and a fulcrum and he can move the Earth. Maybe. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i do agree that she's made mistakes of that kind, of course. I am committed to Wikipedia reflecting reality. That claim in the article is perfectly fine. The issue is that there is still a standing claim that is very different, specifically "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been dismissed by experts in science and medicine as incorrect or exaggerated." This is simply not correct and not supportable with that source, and it remains a claim that is subject to MEDRS requirements as well, for good reason.

If we are to parse out the language of that claim, "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous" is a general sweeping statement that would apply to all chemicals that she has said are risky and yet happen to be in some product that she's recommended, which is a small subset of all chemicals that she has talked about, and is still incorrect as we've agreed regarding aluminum, for one. It is not true that her claim that aluminum presents risks for human exposure has "been dismissed by experts in science and medicine as incorrect or exaggerated." So, if we can amend the article to point out that she has recommended some products that contains some chemicals which she has recommended avoiding, then we're fine. But if we leave that statement in the article, it is not sufficiently sourced, and it's also incorrect. SageRad (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am glad you are committed to Wikipedia reflecting reality. The reality is that she gives ideologically-driven advice, couches it in overly simplistic terms often to the point of being dead wrong, frequently pontificates from a basis of almost comical ignorance, sells products that contain the very things against which she fulminates (whether through ignorance or cynical profiteering is moot) and is actually expert only in SEO and brand monetization.

And of all these things the funniest is her crusade against brewers. There are many ways in which you can attack Annheuser-Busch, starting with the fact that their beer sucks, but pretending that isinglass is a secret toxic ingredient, when it's been used in brewing by craft and industrial brewers alike since forever, and avoiding the fact that alcohol is a genuinely potent toxin, is pure comedy gold. She wants her boyfriend to suffer all the harm that alcohol can provide, free from the taint of those darned fish bladders. OK, that's not quite funniest, the aircraft bollocks was genuis, but she sent that to the memory hole, because the one thing she really is good at, is SEO.

The thing about people like Hari (and Mike "Health Danger" Adams and Joe Mercola and the rest) is that they abuse science. They go on a dumpster dive looking for scary factoids and they present them out of context for maximum personal aggrandisement. It's like antivaxers who point to the VAERS database and claim that some children might suffer febrile convulsions, how awful, but ignore the fact that over a quarter of a billion people did not die in the 20th Century because of just one vaccine, smallpox. This approach - sciencey-sounding ideological bullshit - is profoundly dangerous. And Hari is ground zero for some of it. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you admit that for you, Hari is "ground zero" in an ideological war. That about sums it up. SageRad (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that this article, a BLP, still contains this claim: "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been dismissed by experts in science and medicine as incorrect or exaggerated," which is unclear in scope, is verifiably false, and is sourced to a cranky piece in an ideologically motivated publication, written by a computer science person who has a huge chip on his shoulder against Hari. In other words, Wikipedia is still being used as a mouthpiece of an ideological agenda-driven person with no credentials to evaluate the claim that is sourced to him. If you all are okay with that, then... that speaks to something. SageRad (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me Sage, but your worldview is showing. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain your comment? Other people's agenda-driven worldview is showing, was my point here. It's pretty clear from above comments. I hope that my worldview showing means that you see that i can take a long view and see this conflict from a bird's-eye-view and try to correct the ideological bias of this article accordingly. I'd appreciate if you'd explain yourself instead of making remarks that seem to be insinuating and yet retain plausible deniability of having said anything. Clarity is useful in discussions of this nature, and remarks without clarity can be derailing and constitute noise. SageRad (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. You are an "ideological agenda-driven person with no credentials." Wikipedia is an ideological agenda-driven project, with policy and guideline, resulting in the online encyclopaedia we all know and love. Your agenda comes from a passionate belief and heartfelt desire to improve the world (by among other things such as Marching Against Monsanto and improving this encyclopaedia.) Our difficulties with your editing here comes from the passion you have for what you believe. It doesn't fit with what we do here. We follow our community rules, and you cant because it doesn't fit with your passion to improve things, hence this. um. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)\

Thank you for being explicit. Apparently you've believed JzG's outing of me, against Wikipedia guidelines, as you repeat his allegations about my outside world activities. Which are incorrect, i may add, and not admissible here on Wikipedia, so i caution you that you are abetting an WP:OUTING in your above comment, and i would appreciate you striking it.

I am ideologically driven with an agenda for Wikipedia articles to be clear, concise, unbiased, and to reflect the world as it is -- not as some people want it to seem. You seem to cast aspersions upon me, and there are all sorts of issues with your above comment, including, as i mentioned, WP:OUTING.

My passionate commitment is to having Wikipedia represent reality as it is. Hari made mistakes, but not all or even most of her cautions "have been dismissed by experts in science and medicine as incorrect or exaggerated" which is what the article currently says, and that is why i continue to take issue with this and to bring attention to it. It's a commitment to being accurate, which is fully in line with Wikipedia ideals. What is your problem with me, Roxy? Be more specific? SageRad (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Beg to differ. You. Have. Not. Been. Outed. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No matter what strange punctuation you use, you did refer to a claim that i March Against Monsanto, which is a claim that has entered the Wikipedia text universe only through JzG's outside 'research' on my real-life person, and then reported in a disparaging way on Wikipedia talk pages, and inaccurately i must add. So, you have repeated a claim that is based on an WP:OUTING based on another editor trying to do outside research to dig up supposed dirt on me. That's pretty much textbook outing as far as i see it. Even. If. You. Punctuate. Like. This. SageRad (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for the unacceptable Talk page antics I have engaged in here, I did attempt to disengage above, but am unable. Sorry. If, Sage, you wish to continue our discussion, perhaps you could supply a Diff of your outing, on your or my own Talk page. You'll need such a diff anyway, might as well do it now. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sage, if you think there has been editor misconduct take it to the right place. This is not the right place. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: You yourself linked to your off-wiki activism. At this point there are two basic possibilities: either you are repudiating your off-wiki activities (of which, I have to say, I thought you were quite proud, hence your link to your spat with Gorski), or you are now trying to claim that the off-wiki persona "SageRad", whose agenda and prose style is identical to both you and your self-admitted off-wiki persona "SageThinker", is not you. Let me know which it is, please, and then I can respond accordingly. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: It is neither. It is that my work on Wikipedia is simply that, and to be judged as such. I only entered an image of a conversation with Gorski on a talk page to illustrate that he did indeed ban me from his forums. Any further research that you did on your own is just that: your research about me. Any reporting of that research on Wikipedia talk space is WP:OUTING, and you have done research on who you suspect is my real-life persona and reported it on Wikipedia, and you and other editors have used that to argue ad hominem against me. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You linked ot your off-wiki activism, in an article, no less, you don't get to pretend that this never happened. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I am not pretending that didn't happen. I did present evidence-based claims on Gorski's blog, and he did block me apparently because it disagreed with his agenda. That is the extent of my self-reported real-world activities. I am saying that you latching onto this and doing further research on what you suspect is my real-world identity, and reporting that to other editors on Wikipedia, and repeatedly using it to frame ad hominem arguments against me is the essence of WP:OUTING. SageRad (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Gorski blocked you for being an asshole, exactly as he stated in the thread you linked. You seem to be convinced that the entire scientific community is engaged in a gigantic conspiracy to suppress The Truth™ - it isn't, it's a disparate collection of individuals most of whom are actually trying to make the world a better place, and only a few of whom sit in black leather chairs stroking white cats. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Claims of harassment

I think it's entirely fair to state that Hari claims to have suffered harassment, but not to state that she has since the sole source of this claim is Hari herself. It is entirely possible that she has interpreted trenchant but legitimate criticism as "harassment", this is not at all uncommon in those who advocate scientifically dubious health claims. I think it is inappropriate to say in Wikipedia's voice that she has been harassed unless some independent source has reviewed the claim and substantiated it. I'm dubious myself, since the backlash against her has been from the scientific and skeptical community, whose usual weapon is mockery not harassment - I consider it much more likely that she's simply been trolled. Note that the cited source makes it entirely clear that the source of the claim is Hari herself, and does not seem to challenge it. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course she has been harassed. There's even an archive of it on this page.

Of the many inaccuracies one can claim about Hari, this is one that she is correct upon. Even if all of her claimed examples turned out to be fabrications, there are plenty left. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? Please help me out by pointing out the archive of her being harassed. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

At risk of being rude, I find it absolutely hilarious how identical what you have written is to what Gamergaters say when people bring up the harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu. For shame. (Also I've added a blog post by her including screenshots of harassment, if a reliable newspaper isn't a good enough source for you) Brustopher (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The newspaper here makes it clear that the source of the claim is Hari. In the case of Wu, for example, there are a lot of newspapers and a great deal of online evidence of doxing (which is included in most examples of harassment in legal textbooks discussing harassment) and extremely vitriolic comments. Now, you might believe that Subway or MillerCoors would send the goon squads after a blogger, but I frankly don't. The sort of people who take violent action based on moral outrage are actually more aligned to Hari's base than the skeptical or scientific community.

When Time discusses harassment, it has gone beyond the level of simply repeating their claims made in an interview. The claim of harassment by Wu, Sarkeesian and Quinn has been the subject of intense media scrutiny; I am unaware of any serious media scrutiny of claims of harassment by Hari. Please do feel free to link any, I am not a fan of harassment and am completely open to the possibility that it happened, even though at present I think it's highly unlikely.

To be clear here: I am 'absolutely sure that Hari sincerely believes she has been harassed, and that much of the criticism was extremely distressing to her. Applying occam's razor, however, it is much more likely that she has simply been trolled. I think Hari has invested a lot emotionally in her public image as a food "educator", in a bubble that provided a positive feedback loop, and to have that blown apart with such ease must have been a shock. It's entirely fair to state her claim as a claim, but, as a claim, it is more than a little implausible and not a little suggestive of the conspiracist mindset common among activists against Big Everything. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to note that, in the interests of fairness, the same statement of truth is being used about d'Entremont on this page, while the evidence in the source is roughly the equivalent (screenshots of harassers). While I still maintain that no more evidence is necessary to take someone at their word for being harassed online when no accusations of named persons are involved, if Hari's claim is not considered to be well established, then the statement on d'Entremont would also have to be changed in order to consistently apply this rule. Adrian (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The source quotes the "death threats" and they are not, they are merely spiteful comments. I would find death threats plausible from the more unhinged wing of the anti-Big-Everything movement (I have seen credible evidence of genuinely sinister threats from fundamentalist Christians, animal rights activists and anti-GMO activists) but the comments linked do not rise to that level and clearly fall well short of the GamerGate threats, if we're using that as a benchmark. Bluntly, I've had worse from banned trolls on Wikipedia. Actually I don't think d'Entremont is particularly disturbed by this, but I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Brustopher for linking Hari's blog post, which entirely proves my point. This is mockery, not harassment. Now all we need to do is work out how to contextualise the fact that this is "harassment" not harassment. I have no doubt that Hari finds the criticism hurtful. I have no doubt her targets are equally unhappy about her "quackmail". I don't suppose she considers her campaign against Folta to be harassment, so I think we should not really be stating her claim in Wikipedia's voice. Actually, since a Google search for "Vani Hari" +harassment shows that most of the top hits are for harassment by Hari, I think it might be better to omit the subject altogether. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"This is mockery, not harassment."

• "I hope you die of something you ate"
• "She got shot with the whore makeup gun?"
• "Vani you ignorant slut"
• "get some real dick in your boney ass diet"
• "when I called you a 'dumb cunt' I did not mean to imply you were a 'dumb woman' [...] I think you are a dumb human being"
• "you are a stupid female. kill yourself."
• "This is just for you Food Babe you're an ugly twat" (Image captioned "What organ stays warm inside of a dead girl's body? My Dick")

Top quality criticism from the scientific community m8... Brustopher (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, trolling. Ugly trolling. Ugly, misogynistic trolling in many cases. But not harassment and not death threats, any more than hoping that Science Babe gets cancer is a death threat. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

At the very least the last person quoted seems to be threatening to rape Hari's dead body, which I can't see as anything other than harassment. Brustopher (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really, no. I had a troll once say what a pity it would be if someone strung piano wire across the track my kids cycle along to school. That person knew where I lived and had visited my house during the night to make observations he could post to prove it. That was sinister. The judge described it as "chilling" (he was also not overly impressed with the hang-up calls in the small hours of the morning, or the accusations of paedophilia). I don't have a lot of time for harassment, but this is not it, IMO, and there's no evidence it has been judged to be harassment by independent sources. It is garden-variety social media trolling. No doxing, no actual threats, nothing that would interest the police, but it would certainly qualify for revdel if posted here. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus is, I am fine with. My concerns are that the rules be consistently applied throughout the article, and that neutrality is kept so as not to imply there is any doubt of someone's personal experiences regarding harassment when it is undue. Adrian (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly right. Actually I do not think that either claim should be included because neither actually shows harassment, in both cases the linked comments are, to quote English law on the matter, "mere vulgar abuse". Apparently if have a presence on social media the Twitters can be unkind. Who knew? Guy (Help!) 22:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether something is due or undue isn't really the matter of wikipedia editors' opinions. It's a matter of the sources. No RS's I've seen has doubted Hari's claims of harassment or called it anything else. This also isn't legalpedia; UK libel law might have a rather strict definition, but harassment in this case is a fairly broad word. Hey, there's even a few articles on it here and on Wiktionary. There also is no accusation or lawsuit being made, so we are writing about the subject's experiences, not an allegation of criminal conduct. A barrage of vulgar, misogynistic, intimidating language calling for a person's death among other things has been commonly, and rightly, referred to as harassment. You may not agree with this definition, but it is even documented in Computer Crime#Harassment: "Any comment that may be found derogatory or offensive is considered harassment." (feel free to edit that section if you feel so inclined). Furthermore, saying that someone's experiences of harassment doesn't qualify as harassment is the weakest most deplorable argument to make, in my opinion. I'm all for improving the accuracy and neutrality of this article, and if you believe things would be more accurately worded with an attribution instead of a statement of fact, I'm on board. But don't tell me what is quite obviously harassment is not harassment. That is absurd and defies common sense. Adrian (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The source we quote doesn't even attempt to analyse the claim, it's just reported verbatim in the interview. There's no analysis of its legitimacy at all. The linked primary source shows trolling, not harassment. I am not aware of any source that shows actual evidence of harassment, or even a credible claim of it having been taken to police or lawyers, I thik it's just lazy use of language and it trivialises the real problem of online harassment and cyberbullying. This applies to both Hari and Science Babe, both of whom are social media based activists and playing in an arena where a thick skin is always going to be needed. We can say that they claim harassment, but to call it harassment in Wiki-voice based only on thier word and not on any deeper analysis, is problematic. The analogy with GamerGate is pertinent: there, the claim of harassment was disputed by the 8chan trolls, so it was examined in print and found to be entirely justified. Nobody here has really looked into it at all because there is, on the face of it, no basis on which to do so: any impartial onlooker presented with the comments given as examples here is going to identify it as mere trolling and leave it at that - and again that applies in both cases. It's a social media spat, there's really no more to it than that. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, if you find a RS criticizing the language, go ahead and add that information if you believe the weight is due. However, as it stands, all RS's describe the activity in a way that clearly falls under Wikipedia's descriptions of harassment, and many other RS's for the definition. Heck, we could even link it to the aforementioned Wikipedia page on Computer Crime just in case somebody isn't quite sure what kind of harassment is being discussed. As far as this stands now, there is one person objecting to the use of the language, which conflicts with the sources.

If a woman is writing a story about her experiences with harassment, are we going to require that she be subjected to media scrutiny getting all in her business before we take her description of events as fact to call her story about her personal experiences with harassment? If she reports her son's eyes as "blue" when some editor thinks her son's eyes are much closer to a shade of green and the media hasn't scrutinized over this detail enough, shall we say she claims her son's eyes are blue? This discussion is utterly absurd. This is suppressing a woman's voice for speaking out about abuse online, and is the one thing Hari is qualified to speak about. Adrian (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy is right, we mustnot use Wikipedia's voice for Hari's claims, it is already known that some of Hari's other claims are not neutral. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 16:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We must also not use Wikipedia's voice for the claims of her critics, as in the sentence "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been dismissed by experts in science and medicine as incorrect or exaggerated," which is still in the article as it stands and sourced to a computer science person who writes a blog and appears to hate Hari. Just saying. SageRad (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

2 against 1 is not consensus, especially when we're talking about a BLP. Guy, youre an admin - surely that is not how you evaluate consensus? Adrian had used a compromise edit - keeping the information and attibuting it specifically to Hari. theres no reason that should be removed. Come on guys. Minor4th 16:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is determined first and foremost by policy, which has the broadest consensus. If anyone has an issue with a statement they think is misleading or poorly sourced they are welcome to propose a change. Given the number of eyes on the article it seems unlikely to me at this point, but as we see above the claim of harassment by Science babe certainly wasn't correctly represented and I corrected it, so it is quite possible that other text also needs tightening up. I note, however, that you not only restated Hari's claims as fact in Wikipedia's voice, but actually emphasised them. There is very clearly no consensus for that. In fact you made a series of edits that you knew full well was contentious from the discussion here, the changes you made have already been reverted before, so that was distinctly unwise. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy that is not true. i restored Adrian's edit which was the compromise version attributing it directly to hari as her own claim. please slow down. I am taking this page off my watchlist because it has become a war zone. you might think about doing the same. Minor4th 17:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it's become a war zone, and your claim re Adrian's edits is disingenuous, as the edit history shows. I'm not taking it off my watchlish because it is a focus of partisan editing of various kinds, and it's important that peopel of diverse views watch it. I have, however, set about resolving the dispute the Wikipedia way. For the record, I think Adrian's edit was, unusually for him, poor. [1] revises the text to: "Hari has written about her experiences being subjected to online harassment as a result of her work, and has stated that she is "getting attacked every day with a death threat." - that very clearly implies, in Wikipedia's voice and with a link to the article, that she has been subject ton online harassment. The only evidence for this is her own cliam in aninterview backed by some trolling comments. No evidence of doxing, no evidence of stalking, no evidence of credible threats, no evidence of police involvement, no independent analysis, no third party judgement of the claim. As stated above and below, I think both Hari and d'Entremont are engaged in rhetoric and not making serious or substantiated claims of harassment. We certainly should not link this to the article on online harassment, as this is a term used to describe the atrocious behaviour directed towards the targets of the GamerGate trolls. Spiteful comments on Facebook do not rise anywhere near that level, and the comments displayed are simply not harassment, they would almost certainly be rejected as a claim of harassment by the police based on my own personal involvement with supporting others who have received much more serious threats, as well as my experience in taking (successful) legal action in respect of harassment of myself. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you are wrong on several counts. 1) My edit is attributing the story of harassment to Hari. This is a clear statement of fact, as Hari has written about her experiences of harassment, as both her blog and a RS have documented. 2) The use of the word harassment is not in a legal context, so there is no need to use a legal definition of the word. 3) The wikilink to online harassment goes to a page that defines harassment exactly the way it is used here. Note that online harassment redirects to that section of that page. Doxxing/SWATTing/stalking/police etc are not needed in order for something to be considered harassment. You sound like guys in a work environment who tell a woman who gets her ass smacked on the job "That's not harassment, they didn't stalk you back to your home or anything!"

4) You have not determined that your position is what is supported by policy. Not even once have you cited a single policy or precedent that supports your position. In summary, this means your edits were made in a way that is not consistent with the consensus. Why are you going so far out of your way to suppress a woman's voice speaking out about abuse online? Because it doesn't compare to the worst examples of these atrocities? I implore you to please stop and think about what it is that you are doing here and whether the victims you are propping up in defense of your actions would agree with what you have done. Adrian (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I quoted your text above. I submit to you that while you consider that it attributes the text as you say, the stateent Hari has written about her experiences being subjected to online harassment is at least open to the interpretation that Wikipedia is asserting the harassment as fact. That is certainly how I read it. I think there are less ambiguous ways of attributing it, especially since harassment explicitly is a legal matter, or at least a matter which has a legal definition (e.g. in the UK the Protection from Harassment Act 1997). Obviously my view of this is conditioned to at least some extent by the fact that i have had to study this Act in anger, and make applications to the police and courts based on it. Are you familiar with the case of Dennis Markuze? That was a case of genuinely plausible threats of harm. I am really not seeing that here, and the sources don't make the case, all they do is repeat Hari's claim (and the same for Science Babe, which text I note you do not appear to have changed). Guy (Help!) 22:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Faulty USA Today source

This USA Today article is being repeatedly used to support the claim that Subway removed an ingredient from their bread because of Hari's efforts... but the article never states that claim. It says that the removal happened following Hari's efforts, but that's not a statement of correlation, not causation. I tried deleting it, but someone undid the deletion, saying "the ref exists because it wouldn't have happened without Hari". We put in refs because they show what we're saying, rather than because we're assuming something the ref doesn't say. If it wouldn't have happened without Hari, we should have a ref that says that. Can I get support to re-delete this reference? ==Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

While it's quite a reasonable assumption that Subway's removal was due to Hari's activism, it's not explicitly stated in that source, and it seems that source made quite an effort to not say that, so i'd support not using that source to support something it doesn't explicitly say. I hope there would be another good source that does make that connection explicitly. If it's real then there must be some other reliable source to use. Thanks for the attention to detail. On the other hand, saying that it happened following Hari's activism does seem to imply that one is the result of another. Anyway, i hope another source makes it more clear either way. SageRad (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This does remind me that i did add one source a few weeks ago, which was promptly reverted, but i think it might suffice to establish this fact. I'd need to watch it again. SageRad (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In that source, there is a segment from around 2:30 where U.S. Rep Tim Ryan credits Hari with several campaigns causing changes, including the Subway campaign. That's not the source's voice, but rather the voice of a U.S. Rep whose words are quoted in the source. Take that as you will. SageRad (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Politicians tend to be highly unreliable sources, alas! Anyway, I'm not saying that a reliable source cannot be found for that statement, I haven't even checked the other source being used there. I just happened to check out that one source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, i do commend you for flagging this. A source should not be used to support a claim it doesn't support. SageRad (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeating Hari's statements as fact

Another one. We state that "Hari has in the past removed products from her site upon discovering they contain chemicals she has spoken against.[55]"

The source says: Apparently unaware of all the ingredients contained in Fresh, the Babe, in an interview I conducted this morning said, she made the product available on her site after it received a "green" designation from the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group that specializes, among other things, in research on various toxic chemicals and on corporate responsibility. The "green" designation indicates a product rated favorably by the EWG.

I'm sorry, but this is incredibly lame. Bear in mind that Hari is known for digging through the ingredients of everyday products looking for scary-sounding chemicals. That is her schtick. To then claim that she put a product on sale in good faith without the same level of diligence - in other words, to do exactly what Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors do and use, in good faith, a product which has an unblemished reputation - is hypocritical in the extreme and paints her in a terrible light. We should remove this statement. Most of the criticism against her simply make her look clueless, this makes her look like a complete hypocrite. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair point I've reworded. Brustopher (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nicely judged, I could not have chosen the words as well. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

BLPSELFPUB

I notice that the article contains multiple sentences supported only by her own statements. I've removed one [2]. I think they all should be removed per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:NOT. This article is not a venue for pr campaigns. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you removed was attributed, and therefore was not stating Hari's claim as fact in Wikivoice. Wikivoice was only stating that she made this claim. Note that WP:BLPSELFPUB does not prohibit this content and neither does WP:NOT. Would you please explain your argument in more detail, and more explicitly? As to "This article is not a venue for pr campaigns" i would argue this exact point in the sense that this article seems to have been molded into a PR campaign for Hari's critics, and has only been approaching a semblance of correction from that recently. It appears that this judgment is relative to your point of view. SageRad (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

As is yours, of course, and mine, and everybody else's. Ronz is more likely to be right than you or I are, on this one, based on long experience. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's an appeal to authority, apparently. I've said that the content removal was not justified by the guidelines cited, and asked for more explanation from Ronz. Your argument is "Editor X is more likely to be right than you" -- that is empty of real content. SageRad (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That one should be restored. As SageRad notes, it's not presented as a statement of scientific fact, merely explaining her personal opinion. A primary source is reasonable for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should be restored. BLPSELFPUB allows self published sources from the article subject about themselves. Compare this section of the Kevin Folta article, where we variously and numerously cite to his self published responses to criticism. Goose/gander ... Minor4th 19:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me be clearer: Maybe I should have started a new discussion, as my concern isn't proper voice but BLPSELFPUB and NOT. Specifically that this self-published material is not encyclopedic, rather it is "unduly self-serving". He said/she said journalism has no place in Wikipedia. If an independent source doesn't cover it, we need to be sure to weigh it carefully against BLP and all other relevant policies/guidelines. In this case the material suits her purposes to save face with her fans, but Wikipedia is not a venue for such public relations. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Consistency among BLP's is what I'm looking for. It cannot be acceptable policy to allow the Kevin Folta article cite to his self serving, self published responses to criticism, yet the same policy is unacceptable for the Vani Hari article. See what I mean? The totally contradictory arguments being made in these two articles smacks of agenda-driven editing. I disagree that this is he said/she said journalism. We're talking about BLP's and the spirit, if not the letter, of the policy would advise against suppressing the BLP's response to criticism. Minor4th 20:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want consistency, then try to get the relevant policies clarified.

Other stuff exists. I took a glance at the example you gave. I notice that the article is start class, so why do we care?

I also could not find a primary source used in a manner similar to the ones in this article. Could you point them out? --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into a tug of war here. So this is the last I'll comment on this. I have a firm grasp of the BLP policy, and I know that Wikipedia's treatment of BLP's does not envision suppressing a BLP's response to criticism. The reader can determine for him/herself whether the response is credible or well-founded, but we should not leave it out - that implies that the BLP subject has quietly accepted the criticism without dispute. On the Kevin Folta article, please see the conflict of interest section and mouse over the various sources. You will see several that are Kevin Folta's own self published sources responding to criticism about his independence. Bottom line though - a BLP should not be negatively slanted to suggest that criticism of the subject has gone unanswered when the subject has in fact responded. Minor4th 21:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is a WP:FRINGEBLP, while Folta is not. Sometimes the subject of a BLP says some very fringe things, and it is undue weight to continue to include more of their opinions on a topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, I wrote the standard advice to BLP subjects given out by OTRS and I was defending BLPs (at some personal cost) before WP:BLP even existed. Kingofaces is right: we do not give people a "right of reply" when they have been caught promoting pseudoscientific claptrap. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Just what "pseudoscientific claptrap" is she promoting here? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't keep up with the general consensus on when the pseudoscience label can be used, but I cannot find the statements in the sources supporting the content on promoting pseudoscience. We do have plenty of sources stating she's a quack, but that's not the same thing. However, her statements and approach fall clearly in WP:PSCI and the associated arbcom enforcement. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

" her statements and approach fall clearly in WP:PSCI"

No they don't.

Her statement here, the one that you keep deleting, was this, "stated that she was aware of the historic use of isinglass, and was was raising attention to it for the benefit of uninformed vegans and vegetarians.". Now you can believe her comment if you wish (or disbelieve it), but it's neither pseudoscience, nor controversial that she stated this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. All I'm saying is that this article falls under PSCI, given what she says and the sources we have about her, her claims, etc.

To repeat, my concern is that the statement, and others, fail BLPSELFPUB and NOT as being "unduly self-serving". --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I've restored that particular one, as Hari's personal statements are IMO relevant to a claim in a BLP. Note that I think pretty much everything Hari says about anything should be assumed wrong until proven otherwise; however, our BLP rules do state that subject responses to claims should go in where relevant - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"BLP rules do state that subject responses to claims should go in where relevant" Where does it say this? --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPSELFPUB, which is a section of WP:BLP. I think this note on isinglass is fine under this, though I'm not wedded to it going in - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please quote what you are interpreting to mean "BLP rules do state that subject responses to claims should go in where relevant" --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)