Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Section blanking and other edits

I'm concerned by someone who came by and blanked entire sections of this article without participation anywhere else. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've contributed many times before. The section you've added is far too much weight on one article. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to outline entire articles. If that was done for each section, every page would be far too long. There is no way this much weight can be given to one controversial article, without giving similar weight to achievements (which also wouldn't make sense). Bikersur (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you accept shortening the section in question? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bikersur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It would have helped to discuss this on his user talk page. His edit summaries seem reasonable. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Informed user of this discussion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the content in question. The removal is extremely dubious - the content is important and well-cited, and blank removal is inappropriate - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

After a repeated removal I've restored it again. Which part are you claiming doesn't stand up to scrutiny? You claim "too much coverage" but then you remove all of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"the content is important and well-cited". Important is very subjective, particularly given the rest of things on page, and the section isn't well-cited given its length. It is all coming from the same source. Repeating a source doesn't make a section well sourced. Bikersur (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you are waging a one -man edit war against other editors with a much longer and broader editing history on Wikipedia, on the basis that you consider the judgement of the content's significance to be "subjective". And now you can stop doing that I think. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring Bikersur. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing is a collaborative thing. I've taken the effort to summarize the section in one sentence. The section was not blanked. The section relies fully one one weak source, repeated. If the page is to remain balanced, it cannot have 1/4 of the page dedicated to one article. It is undue weight. Please review this article prior to editing or commenting again. This is an article in an unkown source. If we gave this much weight to CNN articles, or NYTimes articles, etc, etc the page could expand exponentially. Bikersur (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bikersur: You may wish to review WP:3RR - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

While I don't support the removal of the section in its entirety, there is a legitimate argument of due weight here. Why are these specific examples particularly relevant? Saying 'products she promotes (and earns revenues) on her website contain the same components that she claims as dangerous.' expresses the Skeptical Inquirer article's point sufficiently. Dialectric (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you all have an answer or suggestion? There has been no resolution...@David Gerard: @Dbrodbeck: Bikersur (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

At this point @Dbrodbeck: you are not contributing to the discussion at all, only reverting any changes, and edit warring. Please stop reverting until you take an attempt to summarize. Bikersur (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, wrong, incorrect. Please read WP:BRD. Please propose changes first, and stop screwing around. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for a need to summarize this stuff. I'd be happy to look at proposed wording before it goes into the article. There was no such discussion after your (Bikersur's) block for edit warring. Then you came back and did the same thing. Stop it. Please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Bikersur's changes do not appear to have consensus - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I second this. Having it be a separate section and at that length is definitely undue weight. Yoddler (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Yoddler's assessment. The shorter version clearly summarizes the criticism without being excessively detailed. Edward321 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the shorter section is that it gives no examples. The full version is indeed verbose, as it gives all the examples, but we should as a minimum give a couple of examples of the impermissible ingredients that are being used in her own recommended products, then link to the external source for the full list.

Otherwise I'm reminded of the whitewashing over the aircraft air issue, where sources that described the atmosphere were removed as "irrelevant" because they didn't mention Vani Hari, then the section was removed because the claim that the air is normally 80% nitrogen was now "unsourced". If the section is to claim that Hari's product are using the same ingredients, then examples of those ingredients should be given. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The version that's been reverted back to is not the consensus. An example or two is fine, but repeating a citation over and over to make an entire section look well sourced is not. Yoddler (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is no consensus for the change you wish to make Please consider discussing changes before making them. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There are twice as many editors that say it should be shortened as those who say it should stay long. The amount of information included in the shorter version is more than generous given the citation. Yoddler (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this the edit in question? My contribution to this article has been adding the picture, so I hope I'm not going to be marked as on one "side" or the other. I am afraid I agree that this section does seem a bit long compared to the other criticisms in the article. Let's count. The Criticisms section we have: 2 respected scientists - 3 sentences. Controversial claims to increase traffic - 4 sentences. Beer campaign surgeon - 1 sentence. Flu shots -2 sentences. Water molecules Hitler - 2 sentences. Lack of credentials - 1 sentence. Elle magazine - 3 sentences. Skeptical Inquirer article - 16 sentences. In other words, this one criticism gets as many sentences as all the rest combined.

Also, of course, the last two sentences seem questionable in their own right: "The claims by Hari that these chemicals cited above are dangerous have been debunked by experts in science and medicine." doesn't that contradict the class 2B carcinogens mentioned in the list immediately above? And this is just, just ... "These examples cast doubt on Hari's ability to understand science, her investigative technique and her role as a safety advocate." That's beyond the pale. We're criticizing her in Wikipedia's voice, we absolutely can not do that. I'm deleting that last one immediately per WP:BLP. The weight issues can be debated, but this last one is a personal attack on the subject, and has to go. --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The entire section is far too much undue weight to an article on a small circulation publication whose job it is to criticise. According to due weight, we need to balance "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If we used this section for the entire page, it would be 10 times the length. @David Gerard: @Dbrodbeck: At this point, the consensus is to shorten, so I will proceed with that, unless you all would rather offer a different solution? Bikersur (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just notified the Fringe noticeboard, there should be some expertise there that could be useful. Let's see what editors who are used to dealing with WP:FRINGE ideas think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The dose makes the poison. Water is toxic in sufficient quantity.

The problem with Hari is that (a) she seems to equate her inability to pronounce something with it being harmful and (b) she is scientifically illiterate. Her article on flying, for example:

When your body is in the air, at a seriously high altitude, your body under goes some serious pressure. Just think about it – Airplanes thrive in places we don’t. You are traveling in a pressurized cabin, and when your body is pressurized, it gets really compressed!

— FUD Babe on aircraft cabin pressurisation

That's not just careless, that is plain ignorant.

The Skeptical Inquirer is a reliable source for analysis of pseudoscientific claims. It has a long history of doing this, and doing it well. It has an editorial board and its contributors are well known experts in their field, people like Joe Nickell, Chris French, Steven Novella, Paul Offit and Harriet Hall.

It is important that Wikipedia does not leave WP:FRINGE claims unchallenged, and while Hari has no scientific training or expertise, she is undoubtedly an expert at SEO and removing and downgrading references to critical content from indexes - we should be wary of interpreting the success of her efforts, as validation of her ideas. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I really disagree that Wikipedia needs to "challenge all fringe claims". Anything that has been widely reported should be in the article, and if it is fringe, be refuted. The problem with this article is that some people want to include every single fringe claim, and refute them, which in this case especially, would make the article a mess. Beach drifter (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:FRINGE then. Fringe claims do not stand uncorrected. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've read WP:FRINGE several times and that is not at all what I take away from it. Fringe claims that are widely covered and need to be included in the article should be refuted. The ongoing issue with this article is that every time this lady says something an editor wants to include it in the article so that it can be refuted. Since this lady says something that is easily refuted on a weekly basis we really need to make sure we are sticking to notable events and not everything she writes. Just being present on her blog does not make it notable for inclusion in the article. The most important job for editors is to write good articles adhering to wiki standards. I understand the compulsion to show readers the errors of this persons writings but do not see a reason to compromise an otherwise good article to do so. Beach drifter (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What? That makes no sense. Strawman much? This isn't an issue about "every time this lady says something an editor wants to include it in the article" it's an issue about a reliably sourced relevant section being blanked by a persistent editor. I'm sorry but I agree the section should stay. Glen 06:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Been some time since I've looked at this page, but from what I can tell Yoddlers last edit is a great compromise. As stated above, the long version is much too long and relies on one less than stellar source, and the last sentence, besides just reading poorly, is really going too far. I intend to revert to the summarized version (with some rewording) in the morning unless several editors can articulate a reason not to. Beach drifter (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A number of editors have now challenged the inclusion of the list of examples from the Skeptical Inquirer article or called for a shortened version. I support Yoddlers shortened version. Skeptical Inquirer is a reliable source, but the content of the article can be summarized adequately in a sentence or two. I don't see how Hari's SEO abilities or her tendency to make misstatements about science have anything to do with this. This is a sourcing/weight issue.Dialectric (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevance is that the scientific ignorance means we should be very careful in discussing anything she says, to ensure we do not state as fact something which is actually complete bollocks (not everything Hari says is incorrect, only most of it - though that which is correct is often not for the reasons she presents). The relevance of her SEO skills - the only part of her activity in which she is actually qualified, as far as I can tell - is that she is extremely adept at removing evidence of her own past errors. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

While your points are reasonable in regard to general discussion of the subject, it is unclear how they are relevant to the specific issue of whether or not to include examples used in the Skeptical Inquirer article, which is the subject being discussed in this section (and edit-warred over).Dialectric (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you don't find it clear. It seems clear to me, but I acknowledge that interpretations are necessarily subjective. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Full text is now online (Skeptical Inquirer articles are normally subscription-only for a month or so, so maybe some here have not seen the full text). http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_food_babe_a_taste_of_her_own_medicine Guy (Help!) 09:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yoddler, again, has deleted some stuff. Is there consensus for this edit? I don't see it, but I want to be sure. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears the majority are thinking that the shorter version is the correct route, so I've edited the page to reflect that. Yoddler (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A majority is not a consensus per se. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I would not agree that consensus would support Yoddler's latest removal of text. -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The core of the argument for keeping the long version of the Skeptical Inquirer section seems to be this: Hari is spreading misinformation so wikipedia has some sort of duty to provide specific counterevidence. This does not align with any policy that I'm aware of. Those arguing for a shortened version are making a policy-based argument about weighting of sources - If these specific claims of Hari's are widely reported in other RS sources, inclusion would be justified. As it is, Hari makes many unscientific claims, the claims rebutted by the Skeptical Inquirer do not appear to be particularly notable, and their inclusion without additional sourcing is undue weight, both undue focus on these individual claims, and undue emphasis on a single source.Dialectric (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've tightened the section considerably, and fixed the grammatical errors and repetition. I think it can no longer be reasonably claimed to be excessive in size - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Have also added Yvette d'Entremont's coverage - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A marked improvement today David, thx. I'm concerned about that fugly section title though ... 3.3 Promoting products with ingredients warned of on her own website. ... It is awkward and ugly and terrible english. How about "Selling products she condems"? Thoughts tend to come along slowly in my doggy head, and while I appreciate that is somewhat over the top for a BLP, it is better than what we have. Does anybody have ideas on how to phrase that better? Perhaps consensus disagrees with me, and I should go hide in my basket? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't sound very encyclopedic in tone ... I've shortened the present section title a bit. It also doesn't look too long with the quote one next to it.

I've also subsectioned the "criticisms" section and improved its citation slightly. There's plenty of reputable criticism, we just need to cite it properly and without going overboard - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your editing is out of control @David Gerard:. Reverted to last consensus version. Prior to adding 1/4 to the length of the page, please discuss edits here and wait for others to contribute. That source still does not have enough weight to support that length of section. Additionally, all your other edits have to take into account due weight. The page, if allowed to expand as you are on the criticism section, would grow 10X. Please, please review this article prior to going on another editing spree. Bikersur (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You know, saying someone's editing is 'out of control' is dangerously close to a personal attack. DG actually is discussing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding well-cited references to reliable sources and correcting glaring grammatical errors is "out of control"? Claimed "consensus" doesn't remove RSes or impose bad grammar on an article. I must question your motivation at this point, to blithely remove high-quality references and add grammatical problems. You also removed the subsection on the notable quote concerning acceptable levels of chemicals, per section below, and you will seriously need to justify that one.

I have restored the well-referenced and correctly-formed text. The key thing about the "criticism" section is that it is very well-cited to notable and reliable sources - NPOV does not mean "balance fallacy". There is extensive noteworthy criticism of Hari, and thus due weight would add it - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The page isn't a place to express your personal feelings on a person or subject. You are giving undue weight to criticisms. There are also plenty and plenty of sources that praise Hari. It could easily be described as extensive. If similar weight was given to all those, the page would expand significantly. It needs to remain under control and balanced. Look at the criticism section you just created. It is now 60% of the page. That isn't a fair or representative way to go about the page. Bikersur (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

" There are also plenty and plenty of sources that praise Hari." Then if they meet WP:RS, add them. Where are these credible commentators paying tribute to her accuracy? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

And you have commented, but not explained your removal of the section on the clearly notable quote - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The section referenced by the Skeptical Inquirer still has problems with undue weight. Most of the opinions expressed by other editors on this issue support a 1-3 sentence summary of the article, not 12 sentences (or that it constitute basically an entire section of its own for that matter). Considering that, it makes sense revert the information from SI back to my brief summary, which included 2 examples, no? Yoddler (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The subsection in question now has a second cite, which by your (novel) reckoning method would bring it up to 4-5 examples, which is where it is.

As was explained to Bikersur above: if you don't like the criticism section's size, you are earnestly invited to find reliable sources detailing Vani Hari's accurate statements and opinions. But we do not remove other reliable sources waiting on these hypothetical sources. If the proportions of coverage in the article continue to be skewed to the critical, this suggests that's the balance of the sources - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Yoddler's assessment that undue weight is still given to the Skeptical Inquirer examples. The second cite does not support these specific examples. I have made my arguments above and they have not been directly responded to. I have no interest in shortening or eliminating the criticism section as such, only in bringing the use of Skeptical Inquirer in line with the way other extant sources are being used. Content can be ' well-referenced and correctly-formed' and WP:UNDUE.Dialectric (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So is your problem with the content on its factual accuracy, its relevance, or the source used? You seem to be saying that it's UNDUE because of its source, which is a non sequitur.

Are you happy to accept the factual accuracy(sic) of Hari's claim "Aluminium in anti-perspirant is bad, but mine's OK because it has natural alum in it" (i.e. that she is claiming this)? In which case, surely such a claim is not UNDUE as it's something which undermines the whole basis of her product advocacy. Or are you claiming that the claim of her antiperspirant containing alum is dubious, because it's only sourced by SI? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please reread my comments above. My problem is with the relevance of the examples. I made clear in my earlier comments that the Undue issue was repeated use of a single source as the sole support for the examples. Also above, I acknowledge that Hari makes numerous inaccurate claims.Dialectric (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources don't wear thin because we make many citations to them. We have some examples, we should choose enough examples to illustrate the point. If each of those examples (however many were chosen) is cited to the same source, then that's just not a problem, neither for V nor for UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Our interpretations, differ, then, of UNDUE. An RFC or noticeboard may be necessary to resolve this. I don't see how WP:V is relevant to this discussion. How many examples is enough examples in your view? What policy do you base this view on? Would referencing every single example from Skeptical Inquirer be undue weight? We accept that Skeptical Inquirer is a reliable source, so no examples are strictly necessary to prove the point of the article - we take the author and publication at their word.Dialectric (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. The Skeptical Inquirer citation should not be used make an entire subsection look well-sourced. I don't have a problem with the citation itself per se, but the information needs to be significantly pared down. In its current form there are still issues with undue weight (and several other editors have said as much). Yoddler (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

'The Skeptical Inquirer citation should not be used make an entire subsection look well-sourced' so you are saying the SI is not a reliable source then? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. The remainder of my comment explained that I don't take issue with the Skeptical Inquirer's inclusion. But I am saying that there is undue weight paid to that particular subsection of information based on the SI citation, as other editors have noted. Yoddler (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede as summary

The only noticeable thing lacking from this article is having the lede be a proper summary of the information in the article. The main question to ask, I suppose, is what length of lede is appropriate for this length of article. I would think one long paragraph would do it, though it would probably look better and flow stylistically more as two shorter paragraphs. What do you all think? Silverseren^C 19:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it apart from noting that her claims have been strongly criticised by scientists - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a very long article and the lede seems OK to me. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

General Sense of Bias

This is the first time that i have come across this article, and i want to make the very basic observation that i see this article as a whole as bent on slamming Vani Hari. It appears to be weighted in an extremely lopsided way toward criticism of her, as if it is written by people who really have it out for her. It seems to be a collection of all the bad things one could allege about Food Babe, and seems to have been edited with this purpose in mind, which indicates editing with a point of view, or a biased agenda. This is a biography of a living person page, and in that light, editors are required to take special care to ensure that this page is edited with a neutral point of view, and i certainly do not see that care being taken here. This is my first viewing of this page, and this is my sincere observation. I am somewhat familiar with the whole to-do about Food Babe and the recent movement among the self-appointed "skeptic" movement to denounce and denigrate here, and i think that this movement has occupied this article about Food Babe, which is something that is in violation of Wikipedia goals and spirit. SageRad (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it needs more competent WP:RS congratulating her on the wisdom of her pronouncements.

Do you know of any? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and i posted one last night, from CBS news, in which a U.S. Representative praises her work, so that the lead in fact is not completely about people who are hating on her. Thanks for the invitation and the challenge, Andy. SageRad (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not that it's that relevant - US Representatives have pushed through legislation favouring their financial interests using pseudoscientific arguments before now. Ryan is right, though: more science would be great. It would derail the anti-GMO bullshit machine, for a start, it would remove the ability of "organic" kooks to make spurious claims of nutritional superiority, and it would probably lead tot he end of the use of antibiotics as growth promoters, which is long overdue. Best result would be regulation of the supplement industry, which is exempt from the requirement to prove claims (thanks to two Senators funded by the industry) and which the FDA right now can't even take a peek at unless people are already being provably harmed. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok......... but i think it's relevant here. SageRad (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And, you seem to be on an ideological rant that's hardly related, so i think you're POV pushing here. SageRad (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to your reference tot he statement by the US Representative in the article. I strongly believe that neither you nor Vani Hari would like it if that representative's comment were taken to its logical conclusion (though it would make the reality-based community very happy indeed). I'm amused by the irony of you complaining about ideology. You live in a glass house on that one, so it's probably better to put the stones away before someone gets cut. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And, note that the CBS-sourced content that i added was promptly removed by the editor who delivered the ideological rant in this section. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So, um, i'm adding it back. There is not serious discussion here, several days have elapsed, and there is no dialogue with integrity that justifies the removal, and it appears to be an ideologically-motivated edit. SageRad (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been reverted as you have no consensus for the change, have objections to your change, and appear to be its only supporter. I endorse the reversion - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My several recent edits have been reverted by Dbrodbeck, and user David Gerard says he supports the reversion, but with no substantial discussion as to why. Now, you two, will you please have a substantial discussion about this issue? If we're going to be doing a BRD cycle, that requires the "D" part of it to happen, or the revert has been done spuriously.

So, i had added a single line to the lede that establishes that there are also people who praise Vani Hari for her work. That was reverted why? This is a true thing, and the lede is highly unbalanced as it was and as it is now. I sourced the content to CBS News, in which Hari is praised by a U.S. congressman for her work in raising awareness and putting pressure on companies to remove some chemicals from foods. On what basis do you think the lede is better without this comment?

I also removed a duplicated aspersion that quotes a newspaper columnist twice in the same section, to the same end. By what logic do you think the article should retain that twice quoted insulting opinion by Schwarcz in a BLP? Is the article better by retaining this? You must think so, since you reverted my edit. You must think the article is written in a neutral point of view, right? I find that to be a serious stretch, given how this article reads as a soapbox for Vani Hari's harshest critics, and makes so much space for them, and yet does not make space for a single short sentence sourced to CBS News that would show a U.S. congressman praising her. You claim this is a neutral point of view, really?

There is a claim that "Science Babe" received death threats after critiquing Hari, and i find this outlandish. Sure, someone on the Internetz made an empty death threat -- that happens all the time, to millions of people, and it's sad but come to be expected for anyone making any controversial statements. I would like to removed that last line in the article, as it's not really significiant in my estimation. However, instead, i added a well-sourced statement that Hari has also received death threats for her work, and that was also removed in your swoop-revert. So you must think it's relevant that Science Babe received threats, and yet you do not think it's relevant that Hari has received threats? That must be your opinion, or else you're just reverting in a knee-jerk agenda-motivated way. Seriously, let's hear your arguments, specifically and with sound reasoning, and responding to the things that i have written, without ideological loaded attacks upon me, and simply discussing how to make this article better and more neutral in point of view, or else explaining why you think it is just great how it stands now. Unfortunately, i seem to have to spell out that i would like to hear dialogue with integrity, and define what that means. I would like to hear the person who made the revert, and/or the supporter, to actually engage in good faith dialogue about the article itself, with sound reasoning that makes sense, and not just loosely citing some WP-CAPS. And yes, i have some attitude and it's well justified by the recent history here, so deal with it. SageRad (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please go read WP:CONSENSUS, you don't have it. Also, the overly dramatic bolding of text doesn't help. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to indicate that you are not interested in discussing the topic itself, with integrity of dialogue. What exactly do you mean to point me to in the guideline on consensus? Can you please stand up and say what you are saying, explicitly? Otherwise you haven't said anything, but you have cited WP-CAPS with no indication as to what you mean by doing so, and you have neglected to actually discuss the topic itself.... and i will write how i want to write even if that involves bold because it indicates the level of dysfunction present here in this dialogue more clearly, as i feel so ridiculously at pains to find any integrity here among people who are locking down this page as a soapbox for the enemies of Hari to smear her here. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia, you know, to be another blog for Gorski or Novella. This is a place where rational dialogue is supposed to result in good decisions and balance, and your lack of good dialogue is a symptom of the failure of that happening. SageRad (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to take a look at WP:SHOUT. There is no consensus, people seem to be done talking with you. I don't know what 'WP-CAPS' is, and I don't think I cited it. You don't have consensus for what you want to add. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

By WP-CAPS, what i mean is willy-nilly citing of Wikipedia guidelines as a shutdown of dialogue, without clear explanation as to what is meant. For example, what about my writing to you think constitutes "shouting"? Is your problem solely that i have bolded some words? Do you realize that i bolded words because of exasperation at nobody even partaking in a dialogue with anything close to good faith? There is no consensus for the article to remain as it is, clearly, as i oppose it strongly, and yet you are forcing an assessment of consensus. So, back to the discussion, can you please explain why you reverted my edits, all of them, with a comment to use the talk page, and now you refuse to talk about the issues at hand, and distract from it at every possible moment? SageRad (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You are basically refusing to discuss, and you're standing obstinately in locking down the article without discussing. I am not "shouting". I am writing. I am speaking strongly because it's demanded by the situation, which is extremely ridiculous and tries a person's patience. Do you have anything to offer regarding the article and why you think it deserves to be in the present state? Do you seriously think it reflects an NPOV? Do you seriously think my edits were bad?

Yes, you clearly think it is warranted, but, it is not. I can see that you are frustrated, but that does not move my opinion of what you have written. You don't have consensus. The problems you have with our article are simply not problems. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I clearly think it is warranted, and you clearly think it is not warranted. You do not have consensus, either. And the editors at this page are all of a feather who came here with a motivation of populating this page with critique of Hari as much as possible, so counting votes doesn't make it a neutral point of view nor does it establish what a genuine consensus would be here. You cannot define reality, sir. You can have your perspective on it. I have mine. Both are valid to the degree that they can be reasonably argued and then outside judgment might be needed to break a deadlock. You don't even seem to be willing to argue your point of view, as you're continuing to distract with various sideline comments. You don't even address the questions i have asked. You are not showing good faith here, and your refusal to engage in dialogue in good faith indicates to me that your edits are not justified. SageRad (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you know my motivations? Really, how? So, I am part of some sort of conspiracy or something then? Insinuating such a thing is a personal attack. (Here' another policy for you WP:NPA). Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You're still not discussing the article. I can only judge by your actions. I cannot know your motivations, but your actions appear to be to avoid talking about the article and simply asserting that you're right and i'm wrong. I asked many very specific questions. And accusing someone wrongly of personal attacks is in fact a personal attack in itself. SageRad (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

'And the editors at this page are all of a feather who came here with a motivation of populating this page with critique of Hari'. That seems pretty clear to me. Here is something else you ought to read WP:IDHT. Back away from the horse, take the WP:STICK and stop. It's dead. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• You're not the boss of me.
• Previously, people have expressed similar concerns and mostly the same group of editors shot them down and blocked any changes. Seems like a pattern by a group of editors to hold this page and tire out any dissenters by going in circles and distracting.
• You still have not addressed my actual concerns in regard to the article itself. It's still distraction and accusation. SageRad (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015

A reference is missing from the wiki page: https://archive.is/SmN0x

It should be in the last paragraph of the section "Promotion of Pseudoscience"

Also a link to one of her blogs on air quality in airplanes: http://www.freezepage.com/1415667665TBMRBWICKU

Sierrafourteen (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Sierrafourteen (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Links to archive.is get systematically removed for some annoying reason, even when encyclopedically useful - David Gerard (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sierrafourteen: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 06:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words

Per WP:WEASEL we do not say "some scientists" have criticised her work, those who have, are critical. I don't know of any scientist who has supported her. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and another editor changed it and i did not change it back, so that point is moot. And you just reverted multiple other changes, without discussing them, which is not cool, and didn't open any dialogue about them. SageRad (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You did say "though she has been praised by others" - and cited that to Parvati Shallow, who is not a scientist, and I don't see where in the article you cited, the writer makes the claim that any scientists support her. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Others" as in "other people"... and in that source article, Vani Hari was praised by a US representative pretty roundly. SageRad (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Other people with no expoertise in the field, offered as a counter to scientists who, unlike Hari, actually know what they are talking about. See false equivalence and WP:UNDUE. Also, your having made several sequential changes does not constitute a magic talisman against reversion. I have undone your change per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to now achieve consensus here for the changes you want to make. I note that you have been reverted in whole or in part by three users now, which does rather indicate that you are the one whose edits are problematic. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

People who are not formally scientists also know something about something, you know? A person like a US Rep understands a thing or two about how change is made in the world, and how Hari's political saavy has enabled some significant changes to be made, and he praises her for that. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As for your counting of edits, that is certainly not the only conclusion from this. Another likely alternative is that this page is watched by skeptoids who have it out for Hari because she goes against their religion, which is pretty much adherence to the chemical industry, like SciBabe for instance, who was commissioned to do a "takedown" of Hari for the chemical industry. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism is the default in the scientific method, it's a methodology for separating truth form fiction and not a POV (unlike, say, anti-GMO activism, which definitely is a POV). And if you want to know whether a skeptical view is in line with policy and ethos, all you need to do is read Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be on a skeptoid rant about the scientific method, which i do understand mind you, and i also understand plenty else about the world, sociologically, including how scientism becomes a semi-religious ideology too. You seem to have followed me here to revert all my edits, BTW, which is not cool. SageRad (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, the word "scientism" is used almost exclusively within the context of religious or quasi-religious belief systems whose beliefs are refuted by scientific knowledge. The leading one is creationists, but homeopaths, cold fusionists and sundry other cranks also use it. "Scientism" as in the belief that where a question is amenable to scientific inquiry, then science is the correct method for settling it, is essentially Wikipedia's core policy, hence WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and the policies around pseudoscience.

Second, I did not follow you anywhere. This article is on my watchlist and has been since before you even joined Wikipedia. If anything it rather looks as if you have come here to try to rewrite an article in support of an argument you are losing elsewhere. Bear in mind that I have been dealing with pseudoscientific and crank claims on Wikipedia for a decade. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have not ever edited the article in the past, and you have recently had a history of opposing my edits in a consistent way in many forums, and you're mentioned in an ArbCom case currently in regard to conflict of interest regarding Monsanto legal cases RfC closure, and such things like that, so the evidence seems to indicate that you're here because you saw my edits and saw another venue to engage with me. Anyway, on cannot know what's in another's mind. I came here serendipitously from the Kevin Folta page when i was actually investigating your recent edits to counter your claim that you're not involved in this controversy cluster, as you claimed when you closed my RfC on the aforementioned page, with bias. On the Kevin Folta page, someone mentioned Vani Hari in a derogatory way, inappropriate to Wikipedia, which showed their ideological agenda, and when i came here, i saw an article constructed to slam Vani Hari from a skeptoid ideology, pretty clearly. There is a creeping gang-based editing happening to change the whole landscape around every aspect of the agrochemical industry. It's ugly and not balanced. SageRad (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The article was on my watchlist when I made this revert in July. I have no COI in respect of Monsanto, I am not the one who's been on marches and boasted of being stopped by their security people - being accused of a COI by a small group of editors with an agenda, is not the same as having one. You come across as careless and blinded by zeal. That is not a good thing for you right now, and I suggest you calm down and stop imputing motives where none exist. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Now, user JzG is continuing to engage in an edit war. Latest diff. SageRad (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

In short, the editor made a comment about "Weasel words" which was already moot in that another editor had changed back that word and i let it stand. But, the editor JzG reverted all of my edits on this page to date, including those about the quote which i had explained above, and the addition of the CBS source. I reverted this back because it was a large edit beyond a reasonable scope, multiple changes at once, directed at me pretty clearly as this user has a history of acting oppositionally to me, which is even noted in an ArbCom case ongoing right now. And then he reverted that back again and accused me of edit warring. Edit war is happening but he is the one who is going whole hog on it, and not slowing down. SageRad (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, it was reverted by David Gerard, you made it again, it was reverted by me, you made it again, and I reverted it again. You don't seem to understand our policies that well. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If you revert one edit at a time, and then talk about it, the that would be fair and within BRD guidelines. If you revert multiple edits in one fell swoop, and don't discuss each one, that appears very strongly to be an editor-targeting-revert and it's not to BRD compliant. SageRad (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also that i do understand the BRD guideline, and i even know that it's an optional method that is not recommended when it's likely to cause conflict among editors, as clearly stated in BRD. So as for your condescending remark "You don't seem to understand our policies that well" do you still hold that to be true here, and do you think the tone is appropriate? Also, you seem to have followed me here to revert my edits specifically, which is not kosher. SageRad (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering. The onus is firmly on you to achjieve consensus for each change. Change X to Y based on Z source, be specific and abide by consensus. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, i am not Wikilawyering. I am demanding integrity in the editing of this article. SageRad (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are, and demanding stuff on Wikipedia - especially demanding that your interpretation is the only one that represents "integrity" - is a fast-track to trouble. Bear in mind that not only am I familiar with our policies on biographies, I am an admin because I defended biographies before the policy existed, and I wrote the standard advice to biography subjects who email the Wikimedia Foundation. This is not one of your marches. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Another slimy mischaracterization of me in "This is not one of your marches." I'm demanding integrity. What's wrong with that? Integrity is something that people understand and can recognize, and this is why i issued the RfC for general comment from outside, neutral parties. That is where we probably have to go, in order to get some broader perspective on this which appears to be an ideological battleground. I suggest that you are enmeshed in your ideological position here, and you're trying to characterize me as an ideological anti-GMO activist in kind, but i am not. I am seeking fairness and balance in this article -- to un-capture it from its present state of capture by your people. SageRad (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your lack of self-awareness is quite remarkable. By "demanding integrity" you are in fact stating the astonishingly arrogant claim that your view of how this article should be is the only acceptable one. For someone as new as you, and with such a strong thread of agenda editing, to make a claim like that, is hubris of a high order. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but i actually am demanding integrity. This certainly does not mean that my view is the only acceptable one. I have called an RfC for outside input on this topic, which clearly refutes that accusation of yours. SageRad (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's what to do: go to WP:ANI and tell my fellow-admins that you demand integrity and I am preventing you from doing so. I am sure you will be happy to defer to their independent judgement, and so will I.

Oh, and learnt he meaning of the word refute. Since nobody actually appears to agree with your "refutation", you may want to choose a more appropriate word. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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

I had edited the article to change the way the to-do around this quote is addressed. Another editor reverted it here with the reason being, as i understand it, that the new version has stated that the Atlantic use of the quote was out of context, and that this part stating that it was out of context is synthesis, if i read the edit reason correctly. But, instead of throwing out the whole baby with the bathwater, it seems more reasonable to simply remove the part that the editor deems to be synthesis, and keep the remainder. It surely seems more fair and balanced to me this way. I'd love to have discussion here about this, to propose changes and reasons why it ought to be changed. SageRad (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would add that, if "out of context" is deemed to be synthesis, then the phrase "and criticised at length" in the other editor's preferred version seems to also be synthesis of the same magnitude. My reading of the source in regard to that quote is that about the next four sentences relate directly to that quote, which is not really "at length", and it does indeed take the quote out of context and wrongly apply "the dose makes the poison" to it, whereas in its context, she's clearly speaking of a specific class of chemicals (hormone mimics and neurotransmitter mimics) which are in fact active at extremely low levels. The issue in question is not acute poisoning, which is the main application of "the dose makes the poison" but systemic changes that would be caused by low levels of those chemicals due to their mode of bioactivity. Yes, that is my synthesis, but no, i did not add this to the article. Hari's own quote in relation to this issue does make that point. SageRad (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what she says after the event, for sure, but she's not a dependable source and frankly I suspect that if she could have expunged this from the internet, as she did with her ludicrous comments on aircraft or microwave ovens, then that is precisely what she would have done. When you set yourself up as a communicator, it's worth making sure your communications are not risible. Perhaps she will one day learn this lesson. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see your point. You seem to want to punish her and to seriously dislike her. SageRad (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't dislike her at all. I dislike self-serving bullshit masquerading as health advice. This applies wherever it arises and whoever offers the bullshit. If I find any statement she has made which is correct and constitutes good advice, I will support it. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, you're saying that she is not a good source on the meaning of her own words in her own book. I hold that her explanation is useful and belongs in this article if there is to be a section on that particular quote. Secondly, it does seem to me that you have a chip on your shoulder about her. SageRad (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I am saying she is not a good source for how those words should be interpreted. If she makes careless statements that are misinterpreted by others, she does not then get to decide post-hoc that only her interpretation is valid. She should be more careful (and perhaps stick to things where she actually knows what she's talking about). Guy (Help!) 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Vani Hari is very fond of the memory hole for her mistakes. Now maybe she has changed this statement, after she made it, to "just a few chemicals (which mimic hormones) have no acceptable level, ever". But she didn't say that, she said "any chemicals". She was not mis-quoted on this. She was not taken out of context, she said, "any chemicals, ever."

If she had said the narrower form of this statement, that would be a position worth discussing. It might even be right: it's certainly harder to justify the presence of small quantities of biochemically active chemicals than it is for bulk chemicals of low activity

Famously she is not a chemist or dietician. She does however have a business degree that would imply she is capable of communicating in a literate, numerate, fashion. As a speaker with a large readership she has some responsibility for her statements. "Any chemicals, ever" is a strong statement and she can hardly claim to have made such by accident.

Once again, this is a significant statement of her position that she has made, even if she has now disowned it as embarrassing (like the airliner atmosphere, like the Nazi microwaves). We should record these: they are a key factor, and a repeated factor, that speak to her lack of credibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's quite a leap there, Andy. That statement was on a page in her book in a section about a specific class of chemicals which mimic hormones and neurotransmitters, and therefore relate to very sensitive modes of action, and not at all about acute toxicity. As she explains in the quote which was removed from the article. That is indeed taken out of context. There is a concerted effort to "take down" Vani Hari and it's extended now to Wikipedia. This is not the forum for that campaign. SageRad (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a huge and unsupportable leap. She was the one who made it. If (in a narrow context) why did she say "any chemicals, ever.", because that's the bold absolutist statement she did make. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

.... but... to beat a dead horse, she made it in a context that is very easily understood, and she has explained that this was important to the statement, and that she was referring to those specific chemicals that are highly potent in tiny amounts as they are mimics of somatic signalling chemicals, and this is very easily understood by anyone, and the quote was indeed used out of context to smear Hari by people who have an ideological axe to grind against her, and now people are saying that this should also extend to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Dr Gorski, Steven Novella, and the specific Skeptoid flavor of ideologue. Wikipedia is intended to speak in as neutral a voice as possible, and we must take care to do this especially in articles which are ideological lightning rods like this one. I am on this only because this page has clearly been captured by a specific group of people who have an agenda and they are using it to smear Hari using Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a good faith effort to represent reality from a neutral point of view. SageRad (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion that in an article about a person who takes extreme positions, we owe it to them to quote them accurately. Even if the claim is absurd. If the person backtracked later, then mention that too. If there was context then include that context. "any chemicals, ever" is pretty unambiguous. Chillum 14:47, 17 September 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: [1] 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, Wikipedia 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 [sic] 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. [2] 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 wikipedia 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)