Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Overhaul

This page needs a massive overhaul. As it is, it is horribly one-sided and reads like a press release. There is plenty of noted criticism to Hari and her efforts. Some notable criticism: http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2014/02/06/plastic-chemical-in-our-bread/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eating-yoga-mats/ I would edit this article, but I do not really feel qualified to do so. 96.248.6.39 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Be bold and do so, or save a local copy to your hard disk and edit the article to your heart's content. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

So biased and full of pseudoscience

Firstly the repeated use of the adjective "Harmful" is scientifically inaccurate. All the chemicals listed have been found safe for human consumption. Second, without getting into a long discussion about GMO's it should be noted that there is not a single source here referencing scientific proof that they are harmful. This basically reads like a "Hooray for me" promo piece written by the subject of the article. Here's a good source with her getting debunked on her criticism of the brewery industry: http://blog.timesunion.com/beer/debunking-8-beers-that-you-should-stop-drinking-immediately/2425/ Also the RationalWiki page on her is very informative. But seriously, I see scientific claims in this article and no scientific references.98.119.9.60 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree or disagree with Hari, there is no debate that her activism has gained major national media attn (NY Times, CNN, ABC, GMA, NBC, Dr. Oz, Prevention, etc.), attracted a huge national following, and compelled large food producers to reconsider some of their ingredients. Any individual of Hari's stature will inevitably attract the attention of those who have opposing views. They are welcome to present those views, if they are properly researched and referenced by credible sources, in the article. While the potentially harmful aspects of ingredients targeted by Hari are noted in many of the media references, the real question should be whether the article concerns Hari's notability as a high profile public figure and her demonstrated influence in the national food safety debate, or whether the article is about whether certain food ingredients that may or may not be harmful. There is no mention about the safety of GMOs in the article, only that her protest at the DNC calling for labeling of food containing GMOs drew a lot of attention and discussion. It is indeed a long discussion and better reserved for an article specifically about that topic. Hari's national profile and influence are undeniable and the article is specific to those aspects of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbmusicman (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel the exact opposite. The article is written like it originated with a food corporation executive, with use of words like "sensationalist," "allegedly harmful" and "forced" food companies to change. The article has a slant which degrades and demeans the work of Hari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.35.97 (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Vani complains about food ingredients that the FDA and the bulk of the scientific community have found to be safe; she is basically stirring up fear among people who are not trained scientists by making pseudoscientific claims that sound credible to laypeople. If you feel that it is unfair to criticize her for this, then maybe you should ask Vani to use credible scientific research to back up her claims. Actual scientists have publicly disagreed with her; not "food executives" as you would like everyone to believe. With that said even those of us who disagree with her need to follow the rules of decorum when it comes to editing her page. 72.64.114.87 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

New speaker: I want to second what is written above. I co-run a science and scepticism page on Facebook and she is a regular feature. This article makes her sound like a conscientious researcher who is just trying to get companies to be honest. In fact, her entire approach is dishonest. She begins with ridiculous claims built on false information, then hounds companies using these claims as PR threats, until they respond with something she can chalk up as a victory. She also deletes dissenting opinion from actual scientists from her FB page. This Wiki article needs to be deleted and written up again in a way that doesn't make Vani Hari look like a valiant crusader against corporate immorality. Because...well, she isn't! I would recommend this article as the best I have read on her yet: http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/new-yellow-journalism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.212.96 (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

I removed the POV tag. The preponderance of sources are either critical of her work or are simply stating the reactions of corporations. This is how the article currently reads, in my opinion. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The lead

The lead to this BLP article has suddenly changed, calling her a "hoax artist" and not a "blogger." That's a major change, a serious accusation not supported by the article, and I think this needs to be reverted, asap. Anyone disagree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The edits you speak of were reverted but the same user [1] who made those changes re-added them back in. What is the process for getting this user blocked from performing further vandalism? 72.64.114.87 (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources have been added and your threats are not appreciated, Vani Hari's IP Address.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 July 2014‎

I am not Vani Hari. I am, in fact, actually quite outspoken against her pseudoscience and mendacious activism outside of Wikipedia. You can see my other comments on this talk page to see where I stand - I most recently called out a pro-Vani editor who tried to give the page a pro-Vani slant as well. What you cannot do is use Wikipedia as your bully pulpit to trash her or promote her which violates the rules. Shawn in Montreal below me pretty much says all that needs to be said. My interest here is keeping this article to the standards of Wikipedia so that it does not get deleted, locked, or otherwise just disregarded by the outside world. I believe that Vani's activism is so mendacious and so full of lies that all we need to do is just follow the rules and use good sources - it will be plainly obvious to readers what Vani really stands for. 72.64.114.87 (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the infobox, 72.64.114.87. I missed that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Those are some good references, though you've bungled the formatting. Still, the Forbes piece alone is a strong critique. But you can't just call her a "hoax artist" become she's attracted criticism: the lead of this encyclopedia article - and that's what it is -- must then summarize any controversy about Hari in a WP:NEUTRAL way. It's absolutely essential, especially for a WP:BLP article. I've tried to address that. It's unnecessary to "gild the lily" with attack terms like "hoax artist." God knows, the experts cited who condemn her work are damning enough. I've also added some pseudoscience categories, and found a working cached link to that astonishing piece on microwave ovens, that does indeed get into the negative thought crystal stuff. The references still need to be fixed, though. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We are not required to take stuff like this seriously. http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054

"No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.

Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 21 July 2014‎

Please explain how quoting Jimmy Wales' response to the Change.org petition on alternative medicine is a relevant justification for calling Vani a hoax artist. He was saying that junk science does not have to be given equal weight. He did not say that you had free license to editorialize and break the rules on NPOV. 72.64.114.87 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The word "hoax" was added back to the lead and the infobox. I removed it, because the word "hoax" is usually applied to a deliberate falsehood, that is, something that the hoaxer does not believe himself or herself but chooses to present to the public as real. Even if Hari makes wrong or unscientific statements, that does not itself make her a hoaxer, because she may believe her own rhetoric. Spacepotato (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is getting to be a waste of time. I've requested temporary semi-protection for this article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The gestapo have spoken and abused their buttons it looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP vios

I will remove any BLP violations from this page, please keep comments and content restricted to WP:RS and WP:BLP, talk pages are not a forum Dreadstar ☥ 07:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Vani's blog article on flu vaccines

An editor made an edit [2] today, 7/12/2014, regarding Vani's blog article [http://foodbabe.com/2011/10/04/should-i-get-the-flu-shot] on flu vaccines in the "Other Campaigns" section. While it is correct that Vani did not specifically state that one should not receive the flu vaccine, she heavily weighed against them and stated that she personally will not be getting one in addition to making several factually dubious claims about efficacy, side-effects, and alternatives. The editor also added unwarranted comments about the safety of vaccine ingredients without noting that adverse reactions are rare and noting that the number of people who potentially avoid illness by being vaccinated far exceeds the number of people who become ill due to a rare adverse reaction. I do not want to get into an edit war here, so I am bringing this to public attention first to see how others feel this should be worded to be more balanced and appropriate rather than just flip-flopping between the two extremes of the argument. 72.64.114.87 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

An additional note: this editor added the scare word "injections" to make vaccines sound scary and unsafe. It is colloquial to refer to them as vaccines, not injections. 72.64.114.87 (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue of her claims about flu vaccinations is being discussed below, along with microwave ovens. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Microwaves and flu vaccinations

Given that some of Ms Hari's statements about microwave ovens are food-related, would it be acceptable to include those statements (as well as specific rebuttals from reliable sources)? DS (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As her statements are posted in her blog/webpage, they are WP:SPS. As such, only the material which is within her area of expertise is acceptable. Her views on what microwaves do to water molecules have not been published in reliable third-party publications. Thus it is not enough to say that such views are food-related, and are thus not acceptable as RS. (Actually, her book has not "been published" by Little Brown as yet. Publication is set for 2015. Strictly speaking, her SPS views on food are not WP:RS at present.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a misinterpretation of our policy. Hari has no expertise in food as far as I know, so her blog would not be an acceptable source for facts about food. However, the fact that Hari makes a certain claim about microwave ovens is not a fact about food, but a fact about Hari. Therefore, in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF, which says that self-published sources can be used to source facts about the author, Hari's blog is a reliable source for Hari's claim. Spacepotato (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Her blog can be used for information about herself, but when she says microwaves do something to the molecular structure of water, she is making an "exceptional claim" that goes beyond herself or food. (See; WP:ABOUTSELF item no. 1.) Your sentence [paraphrased] says "she make a certain claim about microwave ovens..." As you say, she is not making a claim about herself. She is making a claim about microwaves. The policy cannot be stretched to say "blogs are acceptable source material for the encyclopedia in order to repeat the exceptional claims in the blog." – S. Rich (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

To report a claim is not to repeat it, because we are not asserting that Hari's claim is correct. If Wikipedia were to say "Microwaved water forms crystals resembling those of water exposed to the word 'Hitler'", that would indeed be an exceptional claim about water, but when Wikipedia says that "Hari claims that microwaved water forms...etc.", Wikipedia is making an unexceptional claim about Hari, and saying nothing about water. Hari is making a claim about water, but that is in her voice, and not Wikipedia's. Spacepotato (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, every blog entry could be prefaced with "So-and-so claims...." And then we have Primary Source and BLP problems. There are secondary sources available to describe her thoughts without giving her a platform. – S. Rich (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Also, we'd have a WP:CLAIM issue with such language. – S. Rich (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This issue (and my commentary) applies to her flu shot blog entry. She is not an expect on vaccinations. She might say she would not get a flu shot, but when she starts talking about why she would not, she goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF and into exceptional claims. If the article to limit the statement to "I would not get a flu shot", thereby removing the exceptional claims, then the statement becomes a non-WP:NOTEWORTHY item. The fact that people do not get flu shots is a WP:NOTTRIVIA item. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to have some kind of dispute resolution. I see that User:NPrice and User:Spacepotato both disagree with you. User:NPrice tried to add the section back in but you again removed it. What is the process on Wikipedia for getting some kind of arbitration here? For the record, I do not agree with your interpretation of the rules but clearly us arguing about it or constantly reverting each other's changes is not the solution. How do we proceed and get this behind us? Dmdx86 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that it's not an exceptional claim to say "Vani Hari said X" - it's an exceptional claim to say "flu shots are evil" and in that case, one would be unable to use Vani Hari as the source. That's what the intent of this policy clearly was. The subject of the article is *not* vaccinations, and we are not making claims about vaccinations. yes hello, nprice (was) here. (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to engage in dispute resolution. But I urge editors to consider the various policies which apply. WP:ABOUTSELF restricts us from presenting exceptional claims (I posit this means either directly or indirectly). WP:PRIMARY is another restriction, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is even more restrictive. WP:CLAIM restricts the language we may use. WP:SOAPBOX says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.[emphasis added]" If the article says "Hari's blog says she thinks microwaves do this or that she doesn't get flu shots because ,,,," then WP is being used as a vehicle to present her views. Because this is a BLP, the WP:BURDEN is on those editors who want to present the material. – S. Rich (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a provable fact that Vani Hari said these things, not an exceptional claim. That she herself made exceptional claims is irrelevant because we are *not* making those claims ourselves.

All over Wikipedia, on the article for just about any controversial figure, there are mentions, both paraphrased and quoted, of what these people said or believed, including plenty of what could be considered exceptional claims using self-published sources. This same discussion we're having now has happened before, and the results speak for themselves.

I feel like WP:WL and perhaps Wikipedia:RJDLI are beginning to apply here... WP:POLSHOP may also be relevant. yes hello, nprice (was) here. (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No one disputes that she said those things. The issue is whether we can use her blog as a source. If you like, I'll draft an RFC to post so that wider community input can be had. (I won't get it done today though.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Adolf Hitler article can cite Hitler's own words in Mein Kampf but the Vani Hari article can't cite Vani Hari's statements from her own blog? What about the Barack Obama article? Obama's own writings are used as a source. So what's the beef with using Vani Hari's blog to describe Vani Hari's views? How is this different? Dmdx86 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hitler & Obama are not good comparisons. They did not/do not maintain personal blogs or webpages. Even if they did, it would not be proper to repeat their posts about what microwaves do to water molecules or why they do (or do not) get flu shots. – S. Rich (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As the flu shot material has been restored to the article, I've posted a thread on the issue at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SPS material for Vani Hari. – S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a sourcing problem here. The statements on her blog are clearly a reliable source that she made those statements, obviously. The tone of the relevant section here is neutral on the validity of her claims, so it's not like her blog is being used as a source that her statements are even true. The only question I would have is whether there's any reason to believe that this particular blog post is being given undue weight here (you wouldn't devote a section to every blog post she makes, so you have to have some way of deciding what's actually appropriate for a biographical article on this person). Seems like there's already a secondary source (Science Based Medicine - is this considered RS?) responding to her post, which sorta indicates to me that it may indeed be appropriate.

I would say that the issue here isn't the fact that she's making some unscientific claims - those would definitely be an inappropriate source for any factual information from the content of her statement - but whether or not this section misrepresents her position on the subject and level of involvement/advocacy. It would be inappropriate to have a section called "Vaccine Advocacy" here because she once tweeted, "I don't think I'm going to get a flu shot - too many chemicals!" (and never followed up on it), but it seems to me at a quick glance that her position is fairly portrayed in a content-neutral way and given due weight in her biographical article. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that you post on the RSN. This page has less than 30 watchers and the RSN has 1,000+. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with how the RSN works, I was under the impression that it was about assessments of the reliability of sources themselves, which is not necessarily something I can comment on. It seems clear to me that you've accepted that this is indeed her blog and that the writing does in fact come from her. If that's true, then obviously it's obviously a reliable primary source for what she has said. IF that's not in dispute, then my comments are not really about the reliability of the source and are more about the content of this page and the appropriateness of various types of source. I'd say my comments are contingent on her blog being a reliable primary source 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 22:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The RSN works just like the ANI and edit warring boards. Editors comment and consensus is reached. I suggest you cut & page your two comments from here to the RSN thread I provided via a link. (If you will, I can remove my replies as unneeded.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Gorski comments

David Gorski is an oncologist, not an expert on finances, financial motivation, or the like. Wikipedia cannot be used to restate his personal opinions as to Hari. He is an expert as to the science involving her claims, and nothing more. Adding his comments violated biography of living persons policy. – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How so? The other editor is asking you to explain. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Vani Hari repeatedly has claimed that scientists' work is not valid because they are materially and financially invested in science. As one of the scientists involved in the discussion, David Gorski is perfectly capable to (a) discuss the level of financial involvement of scientists and (b) to point out the hypocrisy of Vani Hari's own financial investment in her tactics, branding, and the methodologies she uses to stir up her fan base that include deliberate scientific falsehoods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The material in this edit goes beyond Gorski's area of expertise. Please do the right thing and revert IP's edit. – S. Rich (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please start obeying the civility guidelines and give specifics when asked rather than blanket attacking an edit. Am I really supposed to sit around trying to read your mind to guess at the specific wording you object to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what any of this is about. Srich, I suggest you post on BLPN and see what views are offered there. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I keep asking for specifics and Srich32977 refuses to give them. I'm at least getting SOME response out of Huon in irc chat but even then it's like pulling teeth to get a rational explanation as to what specific wording or quotes are objected to. Why is it so hard to get people to just be specific and say what precise words or phrases they object to? I'm not a mind reader! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Do I think that David Gorski has intelligent and reasoned criticism for some of the claims involving food chemicals made by the subject of this BLP? Yes. Can I also see how this blog is an inappropriate source for psychological speculation about a living person? Yes. there's a reasonable BLP concern here, on the face of it. Material that has been removed on reasonable BLP grounds is not supposed to be shoved back in while it's being discussed.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Simply, if someone's made an erroneous claim about science, add material that directly addresses the science. Don't involve Wikipedia in potential libels about a living person, cited to sources we can't point to as having a strong reputation for editorial accuracy about people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

IP has added a piece from Trevor Butterworth at Forbes.com, quoting Gorski. I think the Forbes piece is okay (as RS) because Butterworth is a regular contributor. The specific language he uses is subject to revision. But Gorski's own blog material, not subject to editorial control and outside of his area of expertise, is problematic. – S. Rich (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing the Forbes user-generated content. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. That's not a "regular contributor", that's a "Forbes Contributor" which is not a journalistic position. It's the equivalent of Huffington Post at best, CNN iReport at worst. Not an appropriate source for negative material about living people.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And no one's saying the subject can't be criticized. Any harmful claim she makes should be criticized clearly and unequivocally with due weight. But we can't say she's blackmailing people any more than we can ascribe evil intent, with iffy sourcing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll support removal of the material. The more we see sound & fury about the topic, the less it signifies. The best course of action is to give some mention of the criticisms about her scientific claims, avoiding ad hominem remarks about her motivations. – S. Rich (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok I have another source for examination. http://www.alternet.org/food/food-babe-bloggers-attack-against-beer-gains-national-attention-experts-call-it-quackmail The author is a Senior Editor, http://www.alternet.org/authors/cliff-weathers. His writing focus is "covering environmental and consumer issues." According to the Wikipedia entry, Alternet ought to meet all the criteria as a Reliable Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNet. AlterNet has won multiple awards for journalism and recognitions for journalism including Webby awards (2005 winner for Magazine, 2004 Print nominee, 2003 Print nominee) and Independent Press Awards. Are there objections to this source and if so, on what basis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

When looking at a potential edit, we must consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. That is, how would this (or any other source) be used? I think the alternet material is a good source, but what particular edits do you propose? Please consider that we edit WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

As per this edit [3] Elaqueate asked for a "better source" for that information. The Alternet article covers Gorski's commentary the same way with the appropriate context and qualifies as a Reliable Source per the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please tell us what particular content you think should be added. Something like "According to so-and-so at alternet, Hari's commentary about this-and-that is the greatest thing since sliced bread.^[citation]" When it comes to biographies of living people, it is especially important to met the WP:PROVEIT burden. Once you do so, other editors can comment about your proposed content. – S. Rich (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the edit Elaqueate asked for more sourcing for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Also after sitting through trying to get you to give specifics earlier and having you refuse to do so, I prefer you just read the relatively short edit for yourself. Maybe then you will understand why your behavior earlier was so infuriating.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk • contribs)

If you want to add content that was removed for BLP reasons, it's better to propose the specific wording and sourcing on the talk page, and get some new consensus if possible. I didn't think that was a great source generally and my edit summary was a call that any sources for BLP material should be held to a higher standard than that particular opinion piece. For that specific edit, I will say that I sincerely doubt there is an actual source that would be sufficient to tie her to "blackmail" in a way that's BLP compliant. Being conservative about BLP material isn't something to be infuriated over, it's what we're supposed to do to avoid predictable grief. It's a good practice that makes the article stronger, too.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate I think you are misreading or misrepresenting the policy. The issue is not wikipedia saying that she has committed blackmail, but rather showing that her CRITICS criticize her behavior with that verbiage using verifiable, reliable sources.

As I have been googling for the policies listed trying to make SOME sense of your and Srich32977's alphabet soup, I have run across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRYBLP. I think that in some ways this is what is going on here. You are insisting that notation that her critics have used certain verbiage to describe her behavior and tactics is a "BLP violation" when in fact that is far from certain according to the policies. Per that page "Insisting that a non-BLP issue is in fact a BLP crisis is not helpful to building an encyclopedia."

Now, the relevant verbiage, from the RELIABLE SOURCE provided, says:

“Her strategy is very transparent, but unfortunately it’s also very effective,” wrote Gorski. “Name a bunch of chemicals and count on the chemical illiteracy of your audience to result in fear at hearing their very names.”​

Not stopping there, Gorski said what Hari did was nothing more than blackmail.​

“Unfortunately, companies live and die by public perception,” he wrote. “It’s far easier to give a blackmailer like Hari what she wants than to try to resist or to counter her propaganda by educating the public. And, make no mistake, blackmail is exactly what Vani Hari is about.”​

Therefore I propose wording similar to what was present before, which is NOT wikipedia accusing Vani Hari of blackmail, but rather noting that a very prominent critic and expert in the fields she has misbehaved in has said so.

Verbiage follows below.

Proposed Edit: Gorski has specifically attacked Hari's tactics as appeals to scientific illiteracy and fearmongering, and equating her tactics against companies to blackmail while simultaneously criticizing the companies that give in to Hari's tactics:

“Unfortunately, companies live and die by public perception,” he wrote. “It’s far easier to give a blackmailer like Hari what she wants than to try to resist or to counter her propaganda by educating the public. And, make no mistake, blackmail is exactly what Vani Hari is about.”​

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk • contribs)

I quite agree with Gorski and his evaluation. I completely disagree with Hari and her program. But the issue for us is Wikipedia editing policy. When it comes to articles about living people, we are much more careful than about other issues. In this case the policy we must follow is Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Gorski is a scientist, so we can use his statements about scientific topics. But what you propose to post are Gorski's non-scientific opinions. Sorry. We just can't use them. (Likewise, I object to posting links to Hari's blog items about vaccines & microwave ovens. These are two subjects about which she is not an expert and Wikipedia should not be used to spread such opinions, especially via links to her blog posts.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not served by rhetorically disparaging the subject. The article is served by including due weight, well-sourced criticism of the subject's non-mainstream claims.

As far as Gorski goes, he's already quoted twice in this article, once calling the subject a "quack" and a second quote calling her a "malignant force". The IP is hard-pushing to have a third comment on the same page from the same blog-post calling her a "blackmailer". This is ridiculous and redundant. Gorski is not an expert on the subject's personal character, and if he wants to describe her in potentially libellous ways, he's free to take the risk, but Wikipedia doesn't repeat every unproven accusation in a BLP, regardless of how it's attributed. Many politicians have been accused of being "murderers" by random self-published experts; there's a difference between presenting criticism responsibly and adding a list of verbatim personal attacks.

As far as behaviour goes, I think the IP has been far too quick to assume bad faith on S. Rich's part, almost to the point of being disruptive. All I see are some conservative edits to reduce the current amount of BLP-non-compliant name-calling. Removing a source's rhetorical accusation that someone is a blackmailer clearly falls under the kind of contentious labelling we should avoid, no matter how narrowly we construe the word "contentious" per things like WP:CRYBLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

1. 1 - Elaqueate, Srich32977's tone and refusal to provide specific details were very rude and themselves disruptive. This all could be dealt with much easier if, when ASKED for specifics, he would PROVIDE specifics.
2. 2 - Srich32977, here is where I think you are wrong.

First, Vani Hari is an expert on nothing. Repeat, she is NOT an expert; her field, as noted in the article, is "activist." Her activism is not limited to food, though that is her primary focus; she has also extended her activism to vaccines, echoing other members of the anti-vaccination movement, and since she as an activist has taken that cause up, it can in no way be a violation of policy to note that she has done so and that others have specifically spoken against her article.

Second, even if I were to take the idea that the article is limited to food because Vani Hari is "an expert in food", which I do not, her commentary on microwave ovens specifically concerns claims that it alters the chemical composition and nutritional character of food. Her commentary about microwave ovens is therefore about food.

For Elaqueate, I would be happy to discuss merging the commentary or finding the most appropriate wording, whether quotes or otherwise, to best represent Gorski's criticisms. Do you have any suggestions on wording, or are you simply operating as a naysayer?

As a final thought experiment, what "experts" WOULD you accept giving their educated descriptions of Hari's motivations and tactics? Because I can happily go back through Gorski's work and show where he has repeatedly worked to deal directly with scientific frauds and their motivations and tactics, and as far as I am aware there is no program on the planet that grants doctorates in that field.

Why do I think Gorski IS an expert enough to make his statement? Because he is (A) a well regarded credentialed scientist, (B) a well regarded, credentialed individual who carries multiple writing positions in the field of scientific advocacy, skepticism and even has a current fellowship position with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and (C) because he is a recognized expert to speak on the infiltration of pseudoscience into health, medicine and nutrition and has been recognized as such in numerous mainstream media appearances. Thus he is eminently qualified to speak on the tactics and motivations of those who are attempting to infiltrate pseudoscience into health, medicine and nutrition such as Vani Hari.

Your response? 98.196.234.202 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

off-topic comments regarding editor behavior
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@98.196.234.202: You need to stop talking about other editors, restrict your comments on this talk page to the editorial content of the article per WP:TPYES and WP:TPNO; as well as WP:NPA. If you have issues with another editor's behavior, take it to your user talk pages or use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving user conduct disputes processes. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Dreadstar ☥ 00:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC) @Dreadstar, there was no need for you to comment. I only answered regarding Srich32977's pattern because Elaqueate made a comment about it. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Dreadstar is welcome to comment. You should heed his advice as he as been around for a while and is not just making this stuff up. It really is expected of you that you discuss the contributions and not the contributors. Chillum 00:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Good, then I expect you will not be making any further comments on the editors here; and will restrict your comments to the editorial content of this article. As a matter of fact, you may want to strike your earlier comments about others. You don't need to be commenting on anybody's "pattern" here. Dreadstar ☥ 00:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC) If you don't have something constructive to say about the content proposal, please stop cluttering up this talk page. You could just as easily have taken your own advice and made your commentary on my talk page. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Setting aside all walls of text about the eminence and educated commentary of various sources, there is zero chance that we can add assertions that the BLP subject is a "blackmailer". Any idea that this kind of assertion (however it's attributed in text) is not a clear BLP problem is misguided. There's no point packing in all the personally derogatory statements ever made about the subject, as that would tip any balance toward WP:ATTACKPAGE; the end result being either article deletion or (more likely) reverting to an earlier version of the page without overly malicious commentary or any of your changes. As has been repeatedly suggested, it would be more helpful if any suggested content was about the mainstream science that refutes her claims, rather than pointless and unprovable speculation about her personal motivation. (And I don't see that Srich32977 was rude in any way, those kinds of comments are unhelpful. I mentioned it only to point out that you should consider a different approach. And I still think you should.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Butterworth comments

One other question for you, Srich32977 and Eleaqueate: the Alternet article also covers the commentary by Trevor Butterworth that you discounted because he is a "contributor" to Forbes. However, Butterworth is a credentialed journalist who writes not just for Forbes but also as a credentialed journalist for Newsweek [4] and the editor and senior fellow at STATS.org Statistical Assessment Service, therefore more than expert enough to comment on the media's failures to properly vet and report on Hari's claims. What wording would satisfy you for Butterworth's commentary that the media has failed to properly report on her, to wit, "“So, when are journalists going to hold truth up to this new self-promoting juggernaut? Why have so many news stories avoided questioning her claims as they would question her targets in the food industry. Surely, someone who believes that saying “Satan,” repeatedly to a glass of water will alter the water's physical properties needs to be treated with a dash of skepticism—no?”​"? 98.196.234.202 (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep it to the science, don't add sources just to add wording that can be interpreted by reasonable editors as libellous personal attacks. "Blackmailer" is clearly contentious labelling.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I endorse Elaqueate's comments (here and above). There are two factors which must be followed when adding content. First, what is the consensus amongst editors. (At present there is no consensus to add the items which IP is seeking.) Next, what do WP policies say? (The policy about consensus says WP policy itself will be respected. In this case the main policy is restrictions on BLP content.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

To both of you, Please comment on Butterworth's commentary, an experienced journalist is just the sort of expert who should be able to comment on media failures to cover her accurately. This question was not about Gorski and Butterworth has not used the term "blackmail." 98.196.234.202 (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a self-defeating thread. There is not really a great way here for Wikipedia to treat the topic, "Why aren't mainstream sources questioning this woman?". If the source is self-describing their view as a minority view not covered by the mainstream media, regarding a blog post that also wasn't covered widely, then we shouldn't add either to the article. I'm sure he's most probably right about how she's wrong, but it raises a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue regarding the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. A Wikipedia article is not the best place to add material about the non-coverage of an issue in most mainstream sources. If some of her views or one-off comments haven't received coverage in many secondary reliable sources, than neither her views nor the criticism are probably needed in an article.

As an example, if she had a blog post in 2009 that she thought leprechauns were cute, and the silence from mainstream media regarding her admission was deafening, then we wouldn't add any mention of her view or the "media failure" to address it, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. This article is not supposed to be an exhaustive catalog of all the ways you might consider her in error, whether they were covered widely or not. That's an attack page without enough concern for NPOV or DUEWEIGHT. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be an itemized list of everything a person's ever said that is incorrect; it's supposed to be a NPOV summation of what's been covered more widely. Bringing up stuff like the one-post microwave nonsense probably does more to spread those views than counteract them.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

comments about WP:3O request (which has been closed because more than 2 editors are involved)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Without commenting on the legitimacy of seeking a third-opinion where there are more than two editors in discussion, anon has filed this 3O request without notifying editors here. Dreadstar ☥ 05:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I found no requirement that a notification be placed when asking for a third opinion on the third opinion notice page. Please point out where it exists if you think it does.98.196.234.202 (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Didn't you know? it's the civil thing to to, per 3O's statement: It is recommended that the filing editor notifies the second editor about the post here. - it's certainly not 'required' but "recommended". And, you know, you're really missing the real point I was making...about a 3O being about a dispute where if "...no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment". Just to point out, there are more than two editors involved in this dispute. Dreadstar ☥ 06:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Elaqueate is right here. Elaqueate is the only other editor to take a stance on Butterworth's commentary: thanks to Elaqueate's mistaken commentary which I must assume was intended to go up above, Srich32977's comment appears to relate to Gorski's commentary instead. Thus I asked for a third, NEUTRAL party to step in to provide some guidance in accordance with the processes. You, sir or madam, are mistaken. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC) The request was not about "Butterworth" but instead about "experts in the field" and if about Butterworth - if one can indeed slice this talk page conversation into such a tiny slice, then it fails "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." From all appearances, it is indeed the former, if you believe otherwise then take it up the chain. Dreadstar ☥ 06:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I'd like to ask for some clarification here. Elaqueate, did you intend your first commentary above to attach to the Gorski section? This needs clarification and if so, to be moved to the appropriate spot. 98.196.234.202 (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC) (Since you say you just attempted to open a 3O over this specific sub-thread (!), I admit it's hard to see how this is likely to become a constructive conversation.) There are currently many experts in the field represented in the article, and rightfully so, so your 3O request doesn't even seem to directly relate to this conversation. I responded to your queries in good faith. You have brought up Butterworth in two contexts, this edit where you were adding the material about the BLP being involved with something like blackmail; and your other question about how to include Butterworth's claim that mainstream media haven't covered what this subject talks about on her blog, and how or whether to include notice of that disinterest. In both cases my response holds for how to best serve the article...Keep it to the science.... It's the best way to keep it to the information that's common to the better reliable sources, and it avoids predictable BLP problems.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I tried to follow the 3O guidelines by keeping it BRIEF expecting whoever came to give a 3rd opinion to read the discussions before commenting.98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Massive commentary removal

Srich32977, please explain your commentary removal; you removed a significant number of sources and commentary by scientists and reputed, published authors that seems wholly in line with the RS and BLP policies. Also, you left a comment stating " Not improvements (discussed)" when I cannot find any discussion you make of these quotes or sources anywhere. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.193.8 (talk • contribs)

The problem is more with Hari's SPS material. See the discussion above and at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 174#SPS material for Vani Hari. Perhaps you can rewrite it without her blog stuff. (Also, posting the criticism at the top give it WP:UNDUE & see the proper way to present quotes at MOS:QUOTE.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

After reading that discussion it's evident that you were a minority in the discussion and that there is no consensus to support your view. I'm currently re-reading the policy but it seems entirely appropriate that Vani Hari's claims may be sourced both by the criticism made of them and also by the original articles she wrote that sparked the responses. Please either demonstrate a clear consensus of your reading of the policy or show a clear written analysis that will convince others to join your viewpoint to create such a consensus.

I make no objection to Klopek007's moving of the Criticism section to below the various claims, that's fine by me, though I do not think either placement necessarily gives "undue weight." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, your link to "MOS:QUOTE" redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style and after manually searching for the section and reviewing it I believe the quotes are displaying correctly. If you believe they are incorrectly formatted, please explain how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BQ. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

IP has been blocked, rem off-topic commentary. Dreadstar ☥ 02:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please stop providing bad links and alphabet soup nonsense, it's not civil and clearly designed only to enrage others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Once again to Srich32977, I request that you provide the SPECIFIC sources, phrases, and information you have a problem with. You are being needlessly pedantic, deliberately obtuse, and generally making those who deal with you have to play 20-questions games trying to figure out what you are objecting to; you are also claiming to be supported by consensus based on discussions where there was no consensus to support your rather odd views of policy. In short I believe you are deliberately dealing in violations of the WP:CIVIL policy by engaging in a series of slights and sending those who discuss with you chasing after red herrings trying to figure out what you are talking about. Once again: Please provide, in a WP:CIVIL manner the specific things you object to so that wording can be worked out and if sources need discussion, a civil and consensus-building conversation can take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Social Media Expert Commentary

A lot of the commentary on here says that scientific experts aren't "experts" to comment on Hari's tactics.

How about a social media expert instead? http://zachbussey.com/is-the-food-babe-more-dangerous-than-pumpkin-spice-lattes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.188.114 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC) |}

Commentary removal

In this diff [5] we have two references removed. One is by a contributor to the Forbes newsblog and the other is a piece published by the Independent Women's Forum. I submit these are not SPS and are therefor reliable sources. – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave a link to my reasoning for my edit for anyone interested who didn't see it there.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hatting banned sock edits and already addressed issues. Dreadstar ☥ 04:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Conspiracy Theorist Given that Hari is making unfounded anti-vaccine claims, along with bizarre assertions regarding microwave ovens, I've labelled her also a conspiracy theorist. Happy to discuss. Mongoletsi (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Needs better sourcing. It's good to debunk non-scientific ideas, but you need better sourcing to label someone a career conspiracy theorist. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Personal life section I have removed duplicate content, the section called "Personal life". Identical material appears at the top of the Career section. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks for doing so; I hadn't noticed the change. Apologies Mongoletsi (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC) chipotle I just cut the following and am pasting it here: Hari began investigating what food ingredients were used at Chipotle Mexican Grill starting in 2012. Her investigation revealed the company was using genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) in their cooking oil and trans fats in their tortillas, and that their black beans contained genetically modified soybean oil. One week after posting her investigation to Foodbabe.com, Chipotle communications director Chris Arnold requested a meeting with Hari to discuss the public disclosure of its ingredients. In March 2013, as a result of Hari's efforts, Chipotle published its full ingredients list on all menu items, including where Chipotle uses GMOs. Here are my issues with this: 1) there is nothing outside of Hari's assertion that her blog posting and the pressure from her readers actually a) caused Chipotle any embarassment or b) caused Chipotle to disclose their ingredients, but that is what this content says - "as a result of Hari's efforts" 2) there is no contradiction of the pseudoscience claim that genetically modified ingredients in Chipotle's food is in any way harmful. 3) Not one of the sources used here is solid and that is a flimsy way to build a section. 4) so overall, this comes across to me as just WP:PROMO for Hari and her views - scraping the bottom of the sourcing barrel to find a "win" for her. Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Seems accurate but good luck getting it past the NPOV-violating pro-woo cabal that infests this page. With three abusive admins to their name they're basically running a WP:OWN scam and have for months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.188.62 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Articles disappearing The issue just got a bit more prominence for me with Drmies recent edit [6] pointing it out to me, but since it seems like articles from the FoodBabe website tend to disappear for whatever reason somewhat often, should we maybe list those ghost articles here on the talk page just for future reference? One could make the argument there's damage control going on, much less nefarious reasons, or whatever, but this seems like a topic where me might need to be wary about the potential of sources being scrubbed (regardless of the actual reason) given the controversial nature of this topic. At least this way we have a record of sources that "disappeared" so folks can attempt to find them back again if there's anything of use in them. Feel free to edit below my signature or add comments below the reference(s) on what's best to do in these instances. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Hari, Vani (July 30, 2012). [http://foodbabe.com/2012/07/30/why-its-time-to-throw-out-your-microwave/ "Why It's Time To Throw Out Your Microwave"]. FoodBabe.com. Retrieved April 29, 2014. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help) Yeah, but the problem is that we can't say in our article what we can say on Facebook or speculate about on the talk page. In this case it wasn't so problematic since one of the references discussed the post and cited from it--but I urge editors to be very wary of how they phrase things in the article. Even "since removed" is OR (if not verified by other, reliable sources), since, you know, the website owner could have moved it or whatever. We can think what we like but we can't make our article say all that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Indeed. I was mainly trying to stress the same that regardless of whatever the reason actually is (folks probably have plenty of their own ideas that we don't include in the article per OR), our goal should be to focus on how we're documenting things, and if that documentation disappears one way or another, we should try to have a record here of that if a broken reference is removed. This is all just for within the talk page to potentially make things a little easier for us if one of those sources come up again in some fashion. I'm not sure if we really have anything one way or another to actually talk about disappearing sources in the article itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC) I haven't seen it yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if the increased scrutiny (because of the upcoming book publication, maybe) leads to some discussion of that as well. I tell you what, I'm getting kind of tired of looking at that smile on every page, every cover, in every article. I wonder if the Gender Gap Task Force has anything to say regarding the "babe" appellation. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC) The purpose of removing these most embarrassing articles from her blog is obviously to remove anything that reflects obviously badly upon her. WP should not play along with such post facto editorialising. At one time, the article here included links to both Hari's original post (now a deadlink) and also to a 3rd party copy of the post, with critical commentary. A third piece by Prof. Steven Novella MD was referenced as being commentary from a substantial RS. All have since been removed, by salami-slicing them one by one. This is a piece of gross technical ineptitude on her part, and it's a piece that is easily comprehended as such by the majority of readers. GMO issues are indeed complicated, but anyone with a decent secondary school education should know that the atmosphere is already more than half nitrogen, even if Hari doesn't. We've even seen the claim that the atmosphere does contain 80% N2 removed as unsourced, then when sources were added to support every last fact they were complained of as "unrelated to Vani Hari". Why is this article even here? A blogger is not notable. A blogger only becomes notable, per WP:N, according to the attention paid to them by independent WP:RS. Have any such RS paid such attention? Have any pro-Vari sources paid such attention, and do they meet RS? Have any skeptic RS against Vari's position given such comment? – yes they have (Novella for one), yet they've been blanked. If this article is to refuse to include anti-Hari RS, then is there anything left to even demonstrate WP:N? We have a similar deadlinking problem when Flickr images are uploaded to Commons. We check that they have an acceptable licence at the time they are uploaded, then we allow the original Flickr author to change or delete the licence, even to something not-Commons acceptable. Yet because we recognise the irrevocability of CC licences, and presumably the veracity of self-appointed authorities, we recognise that if WMF has read one source at one time, we regard it as immutable beyond that, even if the current copy of the web resource changes or disappears. Blanking Hari putting her elegant foot in it because she now wishes she hadn't said something that blows holes in her facade of credibility is no reason at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "WP should not play along" is nonsense. No one is playing along with anything. The archived link was dead, at least the one that I looked at (and removed). "A blogger is not notable" is likewise silly: NPR has at least three articles on her, and the reflist is full of reliable sources so of course she's notable. I'm sure you are familiar with the GNG; likewise, you should be familiar with the BLP. Finally, "if this article is to refuse to include anti-Hari RS"--I don't know where this comes from, since this morning I added a clearly critical piece. Your commentary here is about as one-sided as the subject's contributions to food science are alleged to be. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Her tendency to try to "wipe" her history of idiocy is known and documented by reliable sources. See http://www.science20.com/cool-links/the_food_babe_took_down_her_goofy_microwave_oven_post_science_win-140892. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Food Babe Conspiracy Theories There should probably be a section here for all her conspiracy theory stuff, such as her claims that "organized industry" are trying to pay people to give negative reviews to her books or post against her on outlets like Facebook and Twitter. In fact, she should be listed as a conspiracy theorist, much like Alex Jones (radio host). Let's Have Some Science (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Got any sources? Tutelary (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Please see http://foodbabe.com/2014/12/06/food-babe-critics/ (and numerous other articles on her site). She claims that any criticism of her, or debunking of her work, or negative reviews of her poorly written books/site, are "tobacco industry playbook." Let's Have Some Science (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Similarly, her claims that airplane travel involves a conspiracy, as covered by Steven Novella here http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/food-babe-misinformation-on-travel/. Dr. Novella also states "The Food Babe is shockingly scientifically illiterate and should not be giving advice to anyone", which I encourage be added to the article. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC) I should've said reliable sources. First one is a WP:PRIMARY source which can be used for simple facts and the like, not for criticizing the same source. The 2nd is a blog and is not a reliable source. Tutelary (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC) You're wrong. "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" - from WP:RS. Dr. Steven Novella, per his Wikipedia page linked previously, is such an expert. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Since this is a Biography, there's a special case to never use self published sources unless written by the subject. WP:BLPSPS. I'm not trying to trick you up, and fully want if there are reliable sources for this stuff for it to be put in, but a blog by someone doesn't cut it. Tutelary (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Commentary by a published scientist in the field is RS per the policy. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC) "Dr. Novella is an academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine. He is the president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society. He is the host and producer of the popular weekly science podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. He is also a senior fellow and Director of Science-Based Medicine at the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and a founding fellow of the Institute for Science in Medicine." http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/about/ Let's Have Some Science (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, but the URL to that page matches the regex /blog/, which means that any WP editor looking for an excuse (not a reason, they've already pre-judged their reason) can easily remove it and cry "OMG SPS BLOG!!" Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Which is why the policy says the opposite! Let's Have Some Science (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Policies are to be quoted as links in SCARE CAPITALS, not actually read. The more time I spend at WP, the more respect I have for the policies, if only some editors would bother to read them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Again, WP:BLPSPS is unambiguous. No self published sources, even if the person is an expert, unless it comes from the subject themselves. Tutelary (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Your views on avoiding bias would carry more weight if your short editing history had been less eventful for its topic bans. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC) More coverage: http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/11/food-babe-clueless-about-food-science-and-apparently-air/ Let's Have Some Science (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Mass blanking of talk page I note that Jytdog has been participating in the mass blanking of this article and now added a "bot" to blank this talk page as well. What's with that??? Let's Have Some Science (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC) What you call "blanking" this page is actually archiving - see Help:Archiving_a_talk_page and the link and search box in the yellow box at the top of the page. I did also make a sweep through the article and improve it based on WP:Policies and guidelines - there is an edit note for each change I made. I took out a section and pasted it above - please feel free to comment on that, above. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Steven Novella Nyttend please check out his WP article. Novella is primarily notable for his skeptic activities, which are broad and deep. thx Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC) I had after you restored him in the first place; that's why I modified his description, instead of re-removing it or dropping the issue. There's a big difference between what he's notable for and how we should describe him here: we need to explain to the reader why he's relevant, since neurologists should have an idea on whether microwaves can affect the brain and influence people's thoughts. We need to bring him in because of his credentials, not because of his fame. It's comparable to citing Bill Frist on something related to coronary artery disease; he's primarily notable for his political activities, but if he's a reliable source on coronary topics (I don't know), it's because of his medical credentials. Describing Novella as a neurologist allows the reader to understand why he's relevant, but if we just say that he's a skeptic, we're leaving open the possibility that he's a crackpot like Hari who just happens to be right in this case. Moreover, by calling him a "critic of pseudoscience", we clearly imply disapproval toward Hari. It's comparable to the Gorski bit, except for the fact that Gorski is a surgeon and oncologist, with credentials that don't particularly appear relevant to beer ingredients — the only reason to bring him in is to say "She's eeeeevil". We quote the beer publication because it's got a stake in the subject, and if we're referencing someone who's completely unaffiliated here, we need someone who's a scholar in the field. Otherwise, we might as well bring in an electrical engineer or a linguist; they're no more experts on this situation than the surgeon is. Nyttend (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC) per WP:PSCI (which is policy) we call a spade a spade. Where her claims are based in quackery and pseudoscience, we say so. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Clearly we don't any more, as Nyttend has removed the entire "Criticism" section. From their justification here, it seems to be because Novella, as a mere neurologist, isn't RS for the sort of high school science that Hari fails to understand. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Andy, Novella's criticism is still there, just in the subsection to which it was relevant. I think nyytend's edits, to get rid of the criticism section and instead incorporate it throughout, is OK per Wikipedia:Criticism#Integrated_throughout_the_article Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Criticism sections are almost always a bad idea; unless they're explaining the literary criticism of a creative work, they're almost always 100% negative, and they're an easy way to suggest that the subject is wrong or bad. By integrating the contents of the criticism section into other parts of the article, we provide a much more balanced view of the subject. The only thing I removed outright was the thing on influenza vaccines, because none of the sources suggested that she'd attracted criticism on the subject, and a single "she doesn't like flu vaccines" would have been out of place elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC) David Gorski in this dif Nyttend removed discussion of David Gorski. as you can see from his WP article and all the sources there (and the source provided in this article, Gorski speaks widely about pseudoscience and quackery. That is his key notability. I reverted. pls discuss. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC) See above; if he's important as a critic, his opinions are irrelevant. You didn't wait for a response, just as you didn't twice earlier, before reverting. Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC) the content had been in the article for a good while before you deleted it. per WP:BRD if you want to take out longstanding content you need to justify it. Thanks. And per above, Gorski also speaks widely and broadly about quackery etc. Please explore his work and you will see that. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC) We shouldn't use a blog-sourced piece to repeat a claim about a BLP that consists of the exact words "she's a quack". "Quack" isn't an objective essential quality that can be diagnosed like some medical condition. This is based on the same BLP policy about sources that says we can't use a blog-sourced claim of "she's a thief" or "she's a bad parent" or "she's a terrorist", even if the ascribed-claim is arguably 100% correct. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC) [ec with Elaqueate] As I just said, you didn't wait before reverting; you assumed that I hadn't justified it. Hari speaks widely and broadly, attacking quackery as well; would you want to cite her in the azodicarbonamide because she's a critic of quack science? No, because she has no credentials, so it would be inappropriate to portray her views as scholarly. If someone's prominent as a critic, without having credentials in the field, the only reason we should care about such a person is because of their relevance to the cultural place of the concept; it would make sense to bring Hari into azodicarbonamide because she's apparently had influence on its economic significance, influence on how the stuff gets used in the first place. Unless we can find evidence that Gorski has had some sort of influence on Hari (e.g. "Opposition to Hari increased after critic Gorski said X"), or unless we can find evidence that Gorski's an authority on the subject itself, he doesn't belong here. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC) we use quackwatch and science based medicine all the time for FRINGE content per WP:PARITY - and it is not about her, but the ideas that she states. I think the content is pretty careful in that regard. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Hang on a minute, Before we condemn Orac for not being an authority on the subject, one might observe that the subject of this article isn't an authority on the subject either. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Who is Orac? We report non-authorities if they're relevant; she's relevant because we're discussing her views, and the beer trade publication is relevant because it's being affected by her activities. If you're using a popular critic as a reliable source, there's a huge problem: we need to cite the subject experts (biochemists and food scientists), not surgeons. Stephen Hawking is a prominent critic of quackery, but if he were to address this issue, would we bring him in? No way: he's a physicist, so we quote him on silliness in things such as astrophysics, not biochemistry. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC) And there's a profound difference between saying someone has been criticized for promoting a pseudoscientific claim, sourced to NPR, and calling someone "a quack", sourced to a blog. At that point you're commenting on the person, not their ideas.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Hari has commented on physics and made a fool of herself on both occasions. To refute the airliner comments a statement from a qualified high school teacher would be adequate. However you've removed all coverage of this, excusing it on the basis that Novella isn't suitably qualified to judge trivial science. You are using ludicrous standards applied to her critics, out of all proportion to her own level of knowledge, or the level needed to refute her claims. One again, this article has turned into a whitewash. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC) All I know of airline issues is a thread up above on this talk page (it wasn't there when I started editing today), so it would help if you'd leave me out of that. If you want to suggest that we refute stupid ideas with science, give me something from scientists who work with the subject; Novella is good for that, not because he's a critic, but because neurologists are qualified to judge how brains respond to microwaves. If we're simply bouncing critics against critics, e.g. Hari v. Gorski, we're relying on two different people without degrees in the field, two different people who are equally unqualified on professional grounds. If we restore airline issues, whatever those were, we can bring in Hawking there, but bringing him into the beer thing would be no less reasonable than bringing in the surgeon; both of them are unqualified in that area. Use the surgeon if she starts babbling against having operations or against standard cancer treatments, but use a food scientist or biochemist on the beer thing. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "If you want to suggest that we refute stupid ideas with science" Yes, it's particularly good for refuting stupid ideas. This is an encyclopedia. The heir of Diderot. Yet another product of the Enlightenment. The whole concept of what WP is about works by the scientific method. Not by woo-woo, not by alchemy, not by food-related anecdote. The core of that is that science is objective, describable and reproducible. If one scientist discovers that air is mostly nitrogen, they communicate and publish that fact and other scientists will be able to either reproduce it, or refute it. It's a good system, it's why we aren't all mostly dead of cholera and smallpox. Novella and Gorski are not atmospheric chemists. Neither am I. Yet all three of us have a scientific education, with paperwork, that entitles us to make judgements about the simpler aspects of the atmosphere: which is all this case actually requires. As a working engineer, who even used to work in Hitler's old radar factory, I am in a particularly good place to discredit Hari's other claims about German army microwave ovens in WWII. I once (bizarrely) even took a commercial interest in propylene glycols entering the food chain with dairy cattle. Professorships in neurology sit rather atop this. Yet even substantial clinical training does not discredit Novella's simple ability to do school level science, as you claim by your dismissal of him as a credible commentator on Hari's bona fides. You have whitewashed this article by stripping back all criticism to no more than footnotes. You now admit that you haven't even looked at the article before you started, despite the substantial talk: coverage, and yet you're happy to substantially blank sections of it. You didn't start with an unedited or unbalanced article, it was one that had already had any criticism of her pared to the bone. Yet you didn't judge from the basis of how much sourced criticism there is out there, was in here, or could (per WP:V) be in here – you simply started cutting until it was all gone. I agree with much of what Hari says (Gillian McKeith too). Modern food is in a terrible state. Yet (much as I dislike to even use the term) she is a "stopped clock" that is sometimes right more by accident than by deliberate knowledge. This leads to the modern American crisis of knowledge as Asimov put it, "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." WP should never work on that basis: as an encyclopedia based on sourceable knowledge, Hari's low standards for accuracy just aren't ours. So why are you so intent on presenting her views uncritically and unchallenged, when they're so evidently wrong and eminent sources are so easily available to comment on just such an issue? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC) (One could say your post is mostly nitrogen.) There's no reason to build Vani Hari up by including breathless breakdowns of every post she posts to her blog. If multiple quality RS don't take notice of her views, we don't have to publicize them, we don't have to spread her erroneous views at all. The only people "intent on presenting her views" are the people who keep inserting them in order to take shots at them. The air travel and microwave posts are, as Drmies eloquently put it "WP:FARTs". __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Then you know where AfD is, because the only RS here are substantially on the side of the critics. "Pro-Hari" titles like this [7], yet a quarter of that article is on Joe Schwarcz' criticisms of her (but he's a chemistry professor, so what does he know?). This one [8] is pure fluff, or as the #foodbabearmy would put it "life affirming loveliness". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Maybe you don't understand the process, but you can't take sections to AFD. If you want to re-write stuff based on RS, that's great, but complaints that RS don't say what you want them to say aren't helpful. I don't think there'd be anything wrong with sourcing more of the criticism from The Star article, although it looks similar to what we have multiply sourced in the lead. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Just a quick note on the whole discussion above. I am about to unwatch this article, but I wanted to wish you good luck working on this very difficult subject matter. Hari is notable b/c she gets people all whipped about claims that are quackery or pseudoscience. A NPOV article on her at Wikipedia is obligated by policy (WP:PSCI) to call a spade a spade. (And no, we cannot WP:COATRACK bad science into WP in a BLP article b/c it is a BLP. PSCI applies everywhere). Just be sure to call the claim pseudoscience or quackery, not her. Those who are not comfortable with that, should nominate this article for deletion, because without describing the nonsense she spouts, we have no article. In my view an AfD would fail which will lead folks right back here... anyway, that's all. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Looks like there was a revert involving the content again.[9] involving Andy Dingley and Elaqueate. The source and general content has been the article since at least November, largely survived the disputed time period as well looking at which editors objected to it. The main issue appears to be that the content is addressing Hari directly rather than her actions in terms of BLP issues. I'm not sure how much WP:PARITY would apply in this case (what do we do in terms of BLP vs. NPOV if someone really is a quack?). All that aside, instead of a blanket revert, would it be easier to just paraphrase Gorski's comment so it's not as direct? Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Kingofaces43, you understand the crux of it. Insinuating personal or unknowable motivations of a living person goes beyond debunking bad science. The part about her only doing something because it is "supporting a commericial interest" and essentializing her as "a quack" go beyond appropriate correction of any erroneous idea she's published. "Quack" is not a term we can reliably source in a BLP, in the same way we can source specific disagreement with specific errors. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Ok, so taking one small step forward then, how about we just strike the quack part? Only saying she is peddling pseudoscience (or some equivalent) is commenting on her actions at the very least. Would that alleviate the primary concerns? There may be other lesser concerns, but I'd like to try to tackle one thing at time starting with the major things. I'm going to be in and out for awhile, so I may not be able to respond particularly quickly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Sure, that's reasonable. That's the heart of the problem; what we can say about a BLP and what sources we can quote from when it's about motivations beyond the science.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Alrighty, I took at stab at it. I tried to summarize the general article for a more general paraphrase. It could be worded better potentially, but I've run out of time for the afternoon. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)