Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposal to revert to before Nyttend's blanking

I don't know why Nyttend is trying to support the pseudoscience of the article subject and remove all scientific criticism of them, but regardless, I propose the article be reverted to before their edits and blanking of article sections. Silverseren^C 19:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've integrated the criticism into the body of the article (this is where it belongs), and I've been trying to find better critics. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You integrated just over two sentences and removed the rest. Silverseren^C 20:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If you revert from my last edit, you'll essentially undo these edits (unfortunately hard to read). You'll do nothing differently with Chick-fil-A or Kraft. You'll move the Subway people around, essentially without changing them except for removing Novella (not an expert here, unlike the other people), and you'll add a really vague statement that's basically no different from the "some people say" example discussed at WP:WEASEL. You'll reword the DNC appearance to be more confusing, but you won't change anything of substance. You'll move the microwave ovens, but it won't have much practical effect other than removing Novella's academic credentials and restoring an improper title ("Dr." doesn't belong here). You'll put back in the flu shots, but you won't provide any evidence of anybody criticising her for opposing them. Wikipedia:Criticism suggests that the best course is to integrate it into the article; do you disagree with the essay? Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark Crislip already wrote about her antivaccine stance here. That source is still in the article right now, just not for that material. All you have to do is extend it. Silverseren^C 20:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, that article is literally the second result in a google search for "food babe flu shot", with the first result being her article itself. So before you go after others for not presenting you with sources, maybe you should actually take the time to look for them yourself? You know, do the whole "being a Wikipedia editor" thing. Silverseren^C 20:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• support (see other comments above) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• So, are we going to action this? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'm always in favor of reverting back to a stable version before an edit war started, but what exactly are we reverting? This doesn't seem like it would be a simple rollback because other constructive edits appear to have occurred between disputed edits. Is there a specific point we should revert to while potentially including some non-controversial edits, or just start over completely from a specific point? I’m wary of the latter in this case, but it might be the best way to actually work forward and force discussion on things that were edit warred on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The obvious points to roll back to could be

• MLPainless 6th Dec
• Jytdog 5th Dec
• Satbridges 4th Dec

The only "other edit" I can really see here is the welcome addition of the image, but that's easy to re-add. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That helps clear things up a bit. I really see the problems start after MLPainless' edits, so that seems like a good starting point to go from here. Edit's between that and Satbridges appear largely constructive and nothing too controversial happened there except one or two things that could be discussed on the talk page to figure out. Reverting back further than MLPainless wouldn't seem to simplify future progress since there was little controversy at that point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Anybody going to do the honors? Tutelary (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

We'd have to remove some of the BLP-challenged stuff right away, of course, and re-add some of the constructive edits. This doesn't look like it addressed those points. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. It's probably our best starting point at least, so we'll see what we can do to work forward from this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley is already edit-warring the BLP-challenged material back in. How is calling someone "a quack" appropriate? If you look at Jytdog's advice above, Just be sure to call the claim pseudoscience or quackery, not her.. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be sheer OR to judge whether Gorski's comments were appropriate or not. The point is that he is one of many, a multitude with enough training and qualification to judge medical matters as RS, and he did call her a quack. For us to either state "no-one has called her a quack" or what is just as bad, to avoid mentioning the veritable chorus of people calling her a quack would be badly POV. You might prefer it if Gorksi had called her claims quackery, rather than calling her a quack, but he didn't do that, he called her a quack. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

People self-publish name-calling all of the time. You're admitting he went beyond commenting on her claims to a personal judgement. That makes it inappropriate on BLP grounds.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That was my concern I had a few sections above. Using someone as a self published source can be fine if they're an expert in that field, but BLP conflicts with this...nonetheless I stand with Elaqueate to not label her a 'quack' or anything of the sort, and if this must be used, use euphemizing terms. Though I hope we don't get into another edit war regarding this. Tutelary (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Air Travel

I've posted on Elaqueate's talk page about why I think this should be re-instated.

Further discussion welcome here Mongoletsi (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's clear the blog post existed at some point. But that's not enough reason by itself to put it in a Wikipedia article. She has lots of blog posts; we're currently mentioning some that are covered by other, and reliable, sources. Reading a random blog post of hers, deciding it's wrong in some way, and adding it to a wikipedia page with your own argument about how it's wrong is what's WP:OR, even when your reasoning may be correct. You haven't shown that any reliable source cares about this blog post and what it said. Somebody talking about it on Pinterest and Facebook doesn't count as significant secondary coverage. Your airline sources don't count because they aren't talking about Vani Hari or the blog post at all; you added them because they support your own argument. (I've copied this response from my talk page, so other editors have a chance to contribute if they want.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an article on a pseudoscientist. She presents herself as a figure of authority. Yet she makes statements of farcical inaccuracy and ignorance. If we are to cover such people at all, it is a fundamental part of an encyclopedic goal to highlight such contradictions. Anything less is to become an uncritical mouthpiece for them and to amplify their publishing of clearly incorrect and inept science. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That section contains both deadlinks and links to articles that don't mention Vani Hari at all. They would be appropriate for citing material on general air travel pages, but not to build up a controversy if it's not actually a notable controversy, noted by multiple independent secondary sources. This page can't become an open-ended place to dump material when editors spot mistakes on a blog. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. A couple of editors want to give this material greater visibility on Wikipedia than found in reliable sources. I don't think her ideas (or the arguments of individual editors) should be given prominence not found in actual sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree. I clearly have a bias against conspiracy nuts (and those who profit from it). But Wiki is not for combatting such idiocy. Rational Wiki is for that purpose. That said, the latest revisions do show her own site still references the (removed) article. So it's a bit of a thorny subject. Mongoletsi (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Her site references a removed article? How is that worth encyclopedic notice? We could have sections for every blog post she's ever made if that is the standard for inclusion. Cataloguing her every word and misstep just to spend time de-constructing it, whether it's covered by reliable sources or not, is going to end up promoting her in the end. This seems like anti-fancruft. BLPs need solid sourcing from multiple unarguably reliable sources for controversies and whether a controversy is considered significant enough to be included. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Her site is slick and commercially produced. It is hardly credible that articles "fall off" it. Nor is there evidence that most articles do so.

However when she publishes something particularly inept (the "50% added nitrogen" or the "Hitler in your microwave" articles), and those articles attract independent attention, then they are promptly deleted. The site has also recently switched to deliberately excluding archiving bots from the entire site – an unusual behaviour for someone interested in the altruistic dissemination of knowledge.

Vani Hari presents herself as an authority figure in food science. She has no external credentials as such, her displayed knowledge is grossly inept. Recording and presenting such is an essential part of balanced encyclopedic coverage of such a person – otherwise we're just an uncritical mouthpiece adding our own credibility to her views. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Great. You have a very strong idea of a great wrong that you want Wikipedia to right. You want to expose her for noble reasons. The sources have to do it first, and they have to be good sources, not opinion blogs. Otherwise we shouldn't mention the whole thing, including spreading her mistaken views.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You are very quick to attach motives to other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good faith motives, sure. I'm certain you're trying to improve the encyclopedia, but it has to be more within policies. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again you've blanked sourced content as Removing material that makes no mention of Vani Hari at all. Removing citations that don't directly back up the material.

The sources that don't mention her are necessary to support the claim that the atmosphere is already mostly nitrogen: As Hari contradicts this herself, it's necessary to source it. You also silently removed a Professor Steven Novella, MD that is a direct, 3rd party comment on this specific posting, exactly as you're calling for. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Redact that please. I only removed material that did not mention Vani Hari, and that sentence that states she removed material from her website, supported by no independent sourcing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - I'd not noticed it [Novella] still alongside the Denning ref. The 3rd party comment on Hari's post that you removed was the John Blanton piece.

The Blanton piece is necessary because it is (AFAIK) the first outside commentator to note that Hari was deleting her embarassing posts, and it also gives enough of a quote of her post for readers to be able to see it for themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The material sourced to "skeptic78240.wordpress.com" is not likely to be considered a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, with no prejudice to the blogger. It's the same policy that keeps random opinions from random Christian bloggers off articles about sceptics.

This is an article about a person. It's not our article about air travel. The sources have to directly support the article material. Adding extra material about the composition of air may be completely factual, but it's not about Vani Hari. The stuff I removed is out-of-scope for this article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I also removed the student newspaper source. I still think the whole section has not proved any amount of due weight, and as Dwpaul indicated earlier, I think the article does a better job if it's not a chronology of no-account blog wars that actual reliable sources ignore.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You also removed the Professor Steven Novella ref, with an "inaccurate" edit summary to hide what you're up to. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not hiding anything. Cut that out. I was in the middle of fixing it. It used the same "ref name" as an earlier citation which merged it to the earlier citation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole "scandal" is still only found in personal blogs, one student newspaper opinion piece, and a Reddit conversation someone tried to include. This is incredibly weak sourcing that this deserves to be mentioned at length. This article isn't supposed to be a blog itself. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You removed the Steven Novella ref. Now whether you then intended that cite to point to a different ref to his writings, or not, you removed the reference and you did it under an edit summary about a different matter (which you were also removing at the time). You then edited a second time to "fix" this (again having removed it). This is what you did, there's the edit history of it.

After I called you on this, you then re-inserted the ref. Although this time losing his professional postnomial, conveniently discrediting him as "just another blogger".

I've been looking at your past edits here. Removing Forbes.com as "not RS" and the IWF.org You seem to see "not RS" as meaning anything that dares to challenge Vani Hari's pontificating, rather than judging their own credibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, stop with the WP:ABF. After I took out the school newspaper ref it gave an error. It was my error. I sat down and re-wrote the ref to fix it. I used the earlier reference as a template. I didn't see your talk page notice till I was finished sorting it out. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter that this is a person that's frequently wrong, this is still a WP:BLP and must meet some basic policy. We can't have poor sourcing that calls her crazy. This is basic stuff.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is getting rather silly now. But anyway, Randi clearly critiques the piece here (scroll down to footnote 3). I think Randi qualifies as a reliable source. NOTE: it's not by Randi himelf, it's a contributor. Apologies. Mongoletsi (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow! This is impressive. The article has now been removed from Google's Cache too. I didn't know that was possible. How the **** did she/whoever manage that? Mongoletsi (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It stills seems like a non-notable blog post. User:Ohnoitsjamie could you take a look at my work here and see if it's BLP-compliant. I can't find any solid sources, and removed clearly non-compliant ones, but I think the one I left in is might still have an issue with WP:BLPSPS. The writer is a medical expert, but which of his claims are about the person and which are about the science?__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And given the lack of sourcing, I still don't see how it meets WP:BLPSTYLE to include it at all. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of Novella's post, this hasn't gotten much attention on any other reliable source, most likely because it was deleted by Hari before it attracted much attention. Given that we only have one reliable source regarding a now-deleted (arguably, retracted) post, my gut reaction is this runs afoul of WP:UNDUE weight. I think there is more room for well-sourced criticism for Hari's made-up facts, but this particular issue is probably not the best area to focus on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't claim to be entirely impartial, I'm not pleased I've allowed bias creep in here. James Randi (footnote/section 3) does discuss the piece. I'm actually of a mind to add this to the article. Thoughts? Mongoletsi (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you back to saying it was written by Randi? It looks like it was actually written by a Wikipedia admin.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is all very exciting. Some of you all are adding criticism based on a blog post by a famous person. Even if the original posting could be found, there is no indication that this should be included at all: please see WP:FART. OhNoitsJamie's note on UNDUE is well taken--besides, the comment that "her post was quickly removed" is basically OR, and thus this whole bit wasn't just undue, it was also a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You have repeatedly blanked the entire section. If you think this is all just "a blog post by a famous person", then you know where AfD is. There are two sets of statements here: Vani Hari's own which are the work of an unqualified self-appointed blogger, no more, with technical accuracy below that of an attentive high school pupil. The second set are comments upon this, by a range of people, including (merely on those cited today) a professor of medicine. Vani Hari is a charlatan for pretending to be a technical authority on diet (and indeed, atmospheric chemistry), yet having neither qualifications nor rudimentary competence in the subject.

Yet you have blanked all criticism of this infamous posting, on the basis of a point so trivial that it's hard to even see what you mean amongst your "all very exciting" sarcasm at other editors. This is unwarranted, as is your immediate edit-warring to repeat your deletion.

If you believe this subject to be unimportant, then there is AfD. If you believe the criticism of Hari to be inaccurate, then please address the specifics. Do you believe her blog pronouncement to be accurate? (You have I hope, at least bothered to read it?) Otherwise it appears that you are discarding WP:NPOV to the detriment of WP's credibility by whitewashing her errors to become invisible. That is no part of our encyclopedic remit here. We are not (or at last, I hope not) Hari's paid publicists, whether she is right or wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Holy moly Dingley, you're pulling out all the stops. Paid publicists? That's funny. "Repeatedly blanked" means twice, yes--once with arguments relevant to a BLP (and with discussion of the sourcing on this here talk page), and once after you reverted, blindly, with the comment "rv sourced content" or something like that. Your "source" doesn't really exist, though--the original post is gone, and the comment that the original post is gone is original research based at best (!) on a now-lost archived copy of the original post. Your "AfD is thataway" comment is pretty ignorant as well: the "blog post" in question is your source. AfD is for articles, not for references.

I got nothing for this Vani person, on whom I have an opinion which I will keep to myself, but you seem to be going out of your way to find and insert criticism. Maybe the pro-woo party (anti-woo party? who was woo again?) is paying you, in barnstars.

But if you insist, here we go. The "blog" I referred to was of course this one, the source for the criticism. It's a blog. A blog by a famous person who probably knows what he's talking about, but hardly enough to warrant inclusion in the article for the offending passage. In addition, "a piece about travelling by commercial airliner, which was removed from foodbabe.com as well as Internet archives and web caches" is obviously original research, a BLP violation. Then, "Novella stated her claims lacked 'basic scientific literacy', including a statement that pressurized air in the cabin compressed passengers' bodies" is ungrammatical, since the "including" phrase is in the wrong place. Then, the Smithsonian sentence and reference is complete bullshit and has no place in here--rather, it suggests that the passage's author was trying their hardest to yank as many sources as possible into this little paragraph. Finally, the last sentence of the paragraph is an attempt to render as hyper-official what in the blog post is (correct) righteous ridicule of a bizarre statement, and it's laughable--really poor writing. So, what was the argument for inclusion? The person said something and it was wrong? I think the article is clear enough on the scientific level of the subject's contributions to mankind. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I now see that immediately after blanking this section your next act was to close an ANI thread on Hari alleging, "two abusi[v]e admins locked this page to only allow editing by admins in order to push a pro-woo agenda on the page." I have no knowledge of such, but it's strange that you (an admin) have so promptly used this page to push a pro-woo agenda by blanking sourced criticism of Hari, and simultaneously closed the ANI thread discussing it! Andy Dingley (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nor, of course, would I know if the barnstar you so kindly handed one of those involved admins, Guerillero, yesterday was at all related to this issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• That's why God and Jimbo gave us AGF, Andy. I'll just tell you that it was related to a longterm abuser, and that's all I got to say on the matter. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate's a sockpuppet of either Chillum or Dreadstar, used so that they can violate policy without getting their "admin" hands dirty. They've been trying to pro-woo this page for months and abused their powers to lock even the talk page until just last week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.188.62 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a disgrace that the Air Travel section has been removed. Last time I checked, people had spent considerable effort finding reputable sources which critiqued the piece which her team has spent a lot of effort trying to erase from the internet. Whilst I admit some bias myself, I aimed only to report accurately on a claim which Hari hasn't retracted, and is still being spread as a meme. It would be useful if people were able to come to Wiki to read more, but alas it is now becoming apparent that somebody here is not impartial. I even sourced an article on James Randi's website. I'd say randi.org is pretty authoritative. I'm calling foul outright. I'm not au fait with the correct way to get this page looked at by senior Wiki folk and get a judgement call. So I'd appreciate some guidance. As it is, I intend to re-instate the Air Travel section: any objections? Mongoletsi (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

See comments below about integrating the criticism section: please be careful to frame it as "Hari says X, but she's been criticised by Y, who says Z". http://web.randi.org looks self-published; if you want to cite the guy, bring in a news story about him, or an academic journal article where he opposes her. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no criticism section... Mongoletsi (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I now see the section. I'm going to highlight how considerable effort was made to remove all traces of the Air Travel article from the web. Sure, I've an axe to grind, but it's a valid criticism. 81.103.168.134 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OR

Come on! When you say: "The subject says X. But X is wrong, according to another source Y (where Y does not mention the subject)."

This is blatant, bread and butter original research and the supposedly experienced editor who reversed my removal of this is not acting in good faith. Please reverse your reversal. MLPainless (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

From the OR policy: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." MLPainless (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The subject doesn't need to be mentioned. The claim itself is what's being vetted here as WP:PSCI requires, "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight." We've got a view that's at odds with scientific consensus, so the actual scientific consensus is stated to not give undue weight to the claim. There's no original research there, and the content in question is exactly what we are supposed to do under NPOV. This should be pretty cut and dry since we're pulling from some of the most reliable medical organizations we have as well. I'm not sure how familiar you are with editing WP:FRINGE content, but this is the standard practice for writing about it in articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to get a RS that directly contradicts Hari's position, saying she is wrong. You are off talking about undue weight, but this policy is not relevant here. The mention of "flu shots" does not need to be in the article at all, so no undue weight concerns exist. It was only inserted so you could find another source that seems to disagree, thus using synthesis to make a point. You seem to have no idea how the OR policy works. I suggest you get help from an experienced user. MLPainless (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any reason that the WP:PSCI policy is NOT relevant here. If we are going to talk about flu shots, I think the widely accepted view is going to have to be included. But I can agree with your point, it seems the flu shot anecdote is being included so it can be disagreed with. So simply take it out. Perhaps it should not be included unless that particular view has received a lot of attention? Beach drifter (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be a little wary of that last point as that can also be considered whitewashing (as much as I hate using the term). Hari's notability is mainly based around her blogging, so topics she discussed in that line are generally what we should be having content on here regardless of whether it's being agreed or disagreed with. It would help to see what others have said about those comments compared to other claims though, but the sources we use for that may not be the greatest themselves either with WP:PARITY. It could be worth checking them out though as that would tell us how much weight to give that section such as just keeping it at an essential one liner or to expand it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd hardly think it would be considering whitewashing to not include something that has gotten trivial coverage. While from my viewpoint and likely yours, Hari is very much fringe, the majority of sources are about her as a blogger and activist. WP:BLPFRINGE states "Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence." I completely agree that this is not really being given any prominence, I just don't really see why this one fringe idea is being included when there are so many. I'm just trying to be objective. That said I did find some nice quotes from a doctor in a Charlotte Observer article that specifically addresses her flu stance which I'm sure I could find again. But again just because we can include it doesn't really mean that it needs to be, we can't go around refuting every claim she makes in the article. Beach drifter (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can you please be more specific. Which claim are we talking about? What's the source for Hari's statement and which is the source that you're claiming doesn't relate to it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

MLPainless is at odds with this sentence:

"In an October 2011 blog post, Hari questioned the efficacy of flu shots.[25] However, influenza vaccines are recommended by health authorities worldwide, especially for people with weakened immune systems, such as children, older people, and people with chronic illnesses.[26][27][28]"

While yes, the bit is well sourced and accurate, I can see the point that this part of the article did nothing but grab a statement from her blog and refute it, which seem contrary to a Wikipedia article. I would be much more in favor of including the sentences if her stance had gotten some mainstream coverage, in which case we would use those sources instead of the CDC and the WHO ones. Beach drifter (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Source and my last edit

Hereis the source I mentioned early, the flu talk is about halfway down. I also wanted to clarify that I linked to the vaccine controversies article to make it clear that this is a fringe topic, since WP:Fringe seems to be the rationale for citing WHO and CDC, well that and that I think it is entirely relevant, seems to lend some context to anyone wondering why it is included. Beach drifter (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the source looks good for the purpose of saying the flu statements have gotten public attention, so good find. That source would probably fit better after the second sentence since it's both showing folks have talked about it and what scientists are saying in additional to the WHO, etc. sources. Seems like a good way to clarify things for folks overall in the edit you made too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying a source that turns this from OR into acceptable content, Beach drifter. I have fixed it up. MLPainless (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for putting the source in, I always seem to mess that part up. Beach drifter (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the last edit had some issues. Remember per PSCI, we cannot obfuscate the description of scientific consensus. The previous version gives dueling opinions and the appearance of equal weight. We don't describe consensus as opinion (i.e. person X says . . .) as that is a weaker statement relegated to opinion, not so much scientific fact. The new source is appropriate for establishing weight of Hari's comment, but newspaper articles interviewing a single scientist are generally not reliable for determining scientific consensus, so that's why we need to hold on to the other sources. Now the last two sentences can be integrated in some fashion, but we need to make sure the description of mainstream science is not relegated to an opinion statement. Writing about scientific consensus can have it's nuances, so we need to be mindful of that.

Ideally the text didn't even need to be changed in MLPainless' last edit. We just needed to put the new source in the first sentence along with Hari's blog to establish what she said and weight for including it, and the WHO, etc. statement following. That would be keeping in line with our standards when writing about fringe content, but we can take a crack at adding more based on the new source. We're getting some progress here at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've read Hari's page on the flu vaccine, and she seems to be taking a precautionary stance, with most of her views based on some obvious drawbacks of the vaccine, for example the vaccine ingredients (some of which are clearly nasty, even though I accept the dose makes the poison, but perhaps she believes in being super careful and who knows if that does not turn out to be a wise position since science is constantly finding out new ways in which seemingly safe levels of toxins are not in fact safe?), the fact that the flu vaccine has caused deaths and has been banned on occasion, and even her most outlandish statements (for instance, the link to Alzheimer's) was apparently sourced to a speech by Hugh Fudenberg, a widely published scientist [1]). You can't label something "pseudoscience" if there is any level of debate in the scientific community about an issue, according to my reading of PSCI. I'm not at all convinced this is all pseudoscience, but rather an extremely cautious approach to using an injectable concoction that may in fact, and on occasion, have negative consequences. MLPainless (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The approach you describe is a fringe view in the context of vaccines. Fringe, pseudoscience, etc. are different sides of the same coin, so we talk about them somewhat interchangeably at Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case I agree with Beach drifter's suggestion that the reference to flu shots simply be removed. This issue is really not what Hari is known for, and all she says is that she won't use them herself. She does not even directly exhort her readers not to take flu shots. So it's just not notable (I too won't take them because they often leave me with flu-like symptoms, but who cares?). It's not as if she has launched petitions against flu vaccine manufacturers (AFAIK). MLPainless (talk)

We already established weight (the context you are using notability in just to be clear) to the degree of inclusion in the article with the newspaper source. We're already past that point in the conversation, so any discussion of weight would be about how much information to include instead of whether or not to include at all like you are pushing for. I don't think we need anymore content though as the content is already pretty concise, so it seems like we should be at a good position in terms of weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not with you. Beach drifter and I suggest removal, you want to retain. How does this "establish weight"? MLPainless (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is what established the weight already, not who wants it or not. Time to move on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Microwave ovens

I looked at the Hari blog but cannot find the alleged entry for microwave ovens, Masaru Emoto etc. If it is not at the blog, the discussion here should be removed. MLPainless (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, just because she's embarrassed to have written something stupid and is now trying to delete it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not the point. It's not encyclopedic to include information we cannot verify. MLPainless (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That's an issue we need to be careful about tackling (see [2]). We should do a little searching for new sources verifying it first before removing it as it was verified at one point in time. If we can't find additional supporting sources, that will be the time to remove it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another Observer article, although I don't think it is as useful as the last one. Beach drifter (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If it helps, she does mention the Microwave blog entry and some of what is being discussed [http://foodbabe.com/2014/12/06/food-babe-critics/ here]. Superfly94 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted! I think the text on that page could (should?) probably be used to modify the microwave text in the article. She is saying that her original blog on microwave ovens contained some "hokey" views (which I believe she admitted in the first blog itself as well, IOW she never really subscribed to the Hitler crystals nonsense), and that her views are now based more on the views of Michael Pollan, who dislikes microwaves for aesthetic reasons. That's fair enough, I'd say. MLPainless (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Be careful in assuming anything. She didn't say anything in her blog that she disagrees with what she previously wrote, just that some might see it as hokey and it wasn't her best work. In fact, she still considers microwaves as being creepy. Take from that what you will personally, but be careful in translating that to the article itself. Stick to the facts as they are available as opposed to what you think someone means. Superfly94 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, the blog entry quoting the Emoto ideas on Hitler crystals no longer exists. On the other hand, we do have her current views on microwaves [http://foodbabe.com/2014/12/06/food-babe-critics/ here]. Is there any objection to updating the article with her current, sourceable views? MLPainless (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We need both. Also a statement that she is always perfectly accurate, because if she isn't, she changes history until she is. The idea of an "authority figure" hiding their past embarrassments is more important of itself than foolish ideas about Nazi microwaves or Nazi microwaves ("Nazi microwaves" is a weird idea, yet she managed to get that one wrong twice). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better edit then? The current edit relates to information that is not available at her site. MLPainless (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We should include the original URL, even if currently dead, and also the secondary comment on her error that's available to us. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? What WP policy allows for that? Dead URLs? MLPainless (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the wording was changed today. For what it's worth, nothing is ever truly lost on the internet. Third party coverage of her statement still exists at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/scam-stud/ - and archival of the original blog post can still be found at http://www.archive.today/SmN0x . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's more encyclopedically accurate to note, as I did, that she has deleted the entry. Elsewhere she admits that she may have been mistaken in quoting "hokey" theories such as those of Emoto. There seems to be an entirely inappropriate effort by some editors here to punish her for all statements ever made, which flies in the face of the spirit of the BLP policy. Edit summaries like "She posted it, she gets stuck with it" (Andy Dingley) says it all. He won't even allow her withdrawal of that blog entry to be part of WP. I'm not going to edit war here with editors like that; there seems to be too much agenda-driven editing going on. MLPainless (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

But how does one prove that the page has been deleted? Her team are adept at removing stuff from Google Cache and Wayback (Archive.Org). I suggest we actually open a new sub section under Criticism which addresses this ongoing dishonesty Mongoletsi (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

While there are some sources discussing that the content is deleted, I don't think there are reliable sources documenting it as essentially whitewashing. Have you seen any such sources? It is indeed suspicious when controversial posts disappear, but others remain. However, it's difficult to document motive in such a case, so we'd be fine just stating that content was removed from the original site when it occurs unless we stumble upon a really good source saying she was actually trying to cover things up. Without that, it's just speculation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

She admits to removing embarrassing posts and claims it was her inexperience - and now claims she will correct her errors. She doesn't of course because her errors are what make her look like a fearless campaigner and not some tin-foil hat wearing idiot. Here's something about the airline oxygen, for instance "Almost 4 years ago, before I had much of a following when my blog was a hobby, I made a mistake about oxygen inside airplanes. I took that post down as a result, but in the future if there is a mistake I will admit and correct it immediately with an editor’s note within the post. " 82.29.204.131 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Another major source

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/style/taking-on-the-food-industry-one-blog-post-at-a-time.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.171.90.103 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's another source

http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit-1694902226?rev=1428349613882

Though I don't know why I bother, apparently the pro-wacko admins drove everyone off the page.

I'm not sure exactly what the problem is. Some pages on Wikipedia aren't exactly watched by too many people, it's apart of why Wikipedia is considered to be 'incomplete'. In any case, what would be your suggestion regarding this source? Add it in? How? Got a proposed sentence? Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Read it. It provides a WP:RS for some claims that were deleted from the page, such as the claim that Vani Hari drives critics off her Facebook page, because some editors didn't think the source met WP:RS. It also provides another WP:RS for some of the claims that were challenged because only one WP:RS mentioned them and they weren't significant. --Nbauman (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Coverage in Elle magazine

• Cheryl Wischhover (Apr 7, 2015). "My Problem With Food Babe's Message". Elle.

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

flu shots

I made this edit to remove the synthesis that was present. There's a legitimate source hidden in there but in its current (since reverted, @Andy Dingley:) form it synthesises "Here's what Hari said, here's what the CDC say", to put forward the sort-of unsourced implication that Hari is wrong. I reworded that to simply reflect what the reliable source in the paragraph said. I think this is the better way of reflecting this, to avoid original research, but happy to discuss. Sam Walton (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to add a further secondary source to state explicitly that Hari is wrong. However what your edit actually did was to remove a statement of objective fact by the CDC as to flu causation (and per RS, we as an encyclopedia believe such statements) and then replace it with a direct quote diluting the stated efficacy of vaccination to a mere personal opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that's what I did, but per WP:SYNTH we're not supposed to include 'statements of objective fact' without them having been explicitly linked to the article subject. Following the reasoning that it's ok to include tangential sources because they're reliable, why don't we fill up the entire article with 'Reliable source X/Y/Z says something that contradicts Hari'? Sam Walton (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Then add a source that also states clearly "Hari is wrong". A few have been removed from this very talk: page in just the last day, perhaps you could use one of those.

This is still not the same thing as removing a well-sourced statement of agreed scientific fact (vaccines are useful, air is mostly nitrogen, Hitler does not live in the microwave), because that then allows the pro-Hari whitewashing to remove the embarrassing Hari claim contradicting that on the basis that there is now no evidence to disagree with Hari. Look at the history of this article, and the talk archives. Some of the very simplest of her incorrect statements are regularly removed on just such a basis. That's simple and gross POV editing, backed up with blocks, and yet pro-science edits have to jump through the highest of hoops to even include simple statements from bodies such as the CDC. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm limited for time, so I can't look into these most recent happenings very in-depth, but we should be mindful that WP:PARITY applies here when discussing Hari's claims. That can make some sources acceptable here for calling out the fringe aspect of Hari's claims that wouldn't be considered as reliable if we were strictly writing a scientific statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not that the CDC isn't considered reliable, just that this article isn't the place for saying what is or isn't true outside of what reliable sources have said in the context of Hari. My main concern is setting a precedent whereby we as editors are free to debunk anything she writes by looking up the contradicting evidence. The article should only summarise what sources have written in the context her and what she's said and I think including anything extra leads us down the road of synthesis. Something else to mention about this particular section is that the vaccine controversies article is linked, where readers can find out all about how wrong she is on this topic. Sam Walton (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"this article isn't the place for saying what is or isn't true "

I think we have a fundamental difference in terms of the function of an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"...outside of what reliable sources have said in the context of Hari". Sam Walton (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

By all means add sources to discuss Hari herself – there are plenty to choose from. However if we remove a clear RS-sourced statement that "water is wet", or some other trivial truism, the pro-Hari editors here will then use that as an excuse to remove any claim of "Hari was wrong when she denied that water was wet", or something equally nonsensical. This has already happened repeatedly, which is why the article currently omits Hari's nonsense on air travel. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we need to include what is "true" in terms of scientific consensus per WP:NPOV and specifically WP:FRINGE. If someone says something that goes against the science, that needs to be specified, otherwise we are giving undue weight to the idea. Otherwise articles like this can become a WP:COATRACK for fringe content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't we need a source commenting on the twitter post before we can talk about it? Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• @thefoodbabe (October 5, 2011). "Did you know the #flushot has been used as a genocide tool in the past. Think twice - more info at http://foodbabe.com" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Why not? Because of WP:PRIMARY? It's a terrible source for equating flu vaccines with genocide, but it is a good source for answering the crucial, and otherwise difficult, question of whether she has ever come out as an overt anti-vaxxer. From pep rallies like the FoodBabeArmy it's clear that her supporters are full-blown crazy (chemtrails, anti-vax, the lot) but it wasn't previously clear whether she supported the anti-vax position too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking of WP:PRIMARY and if the post itself is notable. I am not married to the position though. Let's see what others think. As an aside your evaluation of her 'army' is spot on.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading WP:TWITTER we may be ok actually. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Business Insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-vani-hart-the-food-babe-is-wrong-2015-4 might be useful Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Another.....

http://news.health.com/2015/04/10/vani-hari-food-babe-myths-you-shouldnt-believe/ Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

...and more

Morgan Fisher (13 April 2015). "The Collapse of Food Babe: Or, How Not to Manage a Crisis". LinkedIn.

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I used the linkedin article on the main page; it seems like a RS to me but please let me know and provide some constructive criticism if it's not up to snuff. YesPretense (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Misbehavior

Why does this article not cover the fact that she tried to hide old articles with deletion, blocked archiving groups like archive.org from keeping past versions, and bans people from her social media pages for simple things like asking her credentials or correcting factual errors? It's all over the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.88.170 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Awkward wording

"pseudoscientific claims and beliefs in her work[6][7] which, critics note, supports a commercial interest as well.[8]" can be parsed as "pseudoscientific claims and beliefs in her work" or as "pseudoscientific claims and beliefs in her work". I had to read it three times, and I am going guess which one and reword it. I don't understand what this means: "critics note, supports a commercial interest as well." Is it suggesting she is supporting the commercial interests of herself? or the commercial interests of the people she criticizes? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Influence and awards

Greatiest? That's a little thin, no? Perhaps we can remove this and merge the other part to a different section?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 14:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Greatist is mention-worthy in any article, it's just some website. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2015

Please correct a typo in the "Criticism" section of this page.

It is on the second paragraph, third sentence: "That she does so, they believe, is due to her attractive physical appeance and despite her lack of knowledge and credentials in the field of food science and nutrition."

The word "appeance" should be "appearance" instead. Tjk911 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Deli nk (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section should be expanded

Hari's outlandish scientific claims--which are arguably the most notable thing about her--are not adequately addressed in the article. There is no mention, for example, of her bizarre warning that the air on airplanes is not pure oxygen but is mixed with "as much as 50% nitrogen" (see http://www.freezepage.com/1415667665TBMRBWICKU). Merely listing her critics without noting more of the specific statements being criticized does not seem sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.245.32 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added a new section. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add non-neutral banner, this article is a hate fest against Hari

{{POV|date=June 2015}}

It is not necessary for Wikipedia editors to write an article in such a non-neutral tone when the subject practices pseudoscience. This tends to make an article look like a smear campaign, which this article is. Wikipedia BLP's are not the place for smear campaigns. A factual tone cuts down a pseudoscientist much better. "She claims..." "They believe...." What nonsense, just report the information as found in sources. Hating pseudoscientists by attacking them in Wikipedia articles shows you play the same game. A BLP is not the right venue.

Please add the non-neutrality template. --2600:380:9921:BA66:AD45:60A0:6D14:52A5 (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. You don't give specific examples of how this article in against her in a biased way. The phrasing "She claims..." is there because there are RS that she did claim some particular viewpoint, but there is no RS that such a viewpoint has any accuracy. Without specific detail of how this article is alleged to be biased, adding a template improves nothing. Is the article excessively anti-Hari? Or excessively pro-Hari? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose as well. The stuff is cited. She has said some, oh let's go with questionable, things. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Also oppose, but questionable is a long way from accurate. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edit requests are meant for non-controversial edits. This is already opposed by three editors. Cannolis (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Some new sources

• Maria Godoy (4 December 2014). "Is The Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are Speaking Out". NPR.
• Kevin Folta PhD. (October 21, 2014). "Food Babe Visits My University".
• E.J. Schultz; Maureen Morrison (July 14, 2014). "Activist or Capitalist? How the 'Food Babe' Makes Money". Advertising Age.

Alternative Views

Kingofaces43 I notice you reverted Robofish's addition of the WikiProject Alternative Views template based on the reasoning that Vani's views are fringe and not merely "alternative". While it sounds to me like "Alternative Views" is actually a euphemism for fringe views, it's up to them to decide what is inside their own scope. I notice that list includes John Titor, Jenny McCarthy, Atlantis and 9/11 Truth Movement, so I'm pretty sure Vani Hari falls within this scope as well. I didn't want to just get into a reversion war, but with your consent I think the WikiProject banner should be restored. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 14:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The question though is if this article is actually in the scope of the project. From WP:WEIGHT, we have three types of views:

1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
3. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

From my reading of the Wikiproject, they cover significant minority views (#2), while this article is primarily about a case of #3 (i.e., fringe). That's why I'm hoping Robofish can comment on why the tag is being added. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't think the fact that Jenny McCarthy is in scope is a pretty clear precedent here? It's pretty evidently in scope to me, and it's really just a question of what the people who are actually *in* that project are interested in working on. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going by what the project says is it's scope right now. That other articles have been tagged or done something isn't justification for doing the same elsewhere (there's a guideline on that somewhere I need to dig up again someday). I left a note over at the Wikiproject to get more insight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can let the participants in the project decide, because that's up to them, but I suspect they'll find her in scope. Their goal seems to be to focus on articles like this, and (assuming good faith here), to help maintain the line between "alternative" and fringe views, to the extent that there is one. If this were an article on Time Cube, I'd understand, but it's not like Vani Hari is a schizophrenic spouting out complete nonsense, all or most of her views are derived from one pseudoscientific school of thought or another. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 16:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize there is some ambiguity in their scope. My read was that their focus is on fleshing out significant minority views specifically without really focusing on fringe viewpoints, but I'll wait to see what the participants have to say before continuing that line of thought. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not actually a member of the WikiProject, so I won't revert. I just thought from reading the article that this would fit in with the scope of that project, but that's really up to the project's members to decide. (I see now that I'd previously added the WikiProject template before and been reverted - oops, my apologies. If I'd seen that I wouldn't have added it a second time.) Anyway, no article needs a particular WikiProject template, so if this one's contentious it's probably best left out. Robofish (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Scope Discussion

Completely within scope, added it back. Main function is so that it shows up in the relevant article alerts - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How is it within the scope exactly? Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Extremely non-mainstream scientifically, and that particular aspect is notable in itself (indeed, at length in the present article) - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Which would seem to put this topic outside of the scope of the project since we are talking about a fringe view rather than significant minority views. That's at least what I'm getting from the project description, so could you clear up what exactly the scope is? The main focus of the project seems to be to give more attention to significant minority views (i.e., #2 in my list above), but the views explained on this page don't quite reach that level. In other words, we're not talking about notability, but rather the level of acceptance relative to the mainstream view that we assess under NPOV. If this needs to be more than a one reply conversation, I might just pop over to the Wikiproject and pursue the question more there if it looks like this might stray too much beyond the context of this page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You're mixing up a few different things here. The relevant project page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, which I got to in a single click from the header at the top of this page (so far easier to find yourself than asking me where you could find it) - if you want to argue that Ms Hari's scientific views are widely-accepted in the mainstream, therefore she shouldn't be considered relevant to the wikiproject, that'd be the point to argue - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, that was exactly the project page I was referring to. As I mentioned above, we're not talking about widely-accepted mainstream here. Instead the proejct states significant minority views, which Hari's views are not. Are you trying to say that project intends to cover fringe topics by using that language I outlined instead of significant minority views? If that is the case, some rewording might be needed there to avoid the ambiguity in the future, but that's not a conversation for here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In any case, you're really not making your actual objection clear. What's the problem with the tag on this talk page (not even the article, but the maintenance area for editors)? Why do you object so strongly to it? - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I made the question clear and that was mostly so we could figure out at this article where the project would come into play if questions came up that would be good to bring to a project in the future. Does the project focus on significant minority views or WP:FRINGE views instead? We treat those as very different things with fringe views in mind as explained above many times. The project description says its scope is significant minority views, while you seem to be saying it's actually fringe views it is focusing on. That's where the conflicting information is coming in that's making it difficult to get a feel for the project and how it might apply to this page. I should note there is no stiff opposition here. I'm just trying to figure out how exactly the project is intended to relate here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is that if it's WP:FRINGE, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway, so obviously fringe views aren't within the scope of what Alternative Views wants to add to Wikipedia. However, to the extent that Vani Hari's views are not mainstream, they are alternative (e.g. an alternative to the mainstream), and as such she is definitely within the scope of the project. It's also worth noting that fringe views are widely documented on Wikipedia, just not endorsed in WP's editorial voice. All of that stuff is within the scope of Alternative Views, as I pointed out in my very first objection to the removal of the tag. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 00:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does not mean "shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway" - it just means "needs other notability"; notability amongst the fringe just doesn't count against it. Ms Hari's views are pretty obviously all of (a) fringe (b) alternative (c) notable - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like folks are still missing the point of the question (i.e., Hari's is not a significant minority view, which is much different than notability), so I'll bring it up at the project instead of dedicating space here where the question is becoming more of a meta one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Define "significant minority views". Please give examples. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

They are views that generally are considered valid to a degree, but don't have the weight of the mainstream view. In my line of work, termite is a fun example. The mainstream view is that they now fall into a group called Blattodea. A decent amount of scientists might not consider the evidence for that new grouping strong enough with various evidence to still support the old grouping Isoptera that we would mention in an article (if it were the case) as a significant minority view. This would be legitimate discussion within the scientific community for both cases. Some blogger or old scientists that's gone senile making claims that termites should actually be in the same group as cattle would not be taken seriously at all and would be an example of a fringe view. That's how those three categories are used in practice, so "significant minority" often becomes an important distinction in terms of how ideas are weighted.

Either way, we're definitely getting outside the scope of the article now, so I'll bring the topic up at the project at a later date after finishing up other projects. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think most of AV counts as significant minority views, then. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that's what caught my eye too, but that'll be something I bring up there at a later time when I've caught up on other things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hari's views are, in the main, "alternative" in the sense that they are alternative to well-founded, alternative to scientifically supportable and alternative to correct. It looks to me as if much of the focus of the alternative views project is Newspeak, recasting batshit craziness as "alternative" int he same way that peddlers of snake oil brand their products "alternative medicine" instead of what they are: fraudulent alternatives to medicine. This is a wider problem. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

A famous quote

I think the article should discuss this famous FUD Babe quote:

There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever.

— FUD Babe, quoted by Dr. David Gorski

I think it perfectly exemplifies the profound level of scientific ignorance for which Hari is justly lambasted by critics. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have other references which cover the quote and would justify calling it 'famous'?Dialectric (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Press coverage of this quote: [3][4][5][6] Notable public organisations decrying it: [7][8] Hari's response: [http://foodbabe.com/response-to-gawker-the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit/] And that's from two minutes with Google; it took me longer to type this up than find them. It's a famous quote, noteworthy in itself and it would be remiss not to cover it - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David. The level of RS coverage does look significant enough to merit inclusion of the quote in the article.Dialectric (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added a section on the quote, the response to it and Hari's rebuttal - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)