Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.[50]

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 wikipedia 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)

Off-topic. WP:FOC

I apologise Sage. You and I are obviously not reading the same talk page. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Obviously we are reading the same page but we are different people. Do you dispute my summary of the RfC results? SageRad (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC) "doesn't have a pre-existing horse in this race" If you are asserting a conflict of interest concerning any other editor, this is a claim you will need to substantiate. Note that spurious accusations of COI constitute personal attacks under Wikipedia rules. The place to do so is at WP:COIN - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) All it takes is a look at an editing history. I have previous experience with Roxy the Dog, as well. SageRad (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC) You're really not making your position any better here - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC) What does a comment like that last one of yours even mean? Do you realize that it has a trolling and threatening tone, as i hear it, and it places you in judgment about right and wrong, and it contains your condemnation of me for unspecified reasons, and it also ignores anything of substance and integrity, such as possibly reading what i wrote above concerning a mischaracterization of this RfC results to date by Roxy the Dog, and possibly having the integrity to look at that yourself, and offer anything of substance at all in regard to it? In other words, your comment is pure hostility and doesn't have a place on a Wikipedia talk page. What's your deal, sir? Why are you here? Why do you write things like that? SageRad (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I mean that you really have to stop the personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC) You really have to stop accusing me of making personal attacks without justification. That is the real personal attack here. SageRad (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Mate, if you carry on like this you are going to wind up banned. Seriously. You present this as if only your opinion represents integrity, and everybody who disagrees is attacking you and undermining the integrity of the project, but you're an activist with virtually no history and the people who are telling you that you're wrong have been here for a very long time - David much longer than me, and I've been here over a decade. Your response will, I guess, be WP:IDHT as usual, and if it is, then that will be another nail in your coffin. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC) More threats, swinging of supposed authority, claims to superior ability because of being around Wikipedia longer than i (who have been here for five months pretty regularly, and a few years as an IP address editor). "Nail in my coffin" .. "activist" .. "virtually no history" .. ??? I am most certainly not saying that only my opinion represents integrity. Integrity represents integrity. If someone has a different opinion and expresses it well, and in good faith, i am most happy to hear it and engage in dialog. That's what i am seeking. I'm seeking serious dialog on the topic of the article itself and what am i seeing? Constant diversionary tactics and things like this. This is an article on Vani Hari, and i see this article being seriously biased, and have made edits to amend the worst of that, and have been reverted, and then people are not even willing to discuss the issues. So it's a situation of lock-down of an article without good faith dialogue. All i hear is "Nobody agrees with you so shut up and sit down, young man, and kiss my ass while you're at it." SageRad (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I think the issues here have been summed up rather succinctly elsewhere today. I shall not comment here until after the dust has settled. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC) It's not a threat, it's an observation and a caution. If you carry on like this, you will end up banned. That's simply how it is. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You can either tone down your wrongteous indignation or prepare yourself for the inevitable, and frankly by now I don't much care which you choose. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Things like that sound like threats to me. Please think about the power dynamics that go on here on Wikipedia. I can speak. I have a right to speak. I speak respectfully with people who are respectful in return. I see a strong bias in this article, and i spoke that. I correct misrepresentations about myself, and engage in dialogue with integrity. Others who are oppositional constantly referring to nails in my coffin, and going off a cliff, and all these suggestions that bad things will happen are indeed quite reasonably felt as threats and intimidations, i believe, by many people. I report to you how i experience it, and therefore you know that it comes across as a threat to me. Others have said the same thing in response to such language. I have seen it repeatedly in time here to date. Many many times. Furthermore, i do not believe that i am "carrying on" and i do not understand what you mean by that. If you would clarify the exact behaviors that you have an issue with and why, then maybe i'd understand, but "carrying on" seems to mean that you want me to shut up. When there is contentious dialog and people misrepresenting things so regularly, then i feel compelled to respond. I do not single-handedly "carry on". You could equally say that to anyone else here, but you don't. This is dialog, and there ought not be pressure to stop engaging in dialog unless it is clear that someone is filibustering, which i am not doing. I am engaging genuinely in dialog here, and making points respectfully as much as possible, even in a toxic environment where i get called names left and right and accused of all sorts of crimes. I'm here because this is a BLP that i reckon is being abused by people who seem to have it out for Hari more than is warranted by representation of the reality of her place in the world and her story. There's a place for the critique, but it seems unduly out of proportion and there seems to be a contingent that is editing mostly in one direction, and this is what i wanted to address squarely. I also made a couple edits which got reverted promptly and then i discussed them. That's what i am doing here, not "carrying on". SageRad (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Frankly, I think they sound like threats to you because you appear to have a paranoid conspiracist mindset. You actually have no right to speak here, Wikipedia is a private property of the Wikimedia Foundation and we can ban you without in any way affecting your constitutional rights. XKCD sums it up perfectly. People like David and I are committed to Wikipedia and edit across a broad range of topics, you are committed to an agenda and have come to Wikipedia primarily as a way of advancing that agenda. Very little of your activity falls outside the area of articles relating to Monsanto. This article only attracted your attention due to links with a Monsanto-related article. As I said, I am pretty much at the point of not caring if you get yourself banned, but if - or, more likely, when - you end up banned, it will be through nobody's fault but your own. You do not seem to have any talent at all for self-criticism (e.g. accusing people of "filibustering" when you are in a minority of one). Of course you don't believe that your edits are a problem, most banned and restricted editors don't. That is kind of the point: if people have sufficient self-awareness to understand the problem, they tend not to need to be banned or restricted. Again, read Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Wikipedia is a reality-based project, we do not pretend that claptrap is legitimate. We do not give equal weight to science and chemophobic nonsense. We do not place one person's self-serving claims on a par with careful scientific analysis. We do not assert parity between someone who makes a career of pontificating in areas where she has absolutely no training or expertise, and scientists. That is by design. If you don't like it then Wikipedia is the wrong project for you, and Wikipedia will almost certainly never become the kind of project you appear to want. You have consistently failed to make any concrete proposal for actionable change to this article. You should propose edits along the lines of "change X to Y in paragraph Z based on this source", and the source has to be mainstream and it has to be competently written with a suitable evaluation of the objective merit of Hari's claims. Which, in every case I have seen so far, is low to nothing: everything she has said that has any kernel of truth has already been said more accurately by someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I would like this conversation to cease. I will only correct these points mentioned in your comment: * By "right to speak" i mean in a moral sense and a functional sense in regard to the operation of Wikipedia, i have a right to speak as an editor participating in good faith, as much as any other editor. Not speaking about U.S. constitution here, but rather of human morality and common sense. * I'm committed to Wikipedia's ideals, and not to "an agenda" as you put it. * Plenty of my activity falls outside of agrochemicals. It's just that run-on conversations that go in circles with people like you cause a lot of edits to appear to look like most of the edits are in agrochemicals, but that's an artifact of the extremely difficult editing environment. * I have definitely made concrete proposals to this article, and they've been summarily reverted and denied by the group who has then avoided genuine discussion of the topic and basically said "shut up". I've outlined the concrete proposals that i did make, in painstaking detail, above, and asked others to discuss them, to no avail. That's plain to see. Just read the history here. * Threat-type language and behavior is still a threat, and it's not my "conspiracy mind" that makes it so. It's a pretty reasonable conclusion and i've seen several other people independently call such language "threat" or "intimidation" on various talk pages in the last several months. It's a real thing that when someone with connections to the mafia, for example, says "You better be careful or you'll end up with concrete feet under the East River" it's not just a "friendly warning" but more likely to be seen and felt as a threat. * I did not accuse anyone of filibustering -- please re-read my comment and note that i did not make that accusation. I used that word in another way. This is all beyond the ken of the talk page, and i don't want to continue this, but had to correct several points. Ceasing any new off-topic conversation here. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 23 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)

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)

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: [1][2][3][4][5] 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)

Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [http://foodbabe.com/response-to-gawker-the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit/] ? 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 [therealpsl.tumblr.com] 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 paragraph 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. She says that Hari could explain more of the nuance to the public. 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)

You are working from your repeated bad faith assumptions that editors here hate Hari. From that viewpoint, I expect there is very little that you appreciate about the editing here, and the policies that back those edits. Alternatively, you could WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, i didn't use the word "hate" here, but i do think there is an agenda being pushed, and that is not an assumption but rather a reckoning based on the evidence of this talk page other dialogues around the page, such as on the BLP noticeboard, and the edits and behavior of the editors here. It is my reckoning of the situation. I am trying to focus on content, indeed. That was my original purpose on this page when i encountered it and saw that it was a polemic against Hari, and then made a couple of edits to try to regain some NPOV, and then got immediately shot down and reverted, and then vehemently opposed on the talk page. I made my reckoning based on my experiences here. It's not an assumption. I'm not at all assuming bad faith. SageRad (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am making some neutral edits to the article that will not change the content but will neutralize the tone. The pseudoscience section contains much content and sources that do not specifically refer to "pseudoscience.". As far as i can tell the only references to pseudoscience are from Gorski and Novella (but I will doubke check the others), so the other critical commentary should not be under that subheading. Depending in what I find in the actual sources cited, I might do some reorganizing in the Reception section, but I dont intend to remove sources or content. Please do not engage in a revert war until I've had some time to focus on this and made these improvements over the next hour or so. Then we can discuss. Thank you. Minor4th 19:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. It's not possible in this atmosphere right now. Will come back another time. Minor4th 19:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Marion Nestle

The criticism by Dr. Marion Nestle does not appear in the source that was given. Perhaps this information was written in her book? If so, that should be cited here instead.

Additionally, the criticism is difficult to distinguish from Wikipedia's voice in the way it is written. More clear attribution or perhaps a quote or two would be good, but since the source is not given correctly I could not make this change. Adrian (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

OK I missed the change by Ronz [6] to d'Entremont in the mix there somewhere. That part does seem accurately summarized per the podcast. What is missing is where she says that Hari's work is "useful" and should focus on issues where there would be "bigger impact". The only thing she seems to mention is "it needs a sounder scientific basis" and wishes she would focus on "more important issues like antibiotics in the food supply" (antibiotics is the only thing she mentions). This is difficult to pull a direct quote without a transcript. Adrian (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Since I was unable to find a transcript, I took the liberty of doing it myself and transcribed the relevant parts of Lehrer's interview with Nestle. (I excluded a section about GMO's near the end because she didn't address Food Babe or Science Babe directly.)

L = Brian Leher; N = Marion Nestle

1:35
L: So one word the Food Babe uses a lot on her blog, just just to jump in in the middle here, is the word "toxins". She says beets can protect you from cancers by getting rid of all the "toxins" in your bloodstream. She says dandelion greens, flaxseed and cranberry juice help "detox" your body, so do you want to explain the word "Toxins" and how you hear it in her work?
N: Yeah, Toxins are poisons and the difficulty with the whole subject of toxins is that they're dose related, um, below a certain level. Most of the the things that could be harmful in foods are aren't because the body has mechanisms very complicated enzymatic mechanisms for getting rid of toxic substances in food, so that they're not harmful, um but above a certain dose they could be and the difficulty with a the kind of compounds that Vani Hari has been dealing with is that they're present in the food supply in very small amounts and therefore it's very hard to test whether small amounts are harmful or not harmful.
L: Um
N: so the science is uncertain, it's nuanced, it's really hard to talk about.
L: Another example, the food babe says: If a third grader can't pronounce it, you shouldn't be eating it. Which would call as Michael Pollan's test: If your grandmother wouldn't re... recognize it, don't eat it. but what about the hard pronounced chemicals that are naturally occurring in some foods. If it's natural does that make it OK?
N: Not necessarily, but the the the, what that question addresses is if you have this unpronounceable chemical and you don't know what it is, it's not a food. Uh, I mean the point of that, and I've said similar things, uh if if you can't, if you can't, if you don't know what it is and it's not recognizable as a food, it's not a food, don't eat it. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's harmful it just means that it's something that's added to food, uh and may or may not be harmful depending on how much of it you eat and what the circumstances are and all of those other annoyingly nuanced issues that always come up when you're talking about science, and I think the real charge against Vani Hari is that she removes the nuances um and therefore makes... turns these things into something that's black or white, very easy for people to understand, but not necessarily accurate.
L: And I gather that you have previously been publicly critical of Vani Hari to some degree and that she contacted you to say that she was hurt by that because she respected your work or something like that.
N: Yeah absolutely and I was very impressed by that. I thought that was terrific of her. My criticisms of her work are that it needs a sounder scientific basis, and I wish she would work on really important issues like antibiotics in the food supply and other things that it has been impossible to galvanize public attention to, um, where she has gotten enormous public attention to chemicals in food that could be harmful but may not be, whereas we know that the whole antibiotic issue is an enormous one, and it's been very very difficult to get the public uh sufficiently aroused about the antibiotic issue, uh to get any changes made. I want her to work on that one.
...
5:24
L: What about Science Babe? Have you been reading her and do you take her criticisms as generally valid of Food Babe?
N: Well, they are. They're a line-by-line critique of, of the, some of the scientific statements that the the Food Babe has made, and they're valid scientifically and detailed and hard to slog through if you're not a scientist so the that's not going to work to counter the enormous popularity of the kinds of issues that the Food Babe is working on so successfully.

With this information, I am going to attempt to reword this part of the article to match appropriately. Adrian (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Kudos and thanks. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That transcript shows Nestle saying that Food Babe makes the science too black and white in her presentation of it, and that the criticisms of Science Babe are technically correct, but that Food Babe is successfully working on issues. In another passage of the interview, she says that she wished Food Babe would work on issues of greater possibility for making good change, like antibiotic overuse in the meat industry. I would say that this transcript supports my original edit. Thanks for transcribing it. SageRad (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, sort of. I wouldn't say that Nestle said Hari's work is "useful", but rather that she has a large following and a lot of power that comes with that. I think the quoted version keeps things more accurate to the whole interview, and hopefully addresses all of the issues. Adrian (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I do like the quoted version you wrote, and i like Ronz's edit to clarify that "nuances" refers to those of representation of the science. SageRad (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, to address the length, the information about Science Babe is probably unnecessary as it's not directly about Food Babe. I kept it in because it was in the article previously. If there's no consensus to keep it, I think it can safely be removed. Adrian (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the transcript above, it is an interesting, though difficult read. Looking at the above, it is clear that Nestle has got Hari's measure. Turning that into faint praise for Hari is skillful editing, well done. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 06:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that there is clear sarcasm in Roxy's comment, and i advise that sarcasm is generally unhelpful in already-contentious discussions. To respond to the comment, i hear Nestle's interview as mixed praise and criticism. There is no bending of the source in that assessment. SageRad (talk) 14:17, 28 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)

Brustopher (see my above remarks) petrarchan47คุก 20:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to get a direct link so that I wouldn't need to scan the whole page again. The last time I was here, I saw people arguing about whether threatening to "rape her dead body" was actually harassment, or just everyday banter. Like closing ones eyes during the gory parts of a movie, I was hoping to participate here without being exposed to such a discussion. Some editors really do need to take this page off their watchlist. BLPs require a certain degree of compassion, or it really does become a warzone, and a place from which the very editors needed for balance will run (...editors who know what the word "trigger" means). petrarchan47คุก 20:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, online harassment can be a very triggering issue for some people. I'm not sure why the bot sent you to this section, but the RfC about it is here. Adrian (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Widely"

Added to the article here. "Widely" is a very subjective word. It feels like a continual pushing that will never end. SageRad (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It was added earlier [7]. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that this is a BLP, I would take the word "widely" out. In fact, it seems to me that "widely" is indeed factually correct, but it is also unnecessary. The text of that section makes it very clear to the reader that the criticism is widespread, so it becomes unnecessary to say it in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. And "strongly" should be removed for the same reason. The sources that we cite and describe can speak for themselves without us adding subjective modifiers like "strongly" and "widely." Let's think neutrality here - we can lose the emotive adjectives, like we should in all BLPs. Minor4th 20:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Widely belongs here. There are a wide range of notable people criticising her. Any support for her in contrast is either from the unqualified (The "Food Babe Army" isn't WP:RS) or else it is so feeble that (like the Nestle comments) it's questioned whether it's actually support or simply politeness. Rarely has "damning with faint praise" been so apposite. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Such a slanted view. When i added a source that contained a fair amount of praise for Hari, it was immediately removed from this article. There is a campaign going on here. It's a strikingly parallel campaign to discredit Vani Hari and to protect Kevin Folta from my point of view. The people who "widely" critique Hari are a small group of very like-minded people who mostly know each other and have a common agenda to discredit her because of her activism. That's what i see. SageRad (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you honestly think there is some sort of 'campaign' going on then report everyone to ANI. The constant accusations are getting quite tiresome. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please stop characterizing why editors might or might not have preferred certain edits, and focus on what the page should say. What I see is that scientists, who are not the same as the broader lay public, do indeed express the criticism widely – but there is no need for Wikipedia to say it, because the widespread criticism is self-evident from the rest of the section. What this page and the Folta page have in common is that they are governed by the BLP policy. Also, I cannot find the word "strongly" on the current version of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"Strongly" was removed earlier [8]. --Ronz (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

How it stands currently is "Her views on food safety have been criticized by scientists." This seems good to me. There is neither the modifier "widely" or "strongly" nor the limiter "some" and so i think it's the baseline neutral language. The interested reader can take er own temperature to decide whether they think it's a small group of people or scientists in general who are criticizing Hari. The article should lead toward no particular valid point of view, and i think that this simple text achieves the goal of NPOV. SageRad (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's in the lead, and I agree about that. The question about "widely" is about a section lower down on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"Widely" → "repeatedly"

I have a feeling that if we only consider the two options of "widely" or leaving the word out, editors will not come to consensus, so I have tried to think of an alternative solution. I want to suggest changing the word "widely" to the word "repeatedly". My hope is that this would satisfy editors on both "sides". For those editors who are most concerned that we make it clear that criticism from scientists was not just an isolated criticism, the word "repeatedly" makes that clear. And for those editors who are most concerned that we not disparage Hari, this word is non-judgmental. It's just a factual statement about numbers, and it is unarguably true. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't need "widely" or "repeatedly" - we describe the criticism itself, and even quote it, from a variety of sources. It speaks for itself without WP having to describe it as "widely" or "repeatedly." The fact that we say 'criticism from scientists' (plural) already indicates that it's not an isolated criticism. Minor4th 21:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We do summarize, which I believe was the intent. I think it's only scratching the surface though, and we should be focusing on including prominent viewpoints into the article that have been overlooked so far. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Or we could leave out that sentence entirely and let the reader find the whole story by clicking on the TOC, essentially following the same line of action that's just occurred on the Kevin Folta article's lede. SageRad (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On the KF article, that was the expressed opinion of one editor which was given after the fact. The sentence in this article has been here for a long time without being challenged, while the KF material was a recent change that was unable to reach consensus. Here we have a single sentence to summarize a very large section of the article, while on the KF page it was an entire paragraph to summarize a significantly smaller section. Please do not make false equivalencies, as policy, context, and circumstances are different for both issues. It would be better to cite policies to support your proposal for content removal than appearing to take your frustration with a different article into here. Adrian (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just proposing that we could leave out the sentence altogether. I do not like either word "widely" or "repeatedly". I would prefer the word "some" if we're going to add a word. Our we could leave out the sentence. SageRad (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I figured I would propose "repeatedly" and see whether it would help. I can see that there isn't support for it, so that's fine with me. That being the case, I continue to prefer to delete the word "widely", partly on BLP grounds and partly on the grounds that it's so self-evident as to be superfluous. I'm not enthusiastic about deleting the entire sentence, however, because the sentence seems to me to be needed as a "topic sentence" for the paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 30 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)

I don't understand the tag but apart from Food Babe's only people getting all butt-hurt over this article I don't see any problem with the NPOV. There's even a book out now disputing much of what she says. Smidoid (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it turned out that the pseudoscience claims weren't supported by the sources provided. That's since been fixed, but some editors have continued to raise concerns about the material.

The expansion (discussed below) has a bias towards supporting Hari's claims and the impact of her work while ignoring criticisms, and more general WP:BALANCE problems.

The "Reception" section is being used to contain criticisms, in violation of WP:STRUCTURE.

Overall, I think we're making good progress. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)