Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Discussion section for The Fear Babe

Recently released - an entire book documenting the pseudoscience of Vani Hari. http://www.amazon.com/The-Fear-Babe-Shattering-Haris/dp/069250981X. Can we get to work on incorporating some mention of it? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be best to find a WP:SECONDARY source discussing the book, rather than citing Senapathy herself (and the other authors), who may or may not meet the standards for an expert in WP:SCIRS. However, the impact of the book in relation to Hari might be worth mentioning, if it is analyzed by a reliable source such as a major news article. Adrian^[232] 08:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Like https://skeptoid.com/blog/2015/10/27/the-fear-babe-is-the-takedown-vani-hari-deserves/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2015/10/29/taking-on-the-merchants-of-food-fear/ http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2015/10/19/food-babe-gets-a-very-close-and-critical.html . --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The first two are just blogs, but the third is news coverage. If the book itself becomes notable, I see no reason not to use it - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe they are all reliable sources, "blogs" or not. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem with blogs is that we would have to attribute all of the information to the author of the blog, such as "Bob said The Fear Babe was ...", which can be awkward as well as questionable depending on who "Bob" is. Not saying I'd be against that, but news articles would be preferred. It's also a fairly new book, and waiting to see how it's received by the press and experts in the field before adding it might be a good idea. After all, there is no deadline, and WP:RGW comes to mind. Adrian^[232] 19:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The real question is whether the book is a WP:RS for this article, since it is directly relevant and cites numerous peer-reviewed sources contradicting Hari's statements. I guess probably not, since it is essentially self-published. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops! She did it again.

Food Babe shilling GMOs. It's almost as if she has no clue what she's talking about. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that this is just from some guy's wordpress, how is this relevant to improving the article. Brustopher (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a heads-up to watch for wider coverage, since there are, by now, a lot of eyes on her claims, especially when it turns out she sells the very things she warns against. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Too many sources

• "Hari's ideas on food safety have been criticized by scientists as pseudoscience.[4][9][10][11]"

• "Hari has been criticized by scientists and others for promoting pseudoscience,[14][53][58][59]"

Rather than 4 sources to verify the claim I think we can shorten it to 3. QuackGuru (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we use the sources for other content, or are they too redundant? --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Two sources in the lede were the same as the body. I made this change without deleting any sources from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, this trick can be used. However, it's probably unnecessary in this case.  Adrian^[232] 09:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And remember that the reason for this is commenters querulously insisting that multiple major mainstream and specialist RSes that call her work "pseudoscience" in the headline and article body are somehow not enough to call her work "pseudoscience". The citations are all there to back the actual claim made in the words, so arguably aren't actually redundant. I've reverted their removal pending further discussion - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

David has a point. I think we have to keep in mind that the fb army types will come by, see only one ref and another useless talk page argument will go on. If there are more refs, we might end up with a shorter useless talk page argument. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It's better to have too many references than too few in that instance. Some may still fight against it saying something must be wrong if so many references need to be used, but it's better than the opposite scenario that Dbrodbeck described. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Failed verification?

The citations that failed verification were restored. I removed only the citations that I could not verify the claim. I think we can work it out here otherwise we can go to the BLP noticeboard. This is also citation overkill. On a BLP this should not be allowed. I also removed the duplicate citations by adding short citations Ward2015 and Hiltzik2015 to the lede and adding ref names to the full citations to the body. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I made this change to remove the sources that failed V and to add ref names to the lede for the duplicate sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Lede

The lede was too short. It was recently expanded. Is there anything else that can be summarised in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm no expert here but this mention of her diet causing her to be hospitalized is bunk. She had appendicitis which is a common ailment (still) in young people and there is no direct correlation with diet. Clearly an expert needs to look at this because this is one of Hari's claims and there is no science to back it up.82.16.170.111 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Attribution was added to the statement. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, come to think of it, I should have said so here. I saw 82.16's comment, and I figured the best way to address it would be to stop saying that the appendicitis was actually caused by the diet, and instead say that Hari attributed it to the diet. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification (I'll create an account when I figure this thing out). Too much weird voodoo for me right now). Reading the article though, it still strongly supports the idea that Hari is having an effect on the food companies by sourcing uncritical reports of her "work". There is (to date) precisely no evidence that she has done anything other than promote herself. Mandy Oaklander (describing Hari's entry on the Time's top 30) was clearly skeptical and there are a whole bunch of other organizations dedicated to bullying companies into removing ingredients that they don't see as safe. Her more recent antics have devolved into claiming victories for things that were already in the pipeline and even organizing petitions for the same: specifically removing antibiotics from meats; also into calling anyone who tries to call her out are now referred to as trolls (something she was keen to do today on Periscope). Thanks. 82.16.170.111 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Book: The Fear Babe

"Only In Death" removed an attempt to create a section on the well-selling book covering Vani's tactics. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vani_Hari&diff=prev&oldid=695670915

I propose that it should be included as a section since a published book is different from the other forms of media and criticism, per Wikipedia's manual of style.

I also request that if OID is sincere, s/he should suggest the alternative wording they prefer for a mention of the book's existence as valid, published criticism of Hari. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually I dont object to its inclusion as such, an entire section on it however is unwarranted per undue. I did re-add it to the marketing section as that would appear to be the obvious place, but then took it out for now as the book appears to be self-published? Senapathy press - Kavin Senapath the author. Generally we wouldnt use a self-published source on a BLP unless it was an expert or highly notable by itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"unless it was an expert or highly notable by itself" See also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2015/10/29/taking-on-the-merchants-of-food-fear/ Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"Blogging on multiple sites" doesn't appear to make one an expert in the field. That's about all the mention I see of Senapath in the Forbes article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ironic, really. I oppose use of this book as a source because the authors have the same status as the subject, whose claims we repeat throughout the article. At least the book contains references to credible scientific sources, which puts them ahead of Hari in one important respect. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We discussed this above on this talk page. It'd be a lovely book to include, but it needs any evidence it's noteworthy itself, particularly given it's self-published - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be noteworthy, though I'd prefer it was before including it. All it needs to be is reliable for how we decide to use it. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Well thats the problem. Where the authors are relatively unknown, we fall back on stuff like 'is it published by a reliable (in the RS sense of the word) publisher'. At the moment, the only thing I can see the book being reliable for is the statement 'A book was written by these people about Vani Hari'. Which is obviously not really enough to merit inclusion (when self-published) absent more info. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2015/10/29/taking-on-the-merchants-of-food-fear/ Guy (Help!) 14:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthy_kids/Organic-vs-conventional-foods-environmental-impact-nutrition-taste.html Marcdraco (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If I may interject, I'm one of the authors of Fear Babe (we don't make a big deal that is was a team effort with Kavin, Mark and I at the helm and many other people from Banned by Food Babe and New Horsemen on Facebook contributing ideas.) There is a question over the quality of self-published work vs. traditional publishing. This is quite understandable because vanity publishing tends to be fiction (and pretty poor fiction a that, although this isn't necessarily true.) I thought it might be worth point out that Vani's work was (up until her book) was ALL self-published. This is the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy that dominates publishing and has done for many years now. Since I worked in publishing for a number of years, I know from experience that it's a business first and foremost. Publishers don't want to print books that won't sell because they lose money. It's that simple. Much the same applies in film. Look at the Sundance festival for innumerable examples of (in many cases excellent) motion pictures that would not have otherwise been made. Now compare that to the formulaic dross coming out of the studio mills and you start to see where we were coming from. Studios make films that put bums on seats; Indies try to make films that make you think. So to traditional publishing vs. self-publishing. Apart from being terribly slow (a book may take a year or more to get to market) there is the question of quality. Is the information accurate? Vani Hari's book repeats the same tired (and scientifically questionable) facts as she blogs about-but this is of no matter to her publisher since her fans bought it in droves. She had the ideal outlet, a ready market and even offered all sorts of incentives to buy multiple copies! Now look at this baloney from “Dr.” Masaru Emoto a NYT bestseller you'll note and about as scientifically valid as homoeopathy. The self-published route, so frowned upon in many quarters, allowed us to bypass the drudgery of submitting the book to multiple publishers and get it out as soon as it was ready. Every single claim we make is fully researched, backed by the latest scientific research and cited with full provenance. Of course, I'm bound to say that, but I will leave it to others to decide if that's correct or not. Perhaps more Admin level editors would care to have an open discussion about this subject since I believe it must apply more widely than here. Many expert scientists have “self-published” blogs and some such as onconologist “Orac” take on quacks and expose them point by point. Does that make them poor sources? Marcdraco (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You and editors here may be interested in WP:PARITY. When dealing with fringe subjects, sources of similar quality are acceptable to address the fringe nature of the subject because higher quality sources usually don't give the subject the time of day by the definition of WP:FRINGE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally find talk these pages difficult to follow at the best of times and I've only really shown up to offer an internal view (which is personal and may not necessarily be shared by my fellow authors). However, I'm not sure we can describe Hari as being WP:FRINGE (and dear god I *detest* these tags, what a great way to dissuade people from contributing) since she was listed in numerical terms as being one of the 30 most influential people on the Internet. In fact, the very reason we felt it was necessary to write Fear Babe was because she was pushing an agenda which is damaging science and contributed to rubbishing the reputation of Kevin Folta Ph.D, who wrote the foreword and part to the book. With that folks, I'm going to drop out of this and can be found on Facebook more easily if anyone has any questions. Marcdraco (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal Quotations

Shouldn't the long quotations attributed to Hari be removed? Maggie mcgarvey (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Because they are self-serving, and Hari would not know the truth if it bit her on the arse. Guy (Help!) 01:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice any long quotes. The readers want to know what she thinks. There should be quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree with QuackGuru here. We can't discuss the ideas behind what she says without readers having some idea what she said. This is particularly the case when she says something especially embarrassing, then throws it down the memory hole when caught out by it. There are no "long" quotes here either. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I am curious as to which quotes the OP is referring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia policy, we describe what she thinks by reference to reliable independent sources. You know, so we have context, rather than just uncritically repeating the self-serving statements of a proven serial dissembler. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We can (and should) do that in addition to. There's no reason to remove a primary quote, when it's in a relevant biography. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. In general, I think there can be quite a lot of value in quoting the subject's actual words. JzG, what is the precise quote you are objecting to? - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several statements attributed to Hari which I think should not be there, because they are post-hoc rationalisations in an attempt to somehow recast earlier statements to make them seem less wrong. The last sentence is a case in point: "However, Hari also claims that BHT is not as toxic to humans in skin products compared to in the packaging of food items." Also 'Hari has stated "I'm not doing this to make money. This is my life. This is my passion. This is my calling. There is no way I would put myself on the line like I do because of money. This is all about what I've learned, and I have to tell everyone."' is blatant special pleading. Of curse she says that, her business depends on people believing it, the facts paint a very different picture. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. As someone who strongly disagrees with Hari, I feel her words don't reflect well on her at all. Separately, I must note that Wikipedia does put in BLP subjects' referenceable statements on controversial issues, so if a controversial issue is notable enough to note than a referenceable statement on the subject will often be entirely appropriate, and that we should err on the side of including such. I think the well-cited facts in each case will speak pretty clearly to a reader who hasn't heard of a given issue before. (But I concede that any given case I might be wrong on.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, though, if the FUD Babe said that the sky is blue I would want an independent corroborating source. She really does not seem to give a flying fuck whether what she says is true or not. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

These are the facts. The rest is commentary. Now we like commentary (see WP:RS), but there's also a place for primary quotations. If you think they're too self-serving (and they are), then counter that with commentary. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

To be self-serving does there not need to be a chance people will believe them? Rather than them painting her as a bit foolish? I'm not sure having something stupid included serves her positively in any way... Only in death does duty end (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hari is widely believed by those that believe in Hari. Any quote tends to encourage them in this. Despite that, I think the quotes with commentary have a role. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hari's quote about *why* she does this is self serving. The quotations about third parties (Chipotle, BHT) are unsubstantiated. Isn't that in violation of using self-published information on WP?

In general no, unless the third party is a living person. Self published sources are fine to use to illustrate the opinion and motivations of the self publisher. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In general no, but in particular cases they might well be. This is I think case-by-case territory we're in - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hari's petitions

"Hari's petitions have received hundreds of thousands of signatures." I'm not sure why it was deleted when it is not editorializing. It is a simple fact. I restored the statement. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My problem with it is not so much that it is editorializing, but it is redundant. The immediate following sentence it says exactly how many signatures she got on the very same petition mentioned in the source with those figures. It also implies that she had more than one petition with "hundreds of thousands of signatures", which the source does not support. Actually, the whole mention of petitions here feels redundant, since both petitions are already mentioned in the Career section. To me, it would seem better to either keep the summary of "Hari's petitions have received tens of thousands of signatures" (more accurate to the source and less misleading) or to remove the summary and keep the straight figures, but not keep both.  Adrian^[232] 22:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My thinking exactly when it was first removed. Maybe dump the Influence and incorporate what's not redundant into the Career section? The section is rather large, but I'm not seeing any obvious topics for subsections. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see a reason for this to be mentioned more than once, or for anything to be generalized. Beach drifter (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll add another support for leaving that sentence out, given the specific information that comes right after it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The word pseudoscience

I think pseudoscience can be mentioned once in the lede rather than twice. Two times is redundant.[1] QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of making the same revert. After looking over the sources, I wasn't so sure. Still, it seems it could be a bit undue. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Nearly every source for this article talks about how her claims are at odds with science. It seems she is absolutely known just as well, if not better, for her pseudoscience claims as she is for her industry criticism. This seems especially notable because a lot of the pseudoscience claims are completely outside of any food industry criticism. I see no reason to change the first sentence, why not change the latter one? Beach drifter (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Additions to Influence section

The mention that Hari was included in the following lists were removed by Ronz and I believe they should be included in the “Influence” section:

In January 2016, The Greatist named Hari among "The 100 Most Influential People in Health and Fitness" http://greatist.com/health/most-influential-health-fitness-people

In January 2016, The Daily Meal named Hari among "America’s 50 Most Powerful People in Food for 2016". http://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/america-s-50-most-powerful-people-food%7C−

In February 2016, The Daily Meal named Hari among "The 13 Most Powerful Women in Food". http://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/13-most-powerful-women-food

The Daily Meal and Greatist are reliable 3rd party sources and it cannot be challenged that Hari was included in these lists. I see no credible reason to exclude them.
--Omnipum (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Are these notable? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes.--Omnipum (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

How are those not your typical click-bait lists seen on other websites? minimal information - check! Lots of crappy ads - check! Reliable source for Wikipedia - bzzzzzt! Ravensfire (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comment does not serve this conversation. I am being respectful and I suggest you do the same.

Other sources:

• http://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodculture/the-13-most-powerful-women-in-food/ss-BBpIyjC
• http://www.fooddive.com/news/why-leading-industry-players-made-the-daily-meals-50-most-powerful-people/413038/
• http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/02/beach-beat-nuggets-of-news-from-recent-days/#.VtituJMrKRs/
• http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Derby-doc-on-most-influential-list-6756578.php
• IFT found this list "notable" enough to share with their followers: https://twitter.com/ift/status/703361416514953216

Previous years these lists were featured in the media as well:

• http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/01/15/daily-meal-americas-50-most-powerful-people-in-food/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-daily-meal/americas-50-most-powerful_b_6978812.html
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/most-influential-people-health-fitness_n_4557049.html
• http://www.ihrsa.org/blog/2014/1/8/greatist-unveils-most-influential-in-health-and-fitness.html
• http://drdrew.com/2014/the-100-most-influential-people-in-health-and-fitness/

--Omnipum (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you respond to my edit summary, "partial rv - needs third-party sources or other indications that these are noteworthy"? --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, I don't understand. I thought I just did. What are you looking for?

--Omnipum (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition - these BLP wikipedia profiles include these lists, so why shouldn't it be in Hari's?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22The+100+Most+Influential+People+in+Health+and+Fitness%22&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Marler

--Omnipum (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. Find a GA article where there's such lists with discussions about how they're encyclopedic, then we can learn from what others' think on such matters.

First, could you strike out the non-third party links or otherwise identify those that are third-party from those that aren't? --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

For 'other sources': The MSN resource is a news aggregator which simply reposted the original source in an automatic fashion. Food Dive appears to be a blog that would not meet WP:RS, nor does their post mention Hari. Food Safety News specifies that the article is in the opinion section, and the author is a journalist not a notable expert on the subject, thus would not meet WP:RS. The CT Post article does not mention Hari. Twitter shares are not typically used to determine notability.

For 'previous years': The first Huffington Post link is a blog run by The Daily Meal, and is simply them using their HuffPo outlet to share their own content. The second HuffPo link appears to be more aggregated content, as it is a snippet of the original article followed by a link to it. The IHRSA resource is a blog post by a trade association; does not appear to be WP:RS. Dr Drew is also not a WP:RS for this information, especially due to the fact that the site has a conflict of interest due to his appearance on the list.

It should be important that reliable secondary sources generally agree that these lists are significant, particularly when the sources are regarded as authorities on the subject matter. It does not appear that any of those lists are particularly notable. At least it is not well supported by your links. Hari's appearances on the lists definitely have not been shown to be notable, in any event, which is arguably more important.  Adrian^[232] 04:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for going through all the links.

We need to remember that the press often acts as an echo chamber, especially for promotion and advocacy (see WP:SOAP). Just because something is in the news doesn't mean it is encyclopedic in any way (see WP:NOTNEWS). --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm an investigator quote

What encyclopedic value does this have: "In response to these criticisms, Hari has stated, "I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator." [2]. It looks like false balancing, but could read as an attempt to shame Hari. Either way, I don't see why it belongs. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It certainly seems like false balancing to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It is her response. That's why it is included. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Vani Hari has repeatedly been criticised for her incompetence as a nutritionist. Her response to this was this claim, that she was an investigator instead. On that basis it belongs here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I support including the quote. It reflects what she thinks, and the fact that we quote it does not mean that Wikipedia endorses or agrees with what she said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hari response to criticisms

Can anyone explain why this quote from Hari keeps getting removed? We have already established that responses to criticisms are allowed in a BLP. “Under their criticisms, that would mean that no journalist working in this world without a scientific degree would be able to report on science. That is unacceptable." Source --Omnipum (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's nonsense, over-the-top, self-serving, has no encyclopedic value that I can see, and in context looks like an attempt to undercut the valid criticisms of her lack of expertise. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

How is it nonsense and over the top? I disagree. It is her direct response to criticisms, whether you like it or not. --Omnipum (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You disagree and apparently feel this is just a matter of personal preference. Now please make a policy-based case for inclusion per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

This quote from Hari is appropriate under WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT and "Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires exercising special care in presenting negative viewpoints about living persons."Omnipum (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's clearly the reverse, but thanks for offering an explanation. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been so many recent reversions that it's difficult for those of us who didn't see it in real time to be sure which "response" this is. I think it might be where she said "Under their criticisms, that would mean that no journalist working in this world without a scientific degree would be able to report on science. That is unacceptable." If that's the case, then it came right after her quote about not being a nutritionist, and I don't think that it really adds that much to what the page already says, so I don't think that we need to add it back. I think the nutritionist quote covers it adequately. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. This quote specifically talks about journalism and writing about science. It is a completely different quote and should be added to counter criticisms that she isn't a scientist and shouldn't write about scientific issues. --Omnipum (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The way I see it, "I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator" is also clearly saying that she says she isn't a scientist but that she believes that should not prevent her from being able to publish investigations of nutrition science issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No, she said "Nutritionist" and not "Scientist" - that is two entirely different things and I'm sure we can agree on that. The second quote is specific response to her writing about scientific subjects, and that is why it belongs. Omnipum (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We disagree. The point here boils down to "specialist" or "expert", as opposed to "investigator" or "journalist". Contrasting "nutritionist" and "scientist" in this particular context is a distinction without a difference. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• See special pleading. That and the fact that Hari has a habit of trying to rewrite history when she's caught out, so any self-serving justifications must be taken with several oceans' worth of salt. Guy (Help!) 01:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You can take it with a grain of salt if you want, but that is her response to criticisms and so it belongs here. Omnipum (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Why? Who cares besides her? --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

All that does is give false equivalence to her responses, no way to they belong here. This is a woman who thinks there shouldn't be nitrogen in the air she breathes.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Being a WP:FRINGE subject especially, we don't do tit-for-tat. Hari says something of note and mainstream sources point it out as quackery, etc. We don't give Hari a venue here to push her point of view further by her responses to that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vani Hari. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.chipotle.com/en-US/menu/ingredients_statement/ingredients_statement.aspx
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.generalmills.com/en/News/Issues/BHT-statement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

OR?

Hari's critics have drawn attention to her affiliated marketing partnerships with organic and non-GMO brands, which she profits significantly from by recommending them above mainstream brands.[citation needed] The part Hari's critics and profits "significantly" may be OR. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You may have a point about the word "significantly, but a citation is there. Start reading the NPR article from "Other critics are less generous in their assessment, noting that Hari isn't just raising the alarm about food additives." Are you ok with keeping the bit about critics given this? We also have other sources of people criticising her market strategy later in the section. Brustopher (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

bannedbyfoodbabe.com

Unless there's a third party source demonstrating that there's something encyclopedic about bannedbyfoodbabe.com that is worth mention, I think we should keep it out per BLP, WP:SOAP, and POV. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Found two news mentions and re-added. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As a self-published source, I think the site itself should remain out. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hari's response

Hari has stated "I'm not doing this to make money. This is my life. This is my passion. This is my calling. There is no way I would put myself on the line like I do because of money. This is all about what I've learned, and I have to tell everyone." This belongs on the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? Is it significant that she has said this vague and self-serving platitude? If it's credible that the claim is true (many believe that it's all about the money), then what sourcing is there for her lack of financial gain? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see why either, though I could be convinced I imagine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Adage article uses quotes from Hari to contrast what she says with what she does and the criticisms for both. However, it's rather subtle in the article, so taking quotes out of the specific context may be problematic. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, and that's why she gives her books away free as e-books, and ensures that she links direct to manufacturers rather than using affiliate links. Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 19:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that her response to criticisms should be included. Omnipum (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok so basically the only argument I'm hearing against including this here is "I think she's bullshitting." You guys do realise this isn't how Wikipedia works right? Also Ronz is saying that we are taking the quote out of the specific context of being juxtaposed with criticism of her marketing strategy. How are we doing this you may ask? By juxtaposing it with criticism of her marketing strategy. I can't help but feel that these are not convincing arguments. Also if what she's saying is meaningless, self-serving, and unconvincing then why are you so worried about it being in the article? She'll look just as dubious either way. Brustopher (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No, not that I think she's bullshitting, the evidence shows she's bullshitting. You're offsetting dispassionate analysis of her mechanisms for raising revenue with querulous and blatantly self-serving statements that are plainly at odds with the facts, namely that she pimps products via affiliate marketing that contain the very things against which she rants. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it's irrellevant whether or not her statements are self serving. Secondary sources have thought it necessary to quote her and get her side of hte story when making these claims about her. For us to remove them because they are self-serving is a clear violation of NPOV. This is an article about Vani Hari, so it should include Hari's arguments and thoughts which have been covered by secondary sources. Brustopher (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Tryptofish's recent edit is fine. She does assert the claim, after all, and the quote is not excessive IMO - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree and have modified the sentence accordingly. The edit as it stood gave the impression that Advertising Age and the other source took her claims at face value without doing further investigation. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yours makes an important point that needs to be made, though it's pretty strongly worded - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with the status as of now (i.e. [3]). Guy (Help!) 14:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Terrible edit. You've basically made the sentence look like this: "Hari has been criticised for profitting from her marketing affiliations, but says she's not in it for the money, but it's been noted Hari profits significantly from her marketing affiliations." This is just bad sentence structuring. I've removed the rejoinder but added the word "significantly" to the beginning of the sentence so meaning of your edit is not lost. Brustopher (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hari contends that she is "not doing this to make money", but news reporting shows that she makes a significant amount of money from her affiliate marketing campaigns.[2][43]

The part "but news reporting shows that she makes a significant amount of money from her affiliate marketing campaigns" is a SYN violation. In the previous sentence in mentions affiliated marketing. There are two problems. SYN and duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not a SYN violation. You are very very boring by now with your continual insistence that anything you did not write or approve is OR. The sources clearly support her profiting from affiliate marketing. If you want to include her weaselly self-justification, then we also get to include the rock solid documented fact that regardless of her claimed motivation, she makes money from thhe crap she peddles. And that is 100% in line with policy. She is pushing fringe views, we do not present her self-image as the truth even if she does believe her own PR. She promotes chemophobia then makes money selling products that contain the self-same chemicals. Some people think this is because she is a hypocrite, I disagree: I think she simply does not care about the factual accuracy of what she says, she is in it for ego much more than money, but that is just my personal view - the objective fact is that pleading aside, she has taken positive steps to profit form what she promotes. This is not an accidental oversight, it is a clear and conscious decision, so saying she's not in it for the money qualifies for a Jimmy Hill sized chinny-reckon. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral edit and duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In your opinion. As a single-minded person with a block log a mile long and a long history of problems wherever you edit.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, sources clearly identify her affiliate marketing. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I previously explained it was duplication. The "but" part is clearly not what the source stated. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

So one minute it's WP:SYN and the next it's duplication. Put those goalposts down. The relevance is as I stated: if we're going to repeat her obviously questionable self-justification, then we doi it in the context of the published evidence that her self-justification is, in fact, questionable. She could have fixed this criticism by not engaging in affiliate marketing. Instead she chose to claim she's not in it for the money, but kept on affiliate marketing. I think we're entitled to point that out. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

How's this phrasing? The Ad Age article is, after all, literally about this - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading things but the article never seems to state that the marketing revenue is a significant proportion of her income. Also once again I must note, the addition was (before you rephrased it) literally just a rephrased repetition of the previous sentence. You may think it's an important addition, but critics of the edit have noted that it's just the previous sentence rephrased. (see what I did there?) It's just bad writing. Furthermore the Adage article seems to take Hari's claim seriously, noting she left a lucrative job to start her food blogging career. You people seem to have confused the idea of "not being in it for the money" with "being allergic to money and rejecting all earthly possesions." Adding "but she actually makes money as opposed to doing a full time job for free" isn't a rebuttal the article is trying to make nor one that really makes sense. Brustopher (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Both the previous version and new version are not rebuttals. It is OR/SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It is nothing of the sort, and repeating the assertion does not make it so - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Then you would have no trouble verifying the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:IDHT. You are now at the point of pissing off even those who agree with you on substantive matters of the validity of scientific claims. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Ok let's try this again. Here's everything wrong with the phrasing as it currently stands:

• How can the evidence contradict her claim? The claim is that Hari personally believes she's not in it for the money, and that money isn't her main motive. The only way this could be proved or disproved is by inventing a machine that reads people's thoughts to confirm. What you are doing is forcing your own opinion into the article. None of the sources we have are as skeptical about this as you are.
• Why does "having the last say" matter. You seem to think that Hari's claim being a lie is self-evident due to the fact that affiliate marketing is a significant proportion of her income. If this is the case how lowly do you think of our readers that you believe their simian minds will be unable to comprehend an obvious truth just because Hari's response is the last sentence of the paragraph?
• This is just plain bad overly repetitive writing. We've got the same clause written twice with some very mild paraphrasing. It's writing which is both bad and repetitive. (see what I did there?) Brustopher (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree the phrasing is clumsy. The best thing would be simply to omit her response, since it is self-serving and contradicted by evidence. Otherwise one could merely re-order the entire para to say that while Hari insists she is not in it for the money, there is extensive evidence that she is. I have yet to encounter a single promoter of bullshit who either admits it is bullshit, or admits they are in it for the money. If you ask them about some critique of their bullshit or some proof of their making money from promoting bullshit, they will always give exactly the responses Hari gives. They might even believe it, who knows. The chances of Hari admitting that she is doing very nicely thank you from sales of the products she pimps without checking their ingredients against her made-up list of evil chemicals is zero. However, the evidence shows this to be the case, and we should not give her the last word - this is not a court of law, it's an encyclopaedia. In court the defence gets the last word, on Wikipedia, reality gets the last word. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It might just be best to remove it entirely. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Quoting her response uncritically is definitely unduly self-serving. Hardly anyone when confronted with accusations of corruption by cash would admit that they are being influenced by it. In Hari's case she does not have a long career or reputation to protect—she doesn't work for a university or a newspaper, she works for herself (or for her affiliate partners, depending on how you look at it). The sources do not appear to be agreeing with her response or making much ado about it, so devoting that portion of the page to it, especially the last word, would be WP:UNDUE. I would think simply noting somewhere that Hari disagrees would be sufficient, but even that seems unnecessary since obviously someone would disagree with their critics; it would be more worth pointing out if they agreed and made a statement that they would do something about it. In short, Hari's response simply doesn't add anything of note to the article.  Adrian^[232] 20:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably best to just remove it entirely, and I'm going to do that now. If anyone is dead set on putting it back in some form, it would be best to agree on the wording here, before putting anything back. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what the heck just happened? We have 2 sources describing Hari's response which is a good half of all the sources covering the affiliate marketting issues from what I can gather. How on earth is removing her response justified here. We cannot open windows into people's souls and know whether or not they're involved in a cause mainly for the money, so the claims that hte evidence contradicts Hari's responses are ridiculous. Even if the evidence did, these sources still felt the need to include Hari's resposnses. Furthermore, claims that we're presenting Hari's claims uncritically are absurd. We're presenting them in a section solely dedicated to critcism of her marketin strategy! Brustopher (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I have no objection to putting it back in some form. But the question is: in which form? If we can work that out in talk, then that's fine, but there's no point in having a slow-motion edit war over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Given that the issue people seem to have is that Hari's response is the last line of the paragraph (I don't understand why), how about this: The adage report and Hari's reply are put first in the section/paragraph. The Bloomberg business week stuff is then put at the end of the paragraph. Would that solve everyone's complaints? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brustopher (talk • contribs) 20:13, April 12, 2016‎

I think the question here that I haven't seen answered is: Why does it need to be there? It seems to me her response could be summed up as simply that she disagrees that money could be an influence on her. What substance beyond that does her response have? What purpose does it serve the article? If I understood those questions, I might be able to help propose something here.  Adrian^[232] 21:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Adrian232: Exactly so. It would be frankly astonishing if she did not deny these accusations, just as Andy Wakefield denies his film is anti-vaccine, but her word is unreliable (as established by multiple sources) and the facts speak for themselves. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

For those reasons, I don't like the idea of restoring her quote in its entirety. But I see nothing wrong with having a shortened version of the quote, along the lines of [4], but I don't like having to add wording about the news reports. I would be OK with just saying: Hari contends that she is "not doing this to make money". and leave it at that. It respects WP:BLP, while also letting readers see for themselves how her contention does or does not fit with all the other facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

But the problem with that is that the evidence clearly indicates that she is doing it for the money. It's certainly not from any love of informing people, because so much of what she writes is objectively shown to be hogwash. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

For those reasons, I would not want us to say it in Wikipedia's voice, but I think that the verb "contends" demonstrates that she claims it, not that what she claims is true. I think that if we go too far in removing her stated positions from the page, on the basis that they are wrong (as indeed they clearly are), we end up in WP:RGW territory, trying to tell our readers that she is bad. Perhaps there is a way of rearranging the paragraph, so that we give the "last word" to the sources that show that she really does get money from this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How about this: Although Hari contends that she is "not doing this to make money", Hari's critics have drawn attention to her affiliated marketing partnerships with organic and non-GMO brands, from which she profits by recommending them above mainstream brands. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am ok with this. Brustopher (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hari contends that she is "not doing this to make money" is about her career. It is not about Marketing strategy. It does not belong at Marketing strategy.

Hari stated that she is "not doing this to make money" belongs at Vani_Hari#Career. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: In which paragraph, and worded how? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

See here. QuackGuru (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That takes it completely out of context, which is exactly what we should not be doing. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Where would it be in context? QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That's my concern. The context within the reference is rather subtle - they avoid labeling, but repeatedly contrast her words with what she does - she's an entrepreneur and capitalist rather than the activist and advocate that she markets herself as. Outside that context it's very easy to abuse. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

So it sounds like that won't work. And I don't like the full quote in the diff QuackGuru presented, for the reasons I said just above. I think that takes us back to: Although Hari contends that she is "not doing this to make money", Hari's critics have drawn attention to her affiliated marketing partnerships with organic and non-GMO brands, from which she profits by recommending them above mainstream brands. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Ms. Hari, who left what she said was a lucrative management-consulting job in late 2012 to pursue full-time activism and blogging, responded in an interview that "I'm not doing this to make money." She added: "This is my life. This is my passion. This is my calling. There is no way I would put myself on the line like I do because of money. This is all about what I've learned, and I have to tell everyone."[5] Here is the entire paragraph. There is no "Although Hari contends...". This has nothing to do with the Marketing strategy section and should not be restored to the Marketing strategy section. This is about her career change.

See here. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not just about her career change, it's not even primarily about her career change. Her marketing strategy is to present herself as a researcher and advocate, despite her failings in both. So it is about her strategy, it's her trying to keep up her brand despite the evidence that she's not what she presents.

I do think "contends" is too far into SYN. What's wrong with just Although Hari says that she is "not doing this to make money", Hari's critics have drawn attention to her affiliated marketing partnerships with organic and non-GMO brands, from which she profits by recommending them above mainstream brands.? --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point about contends→says, and that version would be fine with me. I don't have a strong opinion about the alternatives discussed just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I just got done with explaining the problem with the proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I know that you posted that, and I didn't mean to sound dismissive, nothing personal. It's just that I'm not seeing you persuade anyone else, and those issues don't seem like a big deal to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I provided verification for my proposal. If you still support the other proposal then I request verification. QuackGuru (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The source did not say "Her marketing strategy is to present herself as a researcher and advocate, despite her failings in both." The paragraph I quoted has nothing to do with marketing strategy.

There is no "Although Hari says that she is "not doing this to make money"..." That is taking the source out of context. The paragraph I quoted in only related to the career section. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a better spot is here. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

'The source did not say "Her marketing strategy...'" It's my summary of the source as a whole relating to the quote. The paragraph is part of a larger context: the section within the source, titled "Advocate or entrepreneur?", and the source as a whole, titled "Activist or Capitalist? How the 'Food Babe' Makes Money: Blogger Attacking Subway, Kraft and More Has Thousands of Fans, Plenty of Critics". That's why I think it is in context in Marketing strategy, and out of context in Career. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Hari who left her management consulting job in late 2012 to be an activist and a blogger full-time, replied in an interview that "I'm not doing this to make money."[2]"[6]

The text is specifically about her reason she left her previous job. Your proposal was out of context. No source came to the conclusion "Although Hari says that she is "not doing this to make money", Hari's critics have drawn attention to her affiliated marketing partnerships with organic and non-GMO brands, from which she profits by recommending them above mainstream brands." The part "Hari's critics have drawn attention to her affiliated marketing partnerships with organic and non-GMO brands, from which she profits by recommending them above mainstream brands." is from another source. Trying to combine two different sources together is WP:SYN. The quote was her respond in an interview. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. I think you're ignoring the larger context. The AdAge source does indeed verify the information that you think is only in other sources, so there's no SYN at all. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The source said "Ms. Hari, who left what she said was a lucrative management-consulting job in late 2012 to pursue full-time activism and blogging, responded in an interview that "I'm not doing this to make money." She added: "This is my life. This is my passion. This is my calling. There is no way I would put myself on the line like I do because of money. This is all about what I've learned, and I have to tell everyone."[7]

The paragraph only verified this proposal. Trying to conduct your own review of the source is SYN. I previously explained it was her response in an interview. That's what the source said. I think we should not try to twist the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think the AdAge source does indeed verify the information you proposed then you would have no trouble providing verification. QuackGuru (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you are unable to look beyond a single paragraph of a source, you're wasting our time. Not everything is SYN and OR if it's scope is beyond a single paragraph. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If we follow the AdAge source more heavily, we can remove "critics" completely, unless we are labeling the entire AdAge article as a critic, which we shouldn't. Can we put it in Wikipedia's voice completely, or is there some doubt?: Although Hari contends that she is "not doing this to make money", Hari's profits by recommending organic and non-GMO brands with which she has affiliated marketing partnerships. If we like, that could serve to introduce that critics point out that some of the products she recommends are made with GMOs (I don't recall which sources do this). --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I asked for verification since you claimed it was sourced. You and others are unable to provide verification from the source. You have not explained how other paragraphs verified the claim. Here is the the source. Please provide verification or withdraw your proposal. The source must make the claim not the editor. QuackGuru (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm trying to work with editors that actually read the sources. Please join us when you have the time. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You are claiming I did not read the sources? I quoted the source and summarised it according to WP:V policy. If there is another source you are using to verify the claim then provide verification.

User:The 321 kiddo stated "She said it. Nobody responded. End of discussion."[8] I am not the only editor who has concerns with the possible WP:BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the situation. Let us know when you have time to read more than the single paragraph. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

See http://adage.com/article/news/activist-capitalist-food-babe-makes-money/294032/ I read more than the single paragraph. Please quote the part you are trying to summarise. QuackGuru (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

As soon as we change core policy to allow us to report the self-image of proven bullshitters as fact, we can make the edit. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything in core policy you think forbids us from detailing the self-image of a person (bulshitter or not) in their biography? If anything surely how a person portrays themselves is something that surely should feature in their biography.Brustopher (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:UNDUE, when a proven bullshitter says they are not in it for the money, but the evidence shows that they are in it for the money, we don't report their self-serving statements without context. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is about significant viewpoints and means you shouldn't give Flat earthers a significant section in the article on earth. It doesn't however mean you shouldn't give significant space in the article on the head of the Flat Earth Society towards expounding their views. Hari's viewpoints are significant in an article about Hari, all the moreso when multiple sources cover them. Brustopher (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Says who? Answer that question with an independent source, and there's the possibility at least that we're no violating WP:SOAP]. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that this has been an awful lot of discussion over something that, frankly, is a rather small matter. I promise that I have read everything, nonetheless. But I still have not heard a convincing reason not to go with: Although Hari contends that she is "not doing this to make money", Hari's critics have drawn attention to her affiliated marketing partnerships with organic and non-GMO brands, from which she profits by recommending them above mainstream brands. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. She can protest that she is not in it for the money, but we include the evidence that says she is. Just one more data point in the "FUD Babe says X, reality says not-X" narrative that defines her entire career. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but below it appears that other editors would rather fight than switch. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

But it's not just Hari's critics. We have the Advertising Age article pointing these issues out: "Part of her business model appears to be rooted in her affiliate-marketing partnerships. One of the companies she has recently plugged on her site is called Green Polka Dot Box, which sells home-delivered natural, organic and non-GMO foods." There's an entire section, "The FTC requires disclosure", about how she discloses her partnerships. Given that, I don't see why we shouldn't use: Although Hari states that she is "not doing this to make money", Hari's profits by recommending organic and non-GMO brands with which she has affiliated marketing partnerships. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hari states that she is "not doing this to make money", but there is no "although" part. "Hari's profits by recommending organic and non-GMO brands with which she has affiliated marketing partnerships." is a different claim.

Please quote the part you are trying to summarise.[9] User:Tryptofish, I requested verification in order to properly summarise the text. User:Ronz was unable to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

When you say someone wasn't able to verify information immediately after they just did, it becomes hard to take you seriously here at any level. Instead you've created the impression that you're intentionally disrupting the discussions, harassing editors, and preventing us from improving this article. If you don't want to create this impression, WP:FOC, WP:AGF, and work cooperatively with others.

Your interpretation of V doesn't appear to match the actually policy. The material is verified. There are entire sections of the article about her partnerships. It's one of the main areas of focus in the reference, first introduced in the third paragraph and continuing to the second-to-last.

We most certainly can summarize individual references, and groups of references as a whole. We need to be careful to avoid giving undue weight when doing so, but we must also be careful not to overlook main points. It's a main point. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It should not be hard for you to quote the paragraghs you are trying to summarise if it is sourced.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As I've already identified specific sentences, paragraphs, and sections, take a look at them and see what you think. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

At this point, my preferred outcome would be to leave her response out entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the consensus here? I agree with Brustopher and QuackGuru in adding this: "I'm not doing this to make money. This is my life. This is my passion. This is my calling. There is no way I would put myself on the line like I do because of money. This is all about what I've learned, and I have to tell everyone." It is from a reliable source and is her direct response to that criticism in the criticism section. Omnipum (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Category issue, again

Please see: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 17#Category:Diet and food fad creators.

Please remember back to Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 6#Pseudoscience category for earlier discussions about how Category:Advocates of pseudoscience was removed from this page in favor of making it a parent category of Category:Diet and food fad creators, which is currently a category of this page. An editor has objected to making it a parent category (because quite a few of the diet creators are scientifically credible), so I have opened Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 17#Category:Diet and food fad creators. I propose splitting the category, such that this page would be re-categorized as Category:Food fad creators. I hope that editors here will comment on the CfD proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If it was already determined that this article should not contain the Pseudoscience category, why has it not been removed? --Omnipum (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was that the category Category:Diet and food fad creators would be made a subcategory of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, which, in turn, is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. That would make it redundant and unnecessary to apply Category:Pseudoscience directly, but the page would still, by extension, be part of that category. So that was not a consensus that Category:Pseudoscience should not apply to this page. It has continued to apply all along.

The problem has arisen that another editor has removed Category:Diet and food fad creators from Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. Therefore, I opened Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 17#Category:Diet and food fad creators and reapplied Category:Pseudoscience on a temporary basis until the CfD discussion is resolved. If you would prefer not to have Category:Pseudoscience appear here, but have a Diet-related category appear instead, you need to speak up at the CfD discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Affiliate marketer

I'd prefer a label that's clearer, but it seems due and the source is used extensively. Given how prominent it is in the source, to not mention it in the lede seems problematic. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason it was deleted. That's what she does to make money. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Concur. It's well-cited and it's literally how she makes her living - David Gerard (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Omnipum: appears to be edit-warring to keep it out - David Gerard (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It belongs there, it is cited. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Why does it belong there? Can you show me examples of how this title is used on other pages? Is typically how bloggers are described who have used affiliate marketing on their websites? I don't believe this is the case. Do you realize that almost all websites - including mainstream news websites - utilize affiliate marketing? Yet, they are not described as "affiliate marketers". I don't see how this is an accurate description of what she does.--Omnipum (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is cited. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because something is in the news doesn't mean it is encyclopedic in any way. No one has answered my questions above. --Omnipum (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Specifically in Vani Hari's case, her affiliate marketing is an issue because she evangelises a lifestyle that promotes these products. And has been called out for it. Its one thing to utilise affliate marketing, its another to say 'You should eat/drink this! Its good for you!' without disclosing you are getting a kickback. So generally yes, its not an issue for most bloggers (although with recent high profile court cases regarding promoting products this may be changing) in Hari's it is a significant issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It belongs because, as the sources make perfectly clear, that is how she makes the money to support her rather agreeable lifestyle. She pimps products, and makes money when people buy them. That is not only an important fact biographically, it also bears directly on much of the criticism of her work. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Can we link affiliate marketer somewhere in order to give a clear definition of what we're meaning the term to mean, then check whether she meets that or not. I would agree with Guy's description here, but it's not clear that this is how "affiliate marketer" is generally interpreted or not. Is she paid to advertise products, then maybe products sell? Or is she part of the selling process more directly herself, such as FudBabe-branded tasty yoga mats? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As per the second ref she is a fairly standard affiliate marketer, rather than a directly paid-for-promotion like some of the recent bloggers caught out. Its not a case of Organic company says 'Promote this and we will give you a chunk of cash'. She recommends brands and gets a cut/share from those brands for her referrals - which is how affiliate marketing generally works. As far as I know there isnt any allegation that states she directly does paid advertising on behalf of companies which actually puts her on the more ethical end of the blog-advertising range. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand how affiliate marketing works here. Almost every blog on the planet, including Scibabe, makes some revenue from affiliate marketing. That does not make them an "afflilate marketer" by trade - they are a "blogger" by trade. Let's get back to the point here that Hari is a blogger - and it is not appropriate to give her a title of "affiliate marketer". Can you show me examples of other wikipedia profiles that use "affiliate marketer" as a title for someone? I do not believe they exist.Omnipum (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a winning argument at Wikipedia. The point is that this is significant to Hari's income and to the public critique of her, and that both the fact and its significance are well-cited and relevant - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say this is "significant" to Hari's income? This is not what she "does", so it is not an appropriate title. Again... every other blogger on the planet does affiliate marketing and they are not called "affiliate marketers" by trade. This does not belong in this sentence, it is already discussed a couple sentences below where it says "Hari left her management consulting job in 2012 to devote her time to activism and blogging, as well as marketing dietary and other products." There is not reason to duplicate this and give her this title.--Omnipum (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Very few bloggers have an article about their affiliate marketing published by AdvertisingAge. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not true. Many articles have been written about bloggers and vloggers and how they make money, and they are not given the title of "affiliate marketer" although this is a primary vehicle that they use to earn a living from their blogs and videos. --Omnipum (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Says who? Please provide reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read through the talk page, and there is no qualification in her schooling, university career or her activism that make her "known for" affiliate marketing. She has no expertise in marketing other than what typical bloggers do. From looking at her site, it looks like she is mainly a writer and author - this is an inaccurate designation - also furthermore she sells no series or advice to deal with affiliate marketing - nor is there any evidence of significant income that makes this form of revenue part of her identity. I agree with Omnipum's comments above, that there are no other bloggers here on wikipedia that have this type of title. This clearly looks like a situation trying to paint Ms. Hari in a money grubbing light.Maruru~enwiki (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your removal. Please don't edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add it in the first place, so it stays out. Omnipum (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please consider me as one editor on the side of the consensus being to leave it in. I base that on the fact that sources explicitly describe her as such, and indicate that the marketing is an essential aspect of her approach to advocacy. Also, if I see any more edit warring, I am going to request page protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Tryptofish. Affiliate Marketing is how Hari makes her money, as covered by Advertising Age magazine link. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

We have two WP:SPAs who are against this and a number of experienced editors who think it belongs as it is sourced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The source is unreliable and it's major point is that she's an affiliate marketer. Removal of the information seems to be a POV violation. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You meant "reliable", right? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bloomberg Businessweek says her primary income is from selling her own eating guide. This isn't affiliate marketing. "The investigations drive readers to Hari’s Monthly Eating Guide, which she says is her primary source of revenue. For $17.99 a month, customers can download a full-color Food Babe Starter guide that teaches them about “organic living from the inside out.”

I suggest that instead of "affiliate marketer" it should say "entrepreneur". http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-25/food-babe-vani-hari-draws-criticism-over-her-science Omnipum (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

So you suggest we ignore the main point of a reference we are using widely, and introduce a term not being used in the refernce you prefer? Sorry, the first a POV violation, the latter a OR vio as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, according to this and other sources her primary source of income is an "eating guides" - not affiliate marketing. I think a more accurate description of her is an entrepreneur. " Ms. Hari also sells "eating guides" for $17.99 a month and charges for speaking appearances." and "The investigations drive readers to Hari’s Monthly Eating Guide, which she says is her primary source of revenue." (source: Bloomberg) Omnipum (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters, especially when it's just her own claim. We don't place her own claims above sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)