Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:37, 27 October 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vani Hari article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women writers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: North Carolina This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina. [REDACTED] Alternative views [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

RfC: Is this article biased?

Is this article fair and balanced, or does it seem to have been made by people who have it out for Vani Hari and constructed an article to slam her and make her look bad? Does there seem to be a concerted effort in recent edit history here to block edits that might balance the article? SageRad (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The question is hopelessly vague and unspecific and not amenable to RfC. You have not yet even tried to propose specific changes, asking for an RfC on the basis of "I think this article sucks" is disruptive and a waste of time. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Alerted to RfC posting by bot. And I must say I agree with Guy on this one. This RfC is not specific in any way and even if it were true and even if enough people came and voted as such, there would be no way forward because the only thing those people would have agreed to is "this article sucks". Hopelessly vague and not constructive. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I continue to hold that this is a useful question for an RfC. Outside eyes are useful for a general assessment of this nature. Let's see what some other people may say. I participate in RfCs for others of this sort, and i do find it useful. Let's see what a few other people say. This one good use of the RfC mechanism -- to gain some outside perspective and escape the echo chamber. SageRad (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It would simply be useful to me to have neutral opinions on this article as a whole. SageRad (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed on this talk page at length already: if there are indeed notable and relevant sources that are strongly positive on Hari's work, they should go in. However, that does not mean pretending the balance of sources is something it isn't pending such sources being found - you need to find them first.

Note also that Hari makes specifically medical claims related to health, so your sources would almost certainly need to pass WP:MEDRS - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you point me to such discussions that you refer to? And as for sources passing MEDRS, what such claims are you referring to, and if it's that quote regarding "any chemicals" then do the other sources in that section meet MEDRS, and if not then can i remove them? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_3 for the most recent round. The other two archives (linked at the top of this talk page) will also be informative. This saves everyone having to have almost exactly the same discussion repeatedly.

Thank you for the link. I read the whole conversation, and i still see the same ideological towing of agenda as in the present conversation, and i see Dialectric and a couple other editors seeking balance and being overrun and not respected as equal participants by others there. That is what i see. And the currently resulting article remains problematic in the same ways outlined by the people in that dialogue who were saying basically the same things as i am saying here. There's an ideological war going on here and the "skeptoid" side has captured this page and it remains captured. SageRad (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your question is confused in its premises. WP:MEDRS applies to particular claims. On a topic which has some medical-related claims and some not, it applies to the medical-related ones. I urge you to read the guideline, it's pretty clear - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I know the guideline very well. I don't need your condescension on that. I ask you specifically what claims *you* are referring to that you think require MEDRS level sourcing? Does this refer to any changes i have made to date or is this a hypothetical warning? SageRad (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt if you know the guideline anywhere near as well as David or I do, given that you've only been actively editing for under six months and you are essentially a single-purpose agenda editor, whereas David and I have both been here since before MEDRS even existed. Your attitude is extraordinarily aggressive - and given the rather obvious fact that you are a Warrior For Truth™ that is going to reduce your chances of getting what you want. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so you're the expert on[REDACTED] guidelines and i'm the poor editor who doesn't know what i'm talking about? I understand MEDRS very well, thank you. You may have been here for longer than i have been, but Misplaced Pages does not work by seniority or authority. It works by principles and guidelines. SageRad (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not the expert on anything, but since David and I have both been here for over a decade and both demonstrated sufficient understanding of policy to win community trust, I think it's fair to say that both of us probably understand it better than you do. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've read the article in its entirety to try and give some of the perspective you seek. As an aside, I don't have a dog in this fight and don't have a strong opinion on GMOs (though I tend to accept the majority opinion of scientists on most topics). That being said, the career portion of this article certainly paints the subject favorably. And the criticism portion raises very fair concerns about the subject of the article from some VERY reputable sources. The only concern I'd have with the article is the comparable lengths of the criticism section and the entire rest of the article. If you want to change this article to make it more "balanced" (in your view) I would recommend not fighting tooth and nail to remove fair criticism, but instead insert well-sourced and researched rebuttals (if you can find them). Don't try to improve the article by slashing it, try to improve it by adding to it. Cheers and happy hunting! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 14:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and i certainly do appreciate your time and commenting. I hear you. The proportionality of the criticism section the main section is also my main issue with this article, as well as what i see as a very one-sided approach in the criticism section. If you do look at the recent edit history, you'll see that i attempted to balance one part of the criticism section (about the "any chemicals" quote) and then it was slashed away by another editor (JzG/Guy) and reverted to the initial state, and then he accused me of edit warring. That shows the sort of ideological capture that i am suggesting is present here. I have also added a single CBS news report on Vani Hari that put her in a generally favorable light (while also mentioning her critics like Dr Gorski for instance) and that was slashed away as well in the same stroke by JzG/Guy. This is the sort of thing that caused me to issue this RfC. Thank you for your comment, and be assured i hear your input loud and clear. SageRad (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in the previous talk page archive: "Indeed. If there are mainstream reliable sources praising her accuracy, they should be in the article. But we certainly don't remove the other mainstream reliable sources waiting on them." Bring the sources and in they'll go. For example, I found Hari's refutation on the "chemicals" quote, which I personally thought made her claim of being quoted out of context pretty strongly backed. But I also felt this didn't need to put things in a Misplaced Pages editorial voice - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

David, i am unclear about what you mean. I don't understand what you mean by "I also felt this didn't need to put things in a Misplaced Pages editorial voice" or what your final opinion on the inclusion of Hari's refutation about the "any chemicals" quote may be. Would you please clarify? Do you support including her refutation in the article or not? And if so, in what way, or how would you have Wikivoice speak to it? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

David Gerard I'd call it a rebuttal not a refutation, and I'm always wary of "balancing" a secondary source with a primary one. Are there secondary sources that discuss the entire thing and provide overall balanced coverage? Guy (Help!) 14:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For a BLP, the subject's statement on a notable matter seems a relevant source to use, even if it's a primary one, per WP:BLPSELFPUB - it's an official statement from Hari intended to address this specific matter - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and that is the principle by which i had edited the section to include Hari's statement on the issue, which was then removed by JzG/Guy in his single revert of my several different recent edits. SageRad (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You are being careless again. The version to which I reverted, includes this text, text added I believe by David:

Hari responded stating that the quote was taken out of its context of hormone-mimicking chemicals and growth stimulants, which can cause problems even in very small amounts.

You did not include her response, and I did not remove it. It was there before you touched the article. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed include her response, by which i mean the text of her response. This is the diff. I added the block quote with her rebuttal. A reference to a page containing the rebuttal was previously there. A added the rebuttal itself to the section. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, what you did was to highlight her spin on the situation. The previous version, which as I say I believe was added by David, included her response. All you did was to give it substantially greater weight. That's always a risk with cranks like Hari. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's acceptable, but a secondary source would be much better, wouldn't you say? Guy (Help!) 15:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's acceptable then why did you remove it? SageRad (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we're talking past each other. I added the text of the rebuttal and you did remove that. There was a reference to the page containing it previously and that still stands. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If you were a bit less shouty then maybe you would hear what's being said to you. See above. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. And it should be noted that claims of scientific fact should be ready to face extra scrutiny in the face of similarly reviewed and scrutinized criticism. Best of luck to you all. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 14:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

My response to this RfC. No. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As would be expected from you. Still looking for viewpoints outside of the ideological cluster. SageRad (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I urge you to review WP:NPA - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. I'm sorry if you or anyone took it as such. It's simply to note that the editor is not neutral in this topic area as they have been editing in this topic area for a while. That's all. No attack intended at all. SageRad (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to clarify? I have no idea at all what you mean above. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Simply that you have a history of editing within the whole controversy cluster around agrochemicals and food issues. SageRad (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen Special:Contributions/SageRad ? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps you could scroll back a screen or two and see my many contributions on other topics, before this snarl of a dicussion here. It's sooooo easy to misrepresent a person as being a single-issue editor. Try this link, for instance. The difference is that edits to other topics don't involve the ridiculous level of dialogue that edits to a page like this take, because there is not an army of people ready to fight every single attempt to make a good change. Therefore, if you are attempting to paint me as a single-issue POV pusher then that is really off the mark, though it makes for good rhetoric. On the other hand, if you're trying to say that i've been editing in this cluster of topics too, then you're clearly right. I never refuted that. However, i am looking for outside, neutral eyes, among people who don't edit much in this topic cluster, and that is why i noted that Roxy is not a neutral person by that description. SageRad (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Why scroll? Use the tool and get the whole history https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=SageRad&project=en.wikipedia.org

"Monsanto" would have to be the theme there.

So if you are going to raise the point that another editor is biased because of the claimed narrowness of their contributions (see https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Roxy+the+dog&project=en.wikipedia.org), then don't be surprised when your own contributions are examined too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Listen, i am not claiming to be uninvolved here. I admit that i've been editing in this area. The logic here is that i called the RfC to get input from others who are uninvolved and neutral on this, random editors who do not have the history of being in this topic area. Understand? SageRad (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a personal policy to ignore personal attacks of this type. They are normally quite meaningless, after all this is teh Internetz, and here on[REDACTED] you get what you sow. If anybody actually looks at the stats supplied by Andy, note that my pages created figure is astonishingly incorrect. It should read far far less!! It would be nicer if comments were based upon edits, rather than the editor though. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 17:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It counts pages, you're maybe thinking of articles. Redirects and the like will skew it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But, how do you consider this a personal attack, Roxy the dog? Sincerely, i did not mean that as a personal attack, but only a statement that you're not a neutral editor on this topic. And i also clarified that i did not intend it as a personal attack. I would like to hear you clear me on calling this a "personal attack". We can speak of the histories of other editors without it being construed an attack, can't we? The very fact of the RfC seeking outside eyes from uninvolved editors does make it relevant whether the editor who provides an opinion is uninvolved or not. I would like to know that you don't consider this a "personal attack". Or else justify why you consider it such. SageRad (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Could somebody hat this now totally off-topic thread, or at least this part of it, so that we can return to the real subject, Ms Hari's interesting views on reality, and her novel ideas on nutrition, and science? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so you reply, and yet you do NOT even mention whether or not you maintain your accusation that i have made a personal attack. I consider that to be a personal attack, in that i clarified my meaning and made it clear that i sincerely did not intend any personal attack, and i asked you to clarify after you continued to use the term personal attack and you blatantly ignored that request. I would say that is a cheap dialog move, and your persistence in calling my comment a personal attack is in fact the real personal attack in this subthread. As for hatting, this is an RfC and it would be very improper to hat this until it's closed. SageRad (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A Personal Attack! Shocking! So will it be ANI, pistols at dawn, or climbing the Reichstag? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a litigous person. It's just about the goose and the gander. SageRad (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it's about the highly experienced editors and the relative newcomer with a very obvious agenda who refuses to listen to advice that doesn't provide support for exactly what he wants to do. For a smart man you sure are dumb. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

On this 'RFC', No. Besides we don't do Fair and Balanced, we go with sources, so, I mean really the premise of this whole 'RFC' is incorrect. Full disclosure, I edit lots of different stuff, I hope my editing of hockey articles doesn't concern anyone.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I shall assume in good faith that YUO ARE NOT A SHILL FOR BIG HOCKEY here, indeed - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 :: As Guy notes, SageRad has not proposed specific changes, making this RfC relatively useless. As to SageRad's questioning whether the article is "fair and balanced", the article appears to be fair, in that the statements are supported by reliable sources. If that makes the article "imbalanced", that is irrelevant - the subject's claims should not be given equal weight with scientific consensus. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur. This is pointless. Glen 10:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This RfC has a clear point -- to gain an assessment from outside eyes about this article in regard to whether or not it is biased. I have indeed proposed specific changes to the article in the form of edits, which have been reverted by other editors. One edit added contextualization to the "any chemicals" quote, and another edit added a positive evaluation of Vani Hari from CBS News, which was also reverted by another editor. These actions in themselves are part of the history about which i am asking others to evaluate for potential bias in this RfC. SageRad (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

... and you have received a number of responses to your RfC here, and I cannot see one that agrees with you. That ought to tell you something. Unfortunately, it hasn't appeared to. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have received exactly one response from anyone who doesn't have a pre-existing horse in this race, and that one person had a middling opinion wished me luck and gave me advice about improving the article, which happens to be exactly what i had done which had been reverted by those enforcing ideological chokehold on this article currently. I resent your attempt to mischaracterize the RfC's results to date, and also quite amazed that you would even attempt to do so, given that you're referring to text that is right here in front of everyone's eyes. SageRad (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a whole load of changes to try and deal with perceptions of imbalance. Thoughts? Brustopher (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the "Conflicts of Interest" title for the section was changed with this edit earlier today from the previous title of "Promoting products with ingredients she warns against" Adrian (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the slightly inaccurate edit summary in that case. However, I stand by comments on the dubiousness of the linked consensus discussion. There seemed to be a lot more heat than light, as well as quite a few assertions of no consensus with little explanation of why the edit was bad. There also seemed to be more focus on whether Hari is wrong, instead of whether this is due weight. I brought the topic up for discussion in the WP:BLPN thread if you want to join in.Brustopher (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This rfc should be closed as overly broad. Thanks, Brustopher, for rising above the back-and-forth that typifies this rfc. I support the changes Brustopher has made, and commented in a discussion in the most recent archive on the overuse of the single skeptical inquirer source. The source is RS and its point is valid, but that does not justify referencing it alone to support multiple critical bullet points.Dialectric (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the RfC question is going to resolve anything, but the article is not obligated to give due weight, or equal time, or anything else, to views that are factually and objectively wrong. On a matter of opinion, neutrality means both views, but on objective matters neutrality means the one that's true. So I do not like the recent edits that try to make the article look more balanced.

The article must say in detail where she has endorsed a product containing a chemical she has denounced elsewhere. It shouldn't be a lecture on why the dose makes the poison and why correlation is not causation. It should discuss the contradictory advice and it should discuss Hari's sources of revenue. She says she's not in it for the money; that's the most absurd claim in the whole article.

I get the sense that Hari and her fans are being exploited and misled. The owners of small firms that market "organic" products are no less greedy and no less unscrupulous than their competitors. The article can better inform readers about the truth behind Hari's claims without specifically deriding her, because when you deride her you deride her fans, and they close their minds to objective thought. Roches (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right Roches that factually wrong information should not be in the article. My recent edits which you don't like removed factual inaccuracies from the article (such as the howler of a claim the Hari thinks baking soda is a dangerous chemical). In a BLP we are absolutely obligated to include the subject's responses to accusations against her, even if you personally think they are absurd and bullshit. My changes have not in any attempted to distort the scientific consensus on Hari's views and in some cases scientific consensus was being distorted to make Hari look worse than she actually is. My changes have removed some criticism, added some criticism and reorganised the criticism section so it's not needlessly bloated by unnecessary section headers, quote boxes and the like. Everything I have done is completely in line with policy. Brustopher (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think your changes are pretty much OK - David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My response to this RFC: No. The "Career" and "Influence and Awards" sections are both quite positive, and the "Criticism" section, while long, is well sourced and represents the scientific criticism aimed at her. Myk (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert of removal of claim based on MEDRS sourcing requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" A computer dude writing a blog"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this specific issue, nothing.

" cautioning against using aluminum containing deodorant"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple points of clarification regarding the preceding comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaccines

I noticed a bit of edit warring over this edit where Brustopher has tried to remove content that's been in the article for a while, but multiple editors have opposed that removal through edits. Now's the time to talk rather than edit war, so what exactly is the concern here in terms of reliable sourcing or weight? Personally, this seems fine to me under WP:PARITY and fits within discussion from other sources in the surrounding text. WP:FRINGEBLP also gives guidance on some of the things I've seen mentioned in edit summaries. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear, you were part of the edit war. This is negative BLP info that is very poorly sourced in only one publication - not necessarily reliable. Keeping this info in the article violates BLP policy. And it was disingenuous to template Brustopher for edit warring when he has only 2 reverts and is in good faith trying to uphold BLP policy. Minor4th 22:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the off topic comments not related to content, I do suggest reading WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:PARITY. Content like this is very much in line with BLPs in cases like this. If the concern here is just because it's negative, the removal isn't justified by policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I read them and understand them. Neither applies in this context. The source and material were not removed just because it might be negative info - it was removed because it's negative or controversial material AND it is poorly sourced. Minor4th 23:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly Andy Dingley's "restore the anti-vaxxing" revert was as good as an unexplained revert (basically the same as "restored content"). The responsible thing to do when someone restores negative information about a BLP to an article without explanation is to revert them. Secondly as far as I can see WP:PARITY has nothing to do with this situation. WP:PARITY refers to the pushing of fringe theories, which isn't what's going on here at all. I am in no way adding any information that makes anti-vaxxing seem legimate, or removing information that refutes anti-vaxxing. In fact personally I think Hari's "genocide" claims are absurd. What we are discussing here is not whether flu vaccines are a tool for mass genocide (they obviously aren't), but whether it's appropriate to highlight a deleted tweet by Hari claiming so based on what is just a passing mention in a trade magazine. The fact that Hari deleted it, shows that she no longer endorses that statement. The fact that we've only got a passing mention in a cow magazine, shows that nobody in the press particularly cared and it's WP:UNDUE to include it. The fact that we are using archive.org to dig up people's deleted tweets and using them as sources in their BLPs is a whole different and inappropriate kettle of fish in itself.Brustopher (talk)

"personally I think Hari's "genocide" claims are absurd."

Of course they are. But she made them. This content is significant because it demonstrates, with sources, that Hari is not merely a food content campaigner, but is also an anti-vaxxer. That point is highly relevant to any coverage of Hari and it belongs here.

From Minor4th's repetition, " negative BLP info with extremely poor sourcing " – is there any credible challenge to the truth of Hari having stated this? Brustopher seems to be claiming that she said it, but it's unimportant, Minor4th that she didn't (despite her own tweet) say this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing whether she said it or not - it has only been reported in one source that is not necessarily reliable on this type of information. That's the point. When multiple reliable secondary sources report on her anti vaccine position, then it should be included in the article. Short of that, I do not believe it is significant or "highly relevant." Minor4th 23:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Here you go, this should help you out: Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I claim that she said it, retracted it through deletion (this is the important part) and that nobody particularly cared (this part is also important). We shouldn't be covering a tweet someone made, regretted and then deleted if only one reliable source (and a trade magazine about cows at that) cares. Also the article still mentions that she is an anti-vaxxer. I didn't remove all information about anti-vaxxing from the article, so the highly relevant point you are referring to is still present.Brustopher (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"retracted it" Source for that? Has she stated anywhere "flu shots have never been used for genocide" or even "I was wrong"? Or did she instead delete it, which is quite a different thing. It's just one of her many humiliatingly incorrect public statements which she then tries to deny afterwards and pretend never happened. Yet they did happen: as did the "Nazi microwaves", as did the "added nitrogen in airliners" comments. We live in a world that now has an audit trail, even when she wishes it didn't. As to "nobody cared" then there were at least 20 comments within minutes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

By "nobody cared" I mean nobody who writes for the press or other reputable sources. Articles should not be flooded with every minor internet drama that has received barely any coverage. Someone said something stupid on twitter, got a load of replies calling them out, and deleted it. Meanwhile close to no reliable sources cared. In other words, it was just another day on twitter. Brustopher (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please give WP:PARITY a read. In fringe topics, sources that normally wouldn't establish weight on their own are instead used to address comments made by a fringe group or BLP. At this point all relevant policies and guidelines indicate reliability, so the only thing left is weight. This fits exactly in the paragraph and is currently the status quo version, so I'm still not seeing any reason that justifies removal.Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If this is merely "someone who says stupid stuff on Twitter", why is there a WP:NOTABLE article on her? The difference with Hari is that she is a (self-appointed) expert on diet, lecturing others on their health. Her position on vaccines is extremely relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To King:I read WP:PARITY the last time you linked it and I still stand by it being irrelevant in this situation. PARITY refers to peer reviewed sources not being necessary to rebutt fringe claims. This is not what is happening here. Here we are using a single source to discuss a fringe claim that is not considered by any other RS to be an important facet of Hari's views and opinions worth criticising. Completely different situation. Nobody is trying to argue that Hari is right about flu shots being a genocide tool because the cow magazine doesn't have peer review. Brustopher (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To Andy: First of all that's not how quoting people works, Misplaced Pages has a pretty informative article on the topic if you'd like to brush up. I did not describe Hari as "someone who says stupid stuff on Twitter," I described her tweet as something stupid. Saying something stupid on twitter is not a phenomenon limited to Hari, and has probably been done by every single person with a frequently used twitter account. Your opinion on whether her opinion on vaccines is relevant is ultimately irrelevant (I apologise for the terrible sentence). What matters is the opinions and coverage of the reliable sources. The reliable sources comment on Hari's anti-vaxxing and condemn it. But bar one obscure source they don't give a damn about a stupid thing she said on twitter one day and then deleted.Brustopher (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No, she didn't retract it, she did exactly what she always tries to do when caught out making grotesquely ignorant statements: she tried to vanish it from the internet forever. This is what she did with her nonsensical claims about aircraft, and her comments on microwave ovens. The one thing Vani Hari is really god at, is SEO. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, WP:PARITY talks mainly about allowing criticism of fringe theories without requiring that the criticism be peer reviewed. What we have here is a claim of fact that Hari said something about a fringe theory. The article isn't making a refutation of her theory, simply pointing out the fact that she said it. So while Hari definitely said this thing and it's relevant to her stance and beliefs on flu vaccines, it may not necessarily be relevant to her BLP if sources don't seem to agree that this particular tweet is a notable aspect about her. I've searched around a bit trying to find other sources criticizing this tweet, and in the short bit of time I spent on it came up pretty much dry as far as experts or RS's criticizing it. It may, however, be relevant to a larger piece about her tendency to delete previous writings rather than actually retracting them, which is touched on partly in this section of the article already.

I am inclined to mostly agree with Brustopher here. Fringe theories that are poorly sourced, not notable, and not paired with a refutation should not even be mentioned in WP at all. We have a RS criticizing her stance against the flu vaccine already, and this seems to be sufficient to cover that topic without the info on her tweet. If someone can find a source making criticism of her anti-vaccine stance that includes this tweet, that should justify it being re-added. Adrian (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have readded the flu vaccine tweet, as Vox led its article about her (which is a sufficiently RS to link in the lede) with the tweet in question - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. This is clearly a significant event discussed in RS. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 17:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't know how I missed that one. Good find David Gerard. That should do it. Adrian (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the negative, poorly sourced BLP information once again. There is currently a discussion taking place at BLPN here. Please do not reinsert the controversial and poorly sourced BLP info again until discussion has been completed. Minor4th 19:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Since I was immediately reverted with an incoherent edit summary and no talk page discussion - I'm not going to engage in this ongoing edit war. I will bring this up in evidence at the Arb case as an example of very clear policy being ignored in order, by tag-team, to denigrate the BLP of a person with an alternate position. Honestly, you guys know this is inappropriate. Minor4th 19:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Incoherant? -Roxy the drunk™ (Resonate) 20:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few editors though the content was good with the additional source before your revert. That should have been an indication to stop edit warring and try to discuss instead if you felt strongly. If someone wants to remove the content, they really need consensus at this point rather than engaging in further edit warring. Right now, the content that shows Hari in a negative light appears adequately sourced per WP:FRINGEBLP. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your description of what has happened, but I am done with this discussion. We'll leave it to ArbCom. I can't even believe anyone is arguing that this is perfectly in line with the BLP policy. I really hate having to be on this side of the issue because I probably think the same thing of Vani Hari as you do - the point is, there is more than enough material from multiple reliable sources to write this BLP ..but reference to a deleted tweet that has to be sourced through a a web archive is not one of them. I know you know that. Minor4th 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure this is necessary. The vox piece just pastes the tweet into the article, but doesn't discuss it at all and it's in no way the focus of the article, in fact the article doesn't even discuss vaccines. There has been no real press scandal about this tweet. I also oppose to the use of the archive as a source. Archiving regretful tweets people make and inserting them as sources into an article seems a bit off. Brustopher (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Vox article is good enough. It happened, it's an example of her rhetoric, and actually there is independent commentary re her anti-vax stance, e.g. "And then there’s vaccines. She urges individual to forgo getting the flu shot, falsely asserting that it contains “a bunch of toxic chemicals and additives that lead to several types of Cancers and Alzheimer disease over time.” The real concern should be the 200,000 people who are hospitalized with the flu each year and the tens of thousands who die, not the shot which is safe and has the potential to save lives." at ACSH. I acknowledge that when someone makes as many benightedly ignorant comments as Hari, it can be hard to judge which are worthy of inclusion. I think this is, largely because I am familiar with this anti-vax trope and I know that it places her securely in the tin foil hat segment of opinion on vaccines, something I think is worth knowing and to which I don't think I previously paid much attention. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the Vox article otherwise not mentioning vaccines. Once again I would like to reiterate that I am not arguing (and never have argued) that all mentions of anti-vaxxing should be removed from the article. Just arguing that given the tangential coverage this specific "genocide" quote has received, it shouldn't be included. For comparison Hari's deleted Airline nitrogen and satanic microwave water blog posts have received a lot of substantial coverage in the press. This has received a bullet point in a cow magazine and a quote with no commentary provided in the Vox article which otherwise does not discuss anti-vaxxing. The latter half of your response seems to be based on your own personal opinion of what is worth knowing, which is irrelevant when evaluating sources. Its also important to note that given the deletion this cannot be taken to certainly be a viewpoint currently endorsed by Hari. Brustopher (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you may well be right, mate, and I am not wedded to any particular outcome, but David Gerard generally has sound instincts. I vote "meh", overall. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It shows it is a notable tweet because, in point of fact, they noted it - right at the top, as one of the first things they bring up concerning Hari's problematic relationship with scientific understanding. Beware of apparent goalpost moving: first you were concerned it wasn't independently noteworthy, then when it was noted in an article specifically about Hari and science you claimed it wasn't a good enough source, now it's a reference right at the top of a RS talking in depth about this precise topic, but it doesn't meet (new criteria you just brought up). It's possible to be as arbitrarily fussy as you like to try to impeach a source, but realistically there is no sensible reason to remove this - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not exactly how events transpired from my point of view. I first removed it after reading comments suggesting this should be done by MrX at WP:BLPN. It seemed as if the entire thing was sourced to an archived tweet and a linkedin blog post. With both the cow magazine and Vox my concern was that they barely brushed the topic of the genocide quote and instead focused on other issues. In both cases my concerns are the same. However given that there are now two sources mentioning the quote in passing instead of one, I find including it less objectionable. I will not remove it unless a consensus emerges on the talk page to do so. However if I were to write what I consider an ideal, policy consistent article on Vani Hari, it would not mention the genocide quote. Brustopher (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The tweet is very relevant to the article. It's the very first quote used to demonstrate that Hari can "say anything about health — no matter how nonsensical and ridiculous — and win a massive following". It is clearly criticizing that statement for its nonsense, which the article assumes should be self-evident, so no further commentary is necessary. That is the very definition of criticism. It's relevant to Hari's stance on vaccines, and is clearly notable. Adrian (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Adrian232's edit noting the timing makes the connection much more clearly obvious - David Gerard (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Hari's response

Guy removed this content, and I cannot understand the justification here. I'm not saying it was wrong (or right) but I don't understand it - hope you will explain. Thanks. Minor4th 17:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the content as Hari deserves a right to respond to accusations in her own BLP. Brustopher (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not appropriate. There are so many examples of Hari airbrushing idiotic remarks out, that her word simply cannot be trusted. This is simply a post-hoc excuse of the "well, I didn't really mean it" variety. As with the "no amount of chemicals" statement, she does not get to decide how her carelessly worded or clueless statements are interpreted. Given that she doesn't even know that air is composed of less than 100% oxygen, I am completely unconvinced that she had the faintest clue about the long history of isinglass before the critical comments started rolling in. What we are doing by giving her a non-existent "right" of reply is "balancing" the nonsense she spouts with her own subsequent attempts to rewrite history and make a clearly asinine statement, somehow seem profound. In the context of th eother crusades it is blindingly obvious that this was extremely unlikely. The only thing she seems to consider when making one of her chemophobic claims is whether it will make a striking headline. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd give it a lot greater weight if it wasn't hidden below a vast pile of, "Internet people are nasty to me". Also, as Guy says, she's just not trustworthy over corrections. If this was a case where she'd come out and said "I didn't know it had been used for centuries" I'd believe that (and be OK with citing it) but this "explanation" fails credibility. Even if she had known that, her original comment simply moves from "ignorant" to "disingenuous". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it belongs in the article, as does her brief response about the "any chemical, ever" quote, which i had added and was immediately reverted of course, given the atmosphere and the direction of the wind here. SageRad (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep this here, just for completeness. But it's a piss-poor explanation / retraction / whatever and I can understand why Guy would remove it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If she's responded a serious accusation against her, we are obligated to include it even if none of you personally buy it. I'm bringing this to WP:BLPN. Please do not remove this content without a strong consensus to do so. Brustopher (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Brustopher's position - I am unaware of any policy or guideline that suggests the exclusion of quotes based on an assessment that a quote or individual 'fails credibility'. We quote individuals neutrally, as we do with the reliable sources that cover them. Dialectric (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is that her response makes no sense in the context of the original statement. What she said was that commercial brewers - specifically Annheuser Busch - "even use fish swim bladders during brewing for clarity". If she had known about isinglass then she would almost certainly have phrased this differently since (a) virtually all brewers, including craft and home brewers, have used it for a very long time, and (b) winemakers also use it, again including home winemakers. The issue is not that A-B use it or even that commercial brewers use it but that the fining agent used in most beers, some wines, and on sale in home brewing shops, is made from fish swim bladders and has been for over two centuries. I have no problem at all with her telling vegans this, in case they did not know, but she framed it not as advice to vegans but as a criticism of commercial brewers generally and A-B secifically; in that context it makes about as much sense as complaining that Ikea use chipboard components in their furniture instead of solid timber. And hence I am disinclined, as I said above, to take her response at face value, especially given the well-documented history of consigning embarrassing gaffes to the memory hole.

Also: all beers contain chemicals "found in aircraft de-icing liquid". Dihydrogen monoxide is found in every single beer ever brewed.

Hari suffers from foot-in-mouth disease. We have copious documentation to that effect. Argue aboutt he significance of any particular instance, by all means, and insist on absolutely solid sourcing, but don't pretend that her gaffes are anything but gaffes, because there are too many for it to be mere coincidence. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not about pretense, it is about neutrality. A[REDACTED] editor is not the position to assess that some comment by an article subject is a gaffe, or that some set of comments indicate incompetence. There are no Hari fans here. There are editors committed to consistent application of the rules we've all agreed on. If you have reliable sources which reflect your views, the rules support the addition of these sources. If, on the other hand, you have WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH which tars an individual as dishonest or incompetent, keep them on the talk page, or better, to yourself.Dialectric (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, let's talk about neutrality. Specifically, WP:PARITY. A claim which is frankly implausible should not be used to counter something based on solid evidence. There is solid evidence that she said these things, and that she willingly co-operated in a widespread media campaign to publicise her crusade against Annheuser-Busch and MillerCoors. Only after it was pointed out that one of her claims was arrant nonsense, did she backtrack and say that this one ingredient, alone among the long list of scary-looking ingredients that scrolled up on the left side of her video, was included only to make vegans aware that beer might not be vegan. Because after all vegan beer has never been a thing so surely they won't know. Seriously? Your commitment to fairness does you credit but I am afraid you are rather naive. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As someone who knows a few beer drinking vegetarians (and has never heard of isinglass before I started editing this article), I think this is a reasonable thing to try and inform people of. Also PARITY refers to what we present as the truth regarding scientific and pseudoscientific theories, not how we judge the truth of what's going on inside a persons head. The claim that someone is a fearmongerer is not the same as the theory of evolution or vaccination theory. Brustopher (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Veganism is different from vegetanarianism. And as I say, why on earth would this one out of the whole long scary list of things she can't pronounce, be included for that purpose, rather than the chemophobia which plainly motivated all the others? It's simply not plausible. Hari is well known for making ignorant or ill-thought-out comments. Sometimes when she's caught out she tries to excuse them, sometimes she tries to vanish them. I'd have a lot more respect for her if she just put her hands up and accepted that she was wrong, but apparently she seems to want to portray herself as infallible despite the evidence tot he contrary. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Claims of harassment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"This is mockery, not harassment."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeating Hari's statements as fact

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

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

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

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

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

BLPSELFPUB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No they don't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: anti-vaccine tweet

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is a need for clear consensus on whether or not to include Hari's subsequently deleted tweet repeating the vaccine-genocide antivax trope.

Q:: Should the tweet by Hari, stating vaccines have been "used as a genocide tool in the past" and sourced from the internet archive, , and

1. Excluded altogether;
2. Excluded unless more sources are provided;
3. Included based on the sources provided or a subset thereof.

Opinions

Include based on the Vox source and the verifiable fact of its existence, since this is a well-known antivax trope and one which any person even slightly familiar with the subject should be well aware is a lie, thus it is (as Vox indicate) a data point in her making strong assertions based on poor to no actual knowledge. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Include per Guy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Include per sources and policy: it's notable as an individual incident (per BLP) and there is no sensible reason not to include the tweet itself when it's available from a respected archive - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Include. It is notable as an incident and as criticism from a reliable source, and verifiable as fact. Adrian (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak exclude It's mentioned in two different sources, but only really in passing. Other controversial posts by Hari which we include in the article (Satanic microwaves, airplane nitrogen) have received much more coverage and focus. Brustopher (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Include Perfectly acceptable sourcing. I'd say WP:WEIGHT compels us to keep discussion on the matter to a bare minimum, but the event has received come coverage that can provide insight on the subject. Indeed, the addition of the sources themselves may be of significant use to our readers in parsing the nature of this blogger and her perspectives. Snow 05:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Include as is I think, as it stands, it complies with WP:WEIGHT. One needs to be careful it continues to do so. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. @ 00:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Include Current text ("In an October 2011 blog post, Hari questioned the efficacy of flu shots, and the following day tweeted that flu vaccines have been "used as a genocide tool in the past". The tweet was subsequently deleted. Hari's position was criticised as false and dangerous by the American Council on Science and Health.") is appropriate. EEng (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Include - Include as is. The sources are reliable and the information is notable and relevant to the page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Harassment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is disagreement as to how to represent claims of harassment by Hari and d'Entremont. The following questions would seem to summarise the possible positions:

1. d'Endremont:
   1. Should the claim of harassment by d'Entremont cited to the interview in BostInno and backed by the presented examples drawn from her own social media feeds, be included?
   2. If so, should it be represented in Misplaced Pages's voice as d'Entremont having been harassed, or should it be attributed to d'Entremont, for example in the form d'Entremont is reported to have received "death threats following her takedown of 'Food Babe'"?
2. Hari:
   1. Should the claim of harassment by Hari cited to the interview in The Atlantic and backed by the presented examples drawn from her own social media feeds, be included?
   2. If so, should it be represented in Misplaced Pages's voice as Hari having been harassed, or should it be attributed to Hari, for example in the form Hari states that she is "getting attacked every day with a death threat."?

Opinions

• My view

1: First preference 1.1, second preference 1.2. as attribution. The claim can be shown to exist but the comments seem to me to be trolling not harassment and there does not appear to be any independent analytical commentary re the legitimacy of these claims, they originate solely with d'Entremont in an interview.

2: First preference 2.1, second preference 2.2. as attribution. The claim can be shown to exist but the comments seem to me to be trolling not harassment and there does not appear to be any independent analytical commentary re the legitimacy of these claims, they originate solely with Hari in an interview.

This should be obvious from the discussion above. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Claims of having experienced harassment should be assumed as fact and not opinion.

1.1: include, 1.2: in Misplaced Pages's voice. The claim has been presented with evidence using screenshots and reported on via a reliable third-party source. A death threat does not need to be considered credible in order to be considered a threat of death. Furthermore, specific threats involving intimidation, regardless of whether the target feels intimidated or not, fall under the umbrella of online harassment. Online harassment has been documented on WP and other reliable sources to be defined as any comment directed at an individual that may be found derogatory or offensive. Harassment being discussed in a non-legal context and not as an accusation to named persons should not need independent verification, as the victim should be taken at her word about her own experiences when the described activity is not an extraordinary claim, falls clearly under the definition, and no reasonable doubt is made from reliable sources. (WP:YESPOV) Since these conditions are met it should be written as a matter of fact and not opinion; adding attribution would create the impression of doubt. (WP:ASSERT)

2.1: include, 2.2: first preference in Misplaced Pages's voice. The claim has been presented with evidence using screenshots and reported on via a reliable third-party source. The claims made appear to fall under the definition of online harassment. This term has been documented on WP and other reliable sources to be defined as any comment directed at an individual that may be found derogatory or offensive. Harassment being discussed in a non-legal context and not as an accusation to named persons should not need independent verification, as the victim should be taken at her word about her own experiences when the described activity is not an extraordinary claim, falls clearly under the definition, and no reasonable doubt is made from reliable sources. (WP:YESPOV) Since these conditions are met it should be written as a matter of fact and not opinion; adding attribution would create the impression of doubt. (WP:ASSERT)

2.2: second preference with attribution in the form of: Hari has written about her experiences being subjected to online harassment. WP:PARAPHRASE summary of Hari's blog post using WP:INTEXT attribution to Hari. I propose this as a neutral form attributing the perspective of harassment to Hari with minimally implied doubt. This is a factual statement, as it has been documented by reliable third-party sources that Hari has written about experiences that fall under the definition of online harassment, which is the term Hari uses in her blog.

Further analysis given in Claims of harassment above. Adrian (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we compromise on butthurt? ;-) To be clear, if the claim was that they had been attacked, it would be 100% fine IMO. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 09:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Neither. Don't even bother to mention these things. Empty death threat rhetoric happens every day on the Internet in any situation where anyone is making controversial statements. Just leave it out. For what it's worth, though, the claim of harassment by "SciBabe" that was in the article struck me as a special pleading sort of claim just by its being there in that context, more of an agenda than the mention of threats against Hari as she's the subject of this article. I'd say leave all this out, as it's not really notable in my estimation. SageRad (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Hari commented on a Persicope recently (no longer available unless archived elsewhere) that people were driving past her house taking pictures. Like pretty much all of her claims, it's simply a claim. I happen to know several of the properties she owns and I know there are pictures of them on Google StreetView. It's reasonable to assume that people posted these pictures on the Internet as people do - but that does not imply any sort of threat. Stupid - but hardly conclusive. Towards the end of same broadcast she make joking remarks about "woo" to the clear embarrassment and chagrin of her host. Smidoid (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• I happen to know several of the properties she owns and I know there are pictures of them on Google StreetView I have no words... Brustopher (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include. Someone who attracts public attention can't complain about a lack of privacy. Hari is presenting herself as an everyday person who's just a little concerned about what they're putting in our food. She might even think she is such a person, but she's not. Everyday people have a reason to be concerned if they receive threats. But everyday people do not have internet-wide nicknames like "Food Babe." Hari is playing off the fact that she's getting threats in order to gain more publicity and sympathy from her audience. This means that the negative publicity does not belong in this article or any other; even Jane Fonda has only a few words about negative publicity. Roches (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Faulty USA Today source

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the specific, actionable NPOV dispute?

User:Ronz is insisting an NPOV tag be placed on this article. Ronz has not stated what the WP:NPOV dispute is. What is the specific, actionable NPOV claim that Ronz wishes to make?

The tag does not mean "there is some dispute or other" - if it is not an NPOV dispute, then the NPOV tag is actively misleading. If the tag is not specifically about an NPOV dispute, it should be removed - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Responded on your talk.

BLP disputes are supposed to be handled by removal of disputed information, so tagging shouldn't be necessary, and few relevant tags exist.

NPOV seems to summarize the NOT and BLPSELFPUB problems with "unduly self-serving" information. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not in any way. You haven't defined what the specific NPOV problem is. Not liking sourcing isn't an NPOV problem. Do you have a specific NPOV problem? If not, you shouldn't use that tag.

It's not at all clear that splattering any old tag onto an article even if it has nothing to do with your claimed problem is in any way a good idea. If you don't understand a tag, you shouldn't be tagging pages - David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess we don't agree. I've quoted policy. --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Broken RfC markup?

We have two active RfC's on this Talk page, and neither seem to have been picked up by a bot after a week's time. Is there something faulty in the markup? Adrian (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see they were both substed, which stopped them from being picked up by the bot. I've fixed them and they should work now.Brustopher (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I was just sent by bot, and the link brought me to this section. Where was it originally directed? petrarchan47คุก 23:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

While I am finding plenty of mention of quackery, the pseudoscience label seems a stretch. As I mentioned above, I'm unable to verify it from the two sources provided in the article. Am I just overlooking something?

It would probably be better to emphasize her use of hyperbole and scare tactics, which at a glance looks much better covered in the sources. Mention of the "quackmail" description might be too much, but again it seems like it could be sourced better than "pseudoscience". --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Generally, quackery and pseudoscience are synonymous (quackery being a type of pseudoscience in more medicalish related areas). Quackery can be considered a harsher term (though valid here according to sources), so I don't see a general issue with the term pseudoscience here with that in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• RSes using the term "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific" in relation to Hari: That took me three minutes with Google. The category is citably relevant - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for looking beyond the sources cited as verifying the information. Let's get some of those added so the information is actually verified. Looks like you found sources that could be used elsewhere as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can't see any pseudoscience from Hari, although I see lots of quackery.

The closest would be her vague (everything explanatory from her is always vague, only her recommendations are strongly worded) support for Masaru Emoto. Everything else though, she's just so unscientific that she isn't even pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience would have some sort of theory to it: it does at least take the form of conventional science.

What Hari does is different, and I see it as quackery (the peddling of nonsense for profit). Which implies that quackery can't therefore by synonymous. She takes a vague statement that is fairly rational in principle, "Don't adulterate food with harmful materials", and then mis-applies it and hyperbolises it into, "OMG! DiHydrogen Monoxide!!" This isn't the same thing. It has to be refuted differently. It is also less harmful (The Hari diet is a good diet, albeit overpriced) than some examples of real pseudoscience from the world of magic mercury pills and monkey glands.

Refuting Hari is often so hard because there is simply nothing to point at. She has no theoretical basis to challenge. "Use my Natural Alum anti-perspirant" is hard to question when it's not a bad thing in itself, it's merely her hysteria over someone else's product as "containing aluminium" that is the problem.

I see charlatan (the unwarranted presentation of herself as an authority) and quack as appropriate labels, but she generally fails to define her approach well enough to count as pseudoscience too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

She does dress it up in sciencey-looking language, though, and it's not our judgement but that of RS sources, as David points out. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Are those RS strictly accurate in fine detail though? "Pseudoscience" makes for a great headline and I don't see those comments as having been particularly well thought through. Hari is "pseudoscientific" when compared to Dawkins, but not so when compared to various other quacks. The simple headline doesn't distinguish, we may yet choose to.

The pervasive idea "An RS said it, it must be true" is as bad (and in just the same way) as Hari's "any chemical, ever". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's epistemology is pretty easily breakable with the slightest push, but for the specific policy question (does this BLP go in this category?) RSes are the closest we have to a workable answer. If we want to get "yes but does this actually make sense" about it I still think Hari would qualify - she presents all sorts of terrible and not-even-wrong theories of chemistry as being true. If we want to get IAR about it, I think it'd count as a useful category for the reader looking for promoters of pseudoscience - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you have examples of her expounding some of this "theory"? I just haven't seen it, merely hand-waving and evasion.

Categorization ought to go on the broader basis of "pseudoscience, charlatans and quackery", if that's what the group of interest really is. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I'm gathering from all what I've read, she's simply in way over her head, a victim of the Dunning–Kruger effect and the need to manage her supporters and career.

David found some sources that need to be added to verify the label and section heading. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't find any of those of particularly convincing evidence for her "pseudoscience". They all use the term, but merely as a snappy title. Vani Hari doesn't do pseudoscience, because she just doesn't do science of any form. "Any chemical ever" isn't good or bad science, it's just science-free scaremongering.

Most of this comes down to the good debunking of Hari, The "Food Babe" Blogger Is Full of Shit. Now that's a great piece, but even that doesn't really set out how Hari has a theory of "pseudoscience". I don't dispute a word of that article, but she just doesn't have a "science" to pseudo. It's all just social flummery, not the sort of setting out of a bogus theory that the real pseudoscientists put forward. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

sydneymorningherald: "American health blogger Vani Hari (aka "The Food Babe") has been called out for making pseudoscientific claims in an article written by California-based scientist Yvette d'Entremont" and reports upon the very Gawker article mentioned.

LATimes: "But the problem of how to write about pseudoscience goes much broader." "The immediate topic of both pieces is the work of a spectacularly successful new dispenser of pseudoscientific hogwash. " "Hari is a new face in the pseudoscience game."

Vox:"Everything about this reeked of pseudoscience: the suggestion that people can reinvent their bodies with quick fixes. The notion that we're being attacked by chemicals and in need of a thorough detox."

Csicop: "While Hari’s pseudoscience has been widely debunked by qualified scientists (e.g., Crislip 2013, Gorski 2014), a more sobering fact seems to have escaped everyone’s attention: one of America’s most notorious bloggers is earning sales commissions from products that contain the very same ingredients she says are dangerous. "

Those aren't just titles. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

So what is her pseudoscientific theory?

"Don't eat crap" isn't pseudoscience. "products that contain the very same ingredients" isn't a deception of theory, it's just misrepresentation as to the equivalence or difference of two products. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Her theories aren't very coherent, it's true. (Pretty much nothing she puts forward is coherent, it's generally not even wrong.) However, I do think the categorisation would be useful to the reader as I noted above - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We've plenty of coverage for the category, section heading, and content. We do need to add some of the verifying sources though.

To answer the question about theories: Detoxification (alternative medicine), which needs to be included in the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Her "theories" aren't really so much "theories" as simply noting that, for example, aluminum has been shown to be linked to some negative health effects and therefore it might be wise to avoid ingesting aluminum in food dyes or to put it on your skin where it can be dermally absorbed. That's not a pseudoscientific theory. That is her main modus operandi regarding claims. When you harken back to something like "hitler water" it seems a stretch to me, as reaching for the most extreme example of something from her past to represent the gist of what she is about. She's clearly about noting that there are chemicals in food products that may be risky, identifying them, and recommending people to reduce their intake of them. Anyone can write a blog calling anyone "pseudoscientific" and that doesn't make it true. Reading this discussion, it seems this article is being written by people with a glaring disdain for Hari, and that should give anyone pause when thinking about what kind of article will result. Clearly it will be an attack article, just like the ScienceBabe piece, which as you may know she was hired to write a piece to attack Hari. And now Misplaced Pages is falling right into line with that point of view, and it reeks of an agenda in the article to me. SageRad (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I have a "a glaring disdain for Hari" alright, I just don't see her particularly flavour of snake oil as being a pseudoscientific form of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The bullshit she proposes is very often generic bullshit and not pseudoscientific bullshit, but it's undeniable that reliable sources have characterised her style as pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is after all a process (as indeed is science) and not a product ro outcome. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I still hold that it's an issue that this article is being written almost solely by people who clearly hate Hari. How is that going to result in an article with a NPOV? SageRad (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

As usual you are misidentifying the problem. We don't hate Hari, we dislike bullshit. Misplaced Pages is a reality-based project, so this is as it should be. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Even assuming "hate" (which you haven't substantiated), the actual answer to your question is "with reliable sources". I've noted above repeatedly that bringing RSes that support the view you claim is neutral is the best way to show that view is neutral; you really, really need to stop with the ad hominem concerning other editors - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think i'm misidentifiying the problem. There's an animosity that is palpable in all the discussions about her. I stand by my words. I've put forward a copyedit with reliable sourcing that was immediately reverted by editors here who want to portray Hari in a bad light, showing that reliable sourcing alone does not guarantee NPOV. Stating "Misplaced Pages is a reality-based project so this is as it should be" implies a pre-judgment that Hari is not reality-based, or as you say, "bullshit" and this is the nature of the bias. That judgment in itself is here assumed to be WP:TRUTH and people here are righting great wrongs in editing in this way. SageRad (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the quality of her (cough) research (cough) which is really just parroting what other woo-mongers like Joe Mercola and Natural News trot out on an almost daily basis. Take aluminium. We're exposed to the stuff all of the time the connection to Alzheimer's is tentative at best. The people of Camelford in Cornwall drank gallons of the water laced with huge amounts of and (to date) there has been ONE suspicious death. She parrots Wigmore on cancer, Natural News on who knows what else - the list goes on and I'm not going to waste hours explaining why she's a interested in one thing and one thing only: herself. Smidoid (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone against adding some of the sources mentioned above so that "pseudoscience" is properly verified and due weight is demonstrated? What about including Detoxification (alternative medicine) into the article body? --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add those sources to support a statement that the term "pseudoscience" has been used by some scientists and journalists to describe her advocacy. However, I dont think we should label her as "Promoting pseudoscience" in Misplaced Pages's voice as the article currently does in the lead and in a section heading entitled "Promoting pseudoscience." Minor4th 17:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, she is called pseudoscientific by bloggers and people who hate her. Not really by "scientists". "Science Babe" poses as a scientist, but it's been said "she’s a not a scientist, she’s a professional button pressor for a scientific company. I could have a talented undergraduate doing her job in less than 2 days".... Mark Alsip (author of the CSIcop piece) does something with computers. It would be as if i called Stephanie Seneff a "scientist" or "molecular biologist" or something she is not, and then wanted to use her work to support some claim. It's getting really thin. The LA Time piece quoted above by Michael Hiltzik is an opinion column, not a reportage article in the LA Times. He was suspended from the LA Times in 2006 for sockpuppeting on his blog, apparently. It's the pseudoskeptic echo chamber that is calling her a pusher of pseudoscience, and if Misplaced Pages reports that beyond what it actually is, i don't think it would be responsible. My genuine sense is that there is a small clique of people who have a similar agenda and who wish to paint Vani Hari in a worse light than is justifiable. We want to use good and reliable sources to back something up of this nature. Blogs and bloggy columns, and people who pretend to be what they are not, are not good sources. SageRad (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you construe disagreement and objection as "hate". This is tremendously far from sufficient grounds to impeach a RS - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what a scientist is in this case? I'm not a professional scientist for example. Stephanie Seneff does hold a Ph.D. but her pieces on Glyphosate are so ludicrously diverse of supporting evidence that they have been picked up by The Institute for Responsible Technology which is, itself, home to another massive quack and roundly demonstrated as bunk. SciBabe is now a professional writer - not a "button pusher" (pretty weak Ad Hominem, SageRad). The simple fact is that Hari has made multiple claims that have no basis in evidence and she has been shown to profit directly from this. However, since I happen to know both these bloggers personally, I also note that SageRad has been spearheading the Vani defence for reasons known only to him. My suggestion is you put the shovel down Sage - this isn't about hate, it's about facts that can be demonstrated with evidence and your heroine isn't anyway near as perfect as you might imagine! Smidoid (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Really off the mark there with accusing me of an ad hominem for my quote about "Science Babe" from another person. I've not been "spearheading the Vani defence" and my reasons for speaking here are to prevent pushing of a particular point of view into this article on Misplaced Pages that is very much in line with those certain sources that reflect a certain point of view spoken with a clear animosity. I would be more inclined to trust a nutritionist like Dr. Marion Nestle (here). It's more nuanced, and less point-of-view-pushing. Her critique of Vani Hari is that she's not nuanced enough in her scientific understanding and sometimes doesn't focus on the most important questions in the food stream. She doesn't call Vani Hari "pseudoscientific" but rather says that she sometimes overstates risks in light of doses, and sometimes does not include the required nuance in her explanations to her audience. SageRad (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. SageRad, you have completely over-stepped the mark with that.

Re-posting an anonymous comment whose entire provenance stems from Food Babe herself  ? Wow. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unreal. Just freaking unreal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok... and what does that mean? Yes, i did post an anonymous quote from Food Babe's blog about Science Babe's qualifications or lack thereof. This is a talk page, where we discuss content, and we don't need to use reliable sourcing here, but rather to discuss as adults (hopefully) the topic in question and how to represent reality for the reader in an NPOV way. Those who are pushing for Wikivoice to echo the claims of a few pseudoskeptic bloggers who have an axe to grind and do speak in a hateful way about Science Babe are not doing right by the readers, but seem to be pushing a particular point of view into the article. We can talk about what a "scientist" would be in this case, as well as a "journalist". We can talk about content. But things like "unreal" don't contribute to that nor do they explain your concerns better to me. I'm serious here. This is not good behavior here. I'm here to talk about the content and the article. And by the way, i do sense a serious animosity ("hate" may be a strong word) in the tones of many people here as well as in those bloggers whose points of view are being pushed into this article. There is no need for such an animosity, and it won't result in a good article. Please stop using phrases like "put the shovel down" and all the other sort of sneering tones toward me. I'm here to discuss content and if you want to do that, then do so, in real terms. SageRad (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you see any 'not good behaviour' here take it to ANI, otherwise move on, you are an army of one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not a very productive comment. It's more of a pushy insult. I'm not an "army of one" but rather an editor here wanting a good article that reflects a mainstream view of Vani Hari, not a partisan one. Other editors are in some degree of agreement with me on this and have been working for more balance in this article, as well. In a dialogue, we can remark inline in a brief and calm way about perceived behaviors in dialogue, i believe. I prefer to keep dialogue focused on content. SageRad (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were making progress, but it seems you have fallen right back to your standard m:MPOV behaviour. You really do need to start acknowledging that it is perfectly possible for people acting in good faith, to come to a different view from you. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is really a complete strawman and condescending, JzG. You're not the judge of things here. You're a partisan actor in this conflict. I'm striving for NPOV here in this article, and that's exactly the reason i'm speaking these things. Complete strawman, denied. SageRad (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we ought to wait for a couple of days while Arbcom sorts this out. I expect them to reinforce our MPOV house view, and sort out the POV editors currently buzzing around GMO topics. It'll be refreshing. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? Obviously we don't want an "MPOV house view" to dominate an article. I do hope the Arbs sort things out according to principles. SageRad (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, and for clarification, MPOV house rules view = principles. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not getting your meaning. I'm taking "MPOV" to mean "Megalomaniacal Point of View" as linked to m:MPOV by Guy above. Are you using it differently? Thanks for clarification. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Made a correction above, sorry. In response, Sage, that is sarcasm. you've mastered it, well done. Now try to master the Mainstream Point Of View. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I try not to use sarcasm, as i don't think it's helpful. In a dialogue like this, it does not feel like you and some others are actually here to work out issues about the content when you're using sarcasm and aspersions. There is not always one simple "Mainstream Point of View" in every topic, but sometimes various points of view that need to be represented to result in an NPOV article. Pushing of one particular minority point of view, which is what the Mark Alsip and Science Babe point of view reflects, is not working for an NPOV article. SageRad (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That's honestly why I've largely let things in the scope of the case be. Best not to spend time of things that will likely be easier to work with once the dust settles. There's no rush. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: Thank you for proving my point. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments like the above two ("when the dust settles" and Guy's slight) are out of place here. SageRad (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: you are allowed to accuse everyone else of hating Vani Hari, but we're not allowed to call you on it? I think you are wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As little as I can possibly write about pseudoscience and the mainstream view: The idea that we must avoid all toxins in any dose is pseudoscience, specifically because it ignores the body's known ability to destroy and excrete toxins. It proposes an alternative system of metabolism where toxins from certain foods cause people's everyday problems like obesity and fatigue, and suggests that these toxins build up over time when, in fact, they are excreted. The Food Babe Way (FBW) diet itself isn't a bad one, but it does contain the pseudoscience of toxins.

The mainstream view: Food Babe (FB) isn't well-known because of the diet. She's well-known because she tapped into the American dietary conscience. Everybody knows fast food is "bad for you", but making your own food requires substantial effort. Food Babe has found that major food retailers can be pressured, via social media, to change their ingredients. This way, people can eat the same foods with a clean conscience. Very little effort is required, and everybody wins. So the mainstream view, meaning the "majority" view or the "person on the street" view, is that FB is doing a good thing. @SageRad:, am I correct in thinking that you are reading "mainstream view" to mean the majority view? I don't agree; I think the mainstream view that must be reflected in the article is an objective, neutral view, representing the consensus in science and medicine.

I'll use the Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte (PSL) to illustrate what I mean. Starbucks now has a special website dedicated to its "real" PSL, with real pumpkin. Their nutrition info for a 20 oz Venti Pumpkin Spice Latte made with 2% milk and whipped cream contains 470 calories, 16 g fat (10 g saturated, 0.5 g trans), 60 mg cholesterol, 64 g sugars and 2 g other carbs, plus 18 g protein. Those are all about 20-25% recommended daily intake, except for saturated fat (50%). According to well-established medical data, this isn't a healthy drink. It has a meal's worth of nutrients, so unless it's a breakfast or an après-ski following physical activity, it is not a healthy drink and it is not a bit more healthy than it was without real pumpkin. Put bluntly, even if the FB diets really do decrease the risk of cancer, simply changing ingredients in unhealthy foods won't do a thing about heart disease. And the article has to reflect what a competent doctor would say about the health benefits of FB's philosophy, not what everyday people think of it. Roches (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

NYT Bestseller?

It's true that Hari's book was an NYT bestseller - BUT - what's not mentioned here is the little dagger symbol that appeared next to the book in the listing. This means (apparently) that the NYT was suspicious about the number of books been ordered. I think it was Chow Babe that brought this up.

It's pretty clear from the way the book was aggressively marketed (by X copies and get this free) that Hari was out to manipulate sales at any cost. I'm no Wiki editor myself (I struggle on these pages) - but I think a more experienced person should make this clear because it's another part of her schtick to artificially inflate herself. There are reports (unverified) that large numbers we bought by interested parties to be given away at events. Allegedly a dentist was giving them away to his patients. Perhaps some of the denizens of Banned By Food Babe could answer these questions? Smidoid (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of those things, if factual, would exclude the book from being listed as a bestseller. Those are still legitimate sales. Illegitimate sales would be if Hari had bought a million copies herself, for example. If you come across a reliable source for this information feel free to add it in or post the link here, however.

Here is what the NYT says about this: "A dagger (†) indicates that some retailers report receiving bulk orders." and "The appearance of a ranked title reflects the fact that sales data from reporting vendors has been provided to The Times and has satisfied commonly accepted industry standards of universal identification (such as ISBN13 and EISBN13 codes). Publishers and vendors of all ranked titles conformed in timely fashion to The New York Times Best Seller Lists requirement to allow for independent corroboration of sales for that week." and the existence of the dagger symbol appears fairly common in multiple categories. Adrian (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WSJ Bestseller list source

Does anyone have access to the WSJ source from this diff. It was used to claim that Hari's book was a #1 NYT bestseller, but apparently that's not true. Can someone check the source to see if the claim about it being a #1 WSJ bestseller is also false? Brustopher (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a non-paywall source that shows it as being the #1 WSJ bestseller in the nonfiction category. Adrian (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The WSJ list is carried by the Associated Press and it appears in some other newspapers without a paywall. It was a #1 WSJ bestseller, but only for the week ending Feb. 15, which is the same week covered by the list that appeared in the NYT on March 1. The WSJ list is published sooner. It is factual that the book was #1 on the WSJ list for one week, but that would mean that it outsold all the books on NYT's main non-fiction list. On the WSJ list, #2 is "The 20/20 Diet" and #3 is "Killing Patton." Those are #2 in Advice and #2 in Non-Fiction in the NYT list ending Feb. 14 and published on March 1. The Food Babe Way was #5 in its second week on the NYT Advice list, and not on the WSJ list at all. The WSJ does not have any annotations for bulk sales. Roches (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So you've got this article on lockdown?

Revert here immediately after i make an edit to bring to balance and accuracy to this BLP that is hell bent on portraying Hari exactly as her worst critics would do, instead of actual balance positions by actual, valid scientists who actually work in the field of health science, nutrition, and public health. This article is locked down by a bunch of people who want to push a strong POV that is not the sole POV about Hari. SageRad (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit reason given by Ronz is "rv - not reliable for identification of who is and is not a scientist - undue in lede - moving to body". I would love further explanation. I also take issue with the way that content portrays the opinions of non-scientists like Science Babe and Mark Alsip as those of "scientists" and uses the full inclusive "scientists" instead of "some scientists" as well. Dr Nestle is an actual scientist in the field that is relevant. Mark Alsip is a computer programmer and blogger. Science Babe was a lab tech in a research company and has since been let go due to her activism. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I was about to revert you as well but Ronz beat me to it. You added a weasel word ("some") to a correct statement about scientists criticizing Hari, and then you added another statement that was based on ONE scientist but made it sound like it was several. I'm listening to the Brian Lehrer show you linked right now and other than the use of the word "nuance" I don't think your summary accurately summarized what Dr. Nestle said on the show. Please relax a bit and stop seeing conspiracies everywhere. --Krelnik (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a weasel word. It is an accurate word, required for accuracy here, as there is not a general phalanx of genuine scientists who are strongly criticizing Hari. That impression is desired by POV pushers here. There are valid and serious criticisms of Hari but they tend to be mixed and praise her somewhat while also offering criticism, as Dr Nestle's opinions as expressed in her NPR interview. It's not a weasel word. When we put a claim like that into Wikivoice, we are having Misplaced Pages act like a weathervane of opinions among all scientists, and so we better be accurate. I'm troubled by the POV pushing here. SageRad (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this, Dr nestle does say, when asked directly, that Science Babe's specific criticisms are valid, in the sense that each point is documented and seems correct on her reading of it, but not that her general characterization of Hari is valid, and Nestle's view of Hari is not in line with Science Babe. So... that's sort of a cherry-picking in itself there, Ronz. I am to the point of "whatever" on this because this page is occupied by people of a single POV and it's pointless to even try to restore a semblance of balance while this is the case. So, no, i didn't cherry-pick. Rather, i took the general sense of the Nestle interview and reported it. You cherry-picked and then accused me of doing so. SageRad (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I was unable to find a transcript for the Nestle interview, so it's difficult to summarize. I listened to it once. My impression is that Nestle is gently trying to steer Hari away from the nuances of the science (where d'Entremont is correct and Hari is wrong), and toward areas of valid concern.

Of course, it's easy to forget that science does get preferential treatment here, as do other areas of clear encylopedic value. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the actual meaning of your second sentence there. Would you please clarify? In the interview, Nestle is saying that science has much "annoying nuance" but does not ever say that Hari is peddling pseudoscience or anything of the sort. On the contrary, she wishes that Hari would especially pay more attention to the issue of antibiotic abuse in the factory farming industry, and other areas where her impact could be greater than focusing on trace ingredients in some products. And, it appears that Hari has taken that advice, as a lot of her recent work seems to be about antibiotics in the meat supply. Your phrase "areas of valid concern" is misleading because Nestle says there are issues of greater importance, but never says that Hari is working on issues that are not valid at all. She urges Hari to prioritize better. Your attempt to bend the actuality (phrases like "the science (where d'Entremont is correct and Hari is wrong)") is not appreciated. You're bending the source to suit your agenda. That's not how to make a good NPOV article. SageRad (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Food and drink articles
• Low-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Women writers articles
• Unknown-importance Women writers articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• WikiProject Women writers articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed North Carolina articles
• Unknown-importance North Carolina articles
• WikiProject North Carolina articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Alternative views articles
• Unknown-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment