This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This page needs a massive overhaul. As it is, it is horribly one-sided and reads like a press release. There is plenty of noted criticism to Hari and her efforts. Some notable criticism: http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2014/02/06/plastic-chemical-in-our-bread/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eating-yoga-mats/ I would edit this article, but I do not really feel qualified to do so. 96.248.6.39 ( talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Firstly the repeated use of the adjective "Harmful" is scientifically inaccurate. All the chemicals listed have been found safe for human consumption. Second, without getting into a long discussion about GMO's it should be noted that there is not a single source here referencing scientific proof that they are harmful. This basically reads like a "Hooray for me" promo piece written by the subject of the article. Here's a good source with her getting debunked on her criticism of the brewery industry: http://blog.timesunion.com/beer/debunking-8-beers-that-you-should-stop-drinking-immediately/2425/ Also the RationalWiki page on her is very informative. But seriously, I see scientific claims in this article and no scientific references. 98.119.9.60 ( talk) 22:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel the exact opposite. The article is written like it originated with a food corporation executive, with use of words like "sensationalist," "allegedly harmful" and "forced" food companies to change. The article has a slant which degrades and demeans the work of Hari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.35.97 ( talk) 12:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
New speaker: I want to second what is written above. I co-run a science and scepticism page on Facebook and she is a regular feature. This article makes her sound like a conscientious researcher who is just trying to get companies to be honest. In fact, her entire approach is dishonest. She begins with ridiculous claims built on false information, then hounds companies using these claims as PR threats, until they respond with something she can chalk up as a victory. She also deletes dissenting opinion from actual scientists from her FB page. This Wiki article needs to be deleted and written up again in a way that doesn't make Vani Hari look like a valiant crusader against corporate immorality. Because...well, she isn't! I would recommend this article as the best I have read on her yet: http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/new-yellow-journalism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.212.96 ( talk) 11:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I removed the POV tag. The preponderance of sources are either critical of her work or are simply stating the reactions of corporations. This is how the article currently reads, in my opinion. TippyGoomba ( talk) 02:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The lead to this BLP article has suddenly changed, calling her a "hoax artist" and not a "blogger." That's a major change, a serious accusation not supported by the article, and I think this needs to be reverted, asap. Anyone disagree? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The gestapo have spoken and abused their buttons it looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 ( talk) 21:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I will remove any BLP violations from this page, please keep comments and content restricted to WP:RS and WP:BLP, talk pages are not a forum Dreadstar ☥ 07:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor made an edit [2] today, 7/12/2014, regarding Vani's blog article [http://foodbabe.com/2011/10/04/should-i-get-the-flu-shot] on flu vaccines in the "Other Campaigns" section. While it is correct that Vani did not specifically state that one should not receive the flu vaccine, she heavily weighed against them and stated that she personally will not be getting one in addition to making several factually dubious claims about efficacy, side-effects, and alternatives. The editor also added unwarranted comments about the safety of vaccine ingredients without noting that adverse reactions are rare and noting that the number of people who potentially avoid illness by being vaccinated far exceeds the number of people who become ill due to a rare adverse reaction. I do not want to get into an edit war here, so I am bringing this to public attention first to see how others feel this should be worded to be more balanced and appropriate rather than just flip-flopping between the two extremes of the argument. 72.64.114.87 ( talk) 23:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
An additional note: this editor added the scare word "injections" to make vaccines sound scary and unsafe. It is colloquial to refer to them as vaccines, not injections. 72.64.114.87 ( talk) 23:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue of her claims about flu vaccinations is being discussed below, along with microwave ovens. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Given that some of Ms Hari's statements about microwave ovens are food-related, would it be acceptable to include those statements (as well as specific rebuttals from reliable sources)? DS ( talk) 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This issue (and my commentary) applies to her flu shot blog entry. She is not an expect on vaccinations. She might say she would not get a flu shot, but when she starts talking about why she would not, she goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF and into exceptional claims. If the article to limit the statement to "I would not get a flu shot", thereby removing the exceptional claims, then the statement becomes a non- WP:NOTEWORTHY item. The fact that people do not get flu shots is a WP:NOTTRIVIA item. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
As the flu shot material has been restored to the article, I've posted a thread on the issue at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SPS material for Vani Hari. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
David Gorski is an oncologist, not an expert on finances, financial motivation, or the like. Wikipedia cannot be used to restate his personal opinions as to Hari. He is an expert as to the science involving her claims, and nothing more. Adding his comments violated biography of living persons policy. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.That's not a "regular contributor", that's a "Forbes Contributor" which is not a journalistic position. It's the equivalent of Huffington Post at best, CNN iReport at worst. Not an appropriate source for negative material about living people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok I have another source for examination. http://www.alternet.org/food/food-babe-bloggers-attack-against-beer-gains-national-attention-experts-call-it-quackmail The author is a Senior Editor, http://www.alternet.org/authors/cliff-weathers. His writing focus is "covering environmental and consumer issues." According to the Wikipedia entry, Alternet ought to meet all the criteria as a Reliable Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNet. AlterNet has won multiple awards for journalism and recognitions for journalism including Webby awards (2005 winner for Magazine, 2004 Print nominee, 2003 Print nominee) and Independent Press Awards. Are there objections to this source and if so, on what basis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 23:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Edit: Gorski has specifically attacked Hari's tactics as appeals to scientific illiteracy and fearmongering, and equating her tactics against companies to blackmail while simultaneously criticizing the companies that give in to Hari's tactics:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 ( talk • contribs)
I agree that the article is not served by rhetorically disparaging the subject. The article is served by including due weight, well-sourced criticism of the subject's non-mainstream claims.
As far as Gorski goes, he's already quoted twice in this article, once calling the subject a "quack" and a second quote calling her a "malignant force". The IP is hard-pushing to have a third comment on the same page from the same blog-post calling her a "blackmailer". This is ridiculous and redundant. Gorski is not an expert on the subject's personal character, and if he wants to describe her in potentially libellous ways, he's free to take the risk, but Wikipedia doesn't repeat every unproven accusation in a BLP, regardless of how it's attributed. Many politicians have been accused of being "murderers" by random self-published experts; there's a difference between presenting criticism responsibly and adding a list of verbatim personal attacks.
As far as behaviour goes, I think the IP has been far too quick to assume bad faith on S. Rich's part, almost to the point of being disruptive. All I see are some conservative edits to reduce the current amount of BLP-non-compliant name-calling. Removing a source's rhetorical accusation that someone is a blackmailer clearly falls under the kind of contentious labelling we should avoid, no matter how narrowly we construe the word "contentious" per things like WP:CRYBLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
First, Vani Hari is an expert on nothing. Repeat, she is NOT an expert; her field, as noted in the article, is "activist." Her activism is not limited to food, though that is her primary focus; she has also extended her activism to vaccines, echoing other members of the anti-vaccination movement, and since she as an activist has taken that cause up, it can in no way be a violation of policy to note that she has done so and that others have specifically spoken against her article.
Second, even if I were to take the idea that the article is limited to food because Vani Hari is "an expert in food", which I do not, her commentary on microwave ovens specifically concerns claims that it alters the chemical composition and nutritional character of food. Her commentary about microwave ovens is therefore about food.
For Elaqueate, I would be happy to discuss merging the commentary or finding the most appropriate wording, whether quotes or otherwise, to best represent Gorski's criticisms. Do you have any suggestions on wording, or are you simply operating as a naysayer?
As a final thought experiment, what "experts" WOULD you accept giving their educated descriptions of Hari's motivations and tactics? Because I can happily go back through Gorski's work and show where he has repeatedly worked to deal directly with scientific frauds and their motivations and tactics, and as far as I am aware there is no program on the planet that grants doctorates in that field.
Why do I think Gorski IS an expert enough to make his statement? Because he is (A) a well regarded credentialed scientist, (B) a well regarded, credentialed individual who carries multiple writing positions in the field of scientific advocacy, skepticism and even has a current fellowship position with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and (C) because he is a recognized expert to speak on the infiltration of pseudoscience into health, medicine and nutrition and has been recognized as such in numerous mainstream media appearances. Thus he is eminently qualified to speak on the tactics and motivations of those who are attempting to infiltrate pseudoscience into health, medicine and nutrition such as Vani Hari.
Your response? 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 23:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
off-topic comments regarding editor behavior |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
One other question for you, Srich32977 and Eleaqueate: the Alternet article also covers the commentary by Trevor Butterworth that you discounted because he is a "contributor" to Forbes. However, Butterworth is a credentialed journalist who writes not just for Forbes but also as a credentialed journalist for Newsweek [4] and the editor and senior fellow at STATS.org Statistical Assessment Service, therefore more than expert enough to comment on the media's failures to properly vet and report on Hari's claims. What wording would satisfy you for Butterworth's commentary that the media has failed to properly report on her, to wit, "“So, when are journalists going to hold truth up to this new self-promoting juggernaut? Why have so many news stories avoided questioning her claims as they would question her targets in the food industry. Surely, someone who believes that saying “Satan,” repeatedly to a glass of water will alter the water's physical properties needs to be treated with a dash of skepticism—no?”"? 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 00:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
To both of you, Please comment on Butterworth's commentary, an experienced journalist is just the sort of expert who should be able to comment on media failures to cover her accurately. This question was not about Gorski and Butterworth has not used the term "blackmail." 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. A Wikipedia article is not the best place to add material about the non-coverage of an issue in most mainstream sources. If some of her views or one-off comments haven't received coverage in many secondary reliable sources, than neither her views nor the criticism are probably needed in an article.
As an example, if she had a blog post in 2009 that she thought leprechauns were cute, and the silence from mainstream media regarding her admission was deafening, then we wouldn't add any mention of her view or the "media failure" to address it, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. This article is not supposed to be an exhaustive catalog of all the ways you might consider her in error, whether they were covered widely or not. That's an attack page without enough concern for NPOV or DUEWEIGHT. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be an itemized list of everything a person's ever said that is incorrect; it's supposed to be a NPOV summation of what's been covered more widely. Bringing up stuff like the one-post microwave nonsense probably does more to spread those views than counteract them. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
comments about WP:3O request (which has been closed because more than 2 editors are involved) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'd like to ask for some clarification here. Elaqueate, did you intend your first commentary above to attach to the Gorski section? This needs clarification and if so, to be moved to the appropriate spot. 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 06:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
|
Srich32977, please explain your commentary removal; you removed a significant number of sources and commentary by scientists and reputed, published authors that seems wholly in line with the RS and BLP policies. Also, you left a comment stating " Not improvements (discussed)" when I cannot find any discussion you make of these quotes or sources anywhere. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.193.8 ( talk • contribs)
Srich32977, your link to "MOS:QUOTE" redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style and after manually searching for the section and reviewing it I believe the quotes are displaying correctly. If you believe they are incorrectly formatted, please explain how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 16:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
IP has been blocked, rem off-topic commentary. Dreadstar ☥ 02:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Once again to Srich32977, I request that you provide the SPECIFIC sources, phrases, and information you have a problem with. You are being needlessly pedantic, deliberately obtuse, and generally making those who deal with you have to play 20-questions games trying to figure out what you are objecting to; you are also claiming to be supported by consensus based on discussions where there was no consensus to support your rather odd views of policy. In short I believe you are deliberately dealing in violations of the WP:CIVIL policy by engaging in a series of slights and sending those who discuss with you chasing after red herrings trying to figure out what you are talking about. Once again: Please provide, in a WP:CIVIL manner the specific things you object to so that wording can be worked out and if sources need discussion, a civil and consensus-building conversation can take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 19:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
A lot of the commentary on here says that scientific experts aren't "experts" to comment on Hari's tactics.
How about a social media expert instead? http://zachbussey.com/is-the-food-babe-more-dangerous-than-pumpkin-spice-lattes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.188.114 ( talk) 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC) |}
In this diff [5] we have two references removed. One is by a contributor to the Forbes newsblog and the other is a piece published by the Independent Women's Forum. I submit these are not SPS and are therefor reliable sources. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hatting banned sock edits and already addressed issues. Dreadstar ☥ 04:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Conspiracy TheoristGiven that Hari is making unfounded anti-vaccine claims, along with bizarre assertions regarding microwave ovens, I've labelled her also a conspiracy theorist. Happy to discuss. Mongoletsi ( talk) 18:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal life sectionI have removed duplicate content, the section called "Personal life". Identical material appears at the top of the Career section. -- Diannaa ( talk) 17:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
chipotleI just cut the following and am pasting it here: Hari began investigating what food ingredients were used at Chipotle Mexican Grill starting in 2012. Her investigation revealed the company was using genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) in their cooking oil and trans fats in their tortillas, and that their black beans contained genetically modified soybean oil. One week after posting her investigation to Foodbabe.com, Chipotle communications director Chris Arnold requested a meeting with Hari to discuss the public disclosure of its ingredients. [1] [2] In March 2013, as a result of Hari's efforts, Chipotle published its full ingredients list on all menu items, including where Chipotle uses GMOs. [2]
Here are my issues with this:
Happy to discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 19:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Articles disappearingThe issue just got a bit more prominence for me with Drmies recent edit [6] pointing it out to me, but since it seems like articles from the FoodBabe website tend to disappear for whatever reason somewhat often, should we maybe list those ghost articles here on the talk page just for future reference? One could make the argument there's damage control going on, much less nefarious reasons, or whatever, but this seems like a topic where me might need to be wary about the potential of sources being scrubbed (regardless of the actual reason) given the controversial nature of this topic. At least this way we have a record of sources that "disappeared" so folks can attempt to find them back again if there's anything of use in them. Feel free to edit below my signature or add comments below the reference(s) on what's best to do in these instances. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Food Babe Conspiracy TheoriesThere should probably be a section here for all her conspiracy theory stuff, such as her claims that "organized industry" are trying to pay people to give negative reviews to her books or post against her on outlets like Facebook and Twitter. In fact, she should be listed as a conspiracy theorist, much like Alex Jones (radio host). Let's Have Some Science ( talk) 17:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Mass blanking of talk pageI note that Jytdog has been participating in the mass blanking of this article and now added a "bot" to blank this talk page as well. What's with that??? Let's Have Some Science ( talk) 15:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend please check out his WP article. Novella is primarily notable for his skeptic activities, which are broad and deep. thx Jytdog ( talk) 15:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
in this dif Nyttend removed discussion of David Gorski. as you can see from his WP article and all the sources there (and the source provided in this article, Gorski speaks widely about pseudoscience and quackery. That is his key notability. I reverted. pls discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 17:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note on the whole discussion above. I am about to unwatch this article, but I wanted to wish you good luck working on this very difficult subject matter. Hari is notable b/c she gets people all whipped about claims that are quackery or pseudoscience. A NPOV article on her at Wikipedia is obligated by policy ( WP:PSCI) to call a spade a spade. (And no, we cannot WP:COATRACK bad science into WP in a BLP article b/c it is a BLP. PSCI applies everywhere). Just be sure to call the claim pseudoscience or quackery, not her. Those who are not comfortable with that, should nominate this article for deletion, because without describing the nonsense she spouts, we have no article. In my view an AfD would fail which will lead folks right back here... anyway, that's all. Good luck! Jytdog ( talk) 21:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Looks like there was a revert involving the content again. [9] involving Andy Dingley and Elaqueate. The source and general content has been the article since at least November, largely survived the disputed time period as well looking at which editors objected to it. The main issue appears to be that the content is addressing Hari directly rather than her actions in terms of BLP issues. I'm not sure how much WP:PARITY would apply in this case (what do we do in terms of BLP vs. NPOV if someone really is a quack?). All that aside, instead of a blanket revert, would it be easier to just paraphrase Gorski's comment so it's not as direct? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This page needs a massive overhaul. As it is, it is horribly one-sided and reads like a press release. There is plenty of noted criticism to Hari and her efforts. Some notable criticism: http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2014/02/06/plastic-chemical-in-our-bread/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eating-yoga-mats/ I would edit this article, but I do not really feel qualified to do so. 96.248.6.39 ( talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Firstly the repeated use of the adjective "Harmful" is scientifically inaccurate. All the chemicals listed have been found safe for human consumption. Second, without getting into a long discussion about GMO's it should be noted that there is not a single source here referencing scientific proof that they are harmful. This basically reads like a "Hooray for me" promo piece written by the subject of the article. Here's a good source with her getting debunked on her criticism of the brewery industry: http://blog.timesunion.com/beer/debunking-8-beers-that-you-should-stop-drinking-immediately/2425/ Also the RationalWiki page on her is very informative. But seriously, I see scientific claims in this article and no scientific references. 98.119.9.60 ( talk) 22:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel the exact opposite. The article is written like it originated with a food corporation executive, with use of words like "sensationalist," "allegedly harmful" and "forced" food companies to change. The article has a slant which degrades and demeans the work of Hari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.35.97 ( talk) 12:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
New speaker: I want to second what is written above. I co-run a science and scepticism page on Facebook and she is a regular feature. This article makes her sound like a conscientious researcher who is just trying to get companies to be honest. In fact, her entire approach is dishonest. She begins with ridiculous claims built on false information, then hounds companies using these claims as PR threats, until they respond with something she can chalk up as a victory. She also deletes dissenting opinion from actual scientists from her FB page. This Wiki article needs to be deleted and written up again in a way that doesn't make Vani Hari look like a valiant crusader against corporate immorality. Because...well, she isn't! I would recommend this article as the best I have read on her yet: http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/new-yellow-journalism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.212.96 ( talk) 11:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I removed the POV tag. The preponderance of sources are either critical of her work or are simply stating the reactions of corporations. This is how the article currently reads, in my opinion. TippyGoomba ( talk) 02:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The lead to this BLP article has suddenly changed, calling her a "hoax artist" and not a "blogger." That's a major change, a serious accusation not supported by the article, and I think this needs to be reverted, asap. Anyone disagree? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The gestapo have spoken and abused their buttons it looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 ( talk) 21:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I will remove any BLP violations from this page, please keep comments and content restricted to WP:RS and WP:BLP, talk pages are not a forum Dreadstar ☥ 07:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor made an edit [2] today, 7/12/2014, regarding Vani's blog article [http://foodbabe.com/2011/10/04/should-i-get-the-flu-shot] on flu vaccines in the "Other Campaigns" section. While it is correct that Vani did not specifically state that one should not receive the flu vaccine, she heavily weighed against them and stated that she personally will not be getting one in addition to making several factually dubious claims about efficacy, side-effects, and alternatives. The editor also added unwarranted comments about the safety of vaccine ingredients without noting that adverse reactions are rare and noting that the number of people who potentially avoid illness by being vaccinated far exceeds the number of people who become ill due to a rare adverse reaction. I do not want to get into an edit war here, so I am bringing this to public attention first to see how others feel this should be worded to be more balanced and appropriate rather than just flip-flopping between the two extremes of the argument. 72.64.114.87 ( talk) 23:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
An additional note: this editor added the scare word "injections" to make vaccines sound scary and unsafe. It is colloquial to refer to them as vaccines, not injections. 72.64.114.87 ( talk) 23:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue of her claims about flu vaccinations is being discussed below, along with microwave ovens. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Given that some of Ms Hari's statements about microwave ovens are food-related, would it be acceptable to include those statements (as well as specific rebuttals from reliable sources)? DS ( talk) 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This issue (and my commentary) applies to her flu shot blog entry. She is not an expect on vaccinations. She might say she would not get a flu shot, but when she starts talking about why she would not, she goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF and into exceptional claims. If the article to limit the statement to "I would not get a flu shot", thereby removing the exceptional claims, then the statement becomes a non- WP:NOTEWORTHY item. The fact that people do not get flu shots is a WP:NOTTRIVIA item. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
As the flu shot material has been restored to the article, I've posted a thread on the issue at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SPS material for Vani Hari. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
David Gorski is an oncologist, not an expert on finances, financial motivation, or the like. Wikipedia cannot be used to restate his personal opinions as to Hari. He is an expert as to the science involving her claims, and nothing more. Adding his comments violated biography of living persons policy. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.That's not a "regular contributor", that's a "Forbes Contributor" which is not a journalistic position. It's the equivalent of Huffington Post at best, CNN iReport at worst. Not an appropriate source for negative material about living people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok I have another source for examination. http://www.alternet.org/food/food-babe-bloggers-attack-against-beer-gains-national-attention-experts-call-it-quackmail The author is a Senior Editor, http://www.alternet.org/authors/cliff-weathers. His writing focus is "covering environmental and consumer issues." According to the Wikipedia entry, Alternet ought to meet all the criteria as a Reliable Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNet. AlterNet has won multiple awards for journalism and recognitions for journalism including Webby awards (2005 winner for Magazine, 2004 Print nominee, 2003 Print nominee) and Independent Press Awards. Are there objections to this source and if so, on what basis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 23:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Edit: Gorski has specifically attacked Hari's tactics as appeals to scientific illiteracy and fearmongering, and equating her tactics against companies to blackmail while simultaneously criticizing the companies that give in to Hari's tactics:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 ( talk • contribs)
I agree that the article is not served by rhetorically disparaging the subject. The article is served by including due weight, well-sourced criticism of the subject's non-mainstream claims.
As far as Gorski goes, he's already quoted twice in this article, once calling the subject a "quack" and a second quote calling her a "malignant force". The IP is hard-pushing to have a third comment on the same page from the same blog-post calling her a "blackmailer". This is ridiculous and redundant. Gorski is not an expert on the subject's personal character, and if he wants to describe her in potentially libellous ways, he's free to take the risk, but Wikipedia doesn't repeat every unproven accusation in a BLP, regardless of how it's attributed. Many politicians have been accused of being "murderers" by random self-published experts; there's a difference between presenting criticism responsibly and adding a list of verbatim personal attacks.
As far as behaviour goes, I think the IP has been far too quick to assume bad faith on S. Rich's part, almost to the point of being disruptive. All I see are some conservative edits to reduce the current amount of BLP-non-compliant name-calling. Removing a source's rhetorical accusation that someone is a blackmailer clearly falls under the kind of contentious labelling we should avoid, no matter how narrowly we construe the word "contentious" per things like WP:CRYBLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
First, Vani Hari is an expert on nothing. Repeat, she is NOT an expert; her field, as noted in the article, is "activist." Her activism is not limited to food, though that is her primary focus; she has also extended her activism to vaccines, echoing other members of the anti-vaccination movement, and since she as an activist has taken that cause up, it can in no way be a violation of policy to note that she has done so and that others have specifically spoken against her article.
Second, even if I were to take the idea that the article is limited to food because Vani Hari is "an expert in food", which I do not, her commentary on microwave ovens specifically concerns claims that it alters the chemical composition and nutritional character of food. Her commentary about microwave ovens is therefore about food.
For Elaqueate, I would be happy to discuss merging the commentary or finding the most appropriate wording, whether quotes or otherwise, to best represent Gorski's criticisms. Do you have any suggestions on wording, or are you simply operating as a naysayer?
As a final thought experiment, what "experts" WOULD you accept giving their educated descriptions of Hari's motivations and tactics? Because I can happily go back through Gorski's work and show where he has repeatedly worked to deal directly with scientific frauds and their motivations and tactics, and as far as I am aware there is no program on the planet that grants doctorates in that field.
Why do I think Gorski IS an expert enough to make his statement? Because he is (A) a well regarded credentialed scientist, (B) a well regarded, credentialed individual who carries multiple writing positions in the field of scientific advocacy, skepticism and even has a current fellowship position with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and (C) because he is a recognized expert to speak on the infiltration of pseudoscience into health, medicine and nutrition and has been recognized as such in numerous mainstream media appearances. Thus he is eminently qualified to speak on the tactics and motivations of those who are attempting to infiltrate pseudoscience into health, medicine and nutrition such as Vani Hari.
Your response? 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 23:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
off-topic comments regarding editor behavior |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
One other question for you, Srich32977 and Eleaqueate: the Alternet article also covers the commentary by Trevor Butterworth that you discounted because he is a "contributor" to Forbes. However, Butterworth is a credentialed journalist who writes not just for Forbes but also as a credentialed journalist for Newsweek [4] and the editor and senior fellow at STATS.org Statistical Assessment Service, therefore more than expert enough to comment on the media's failures to properly vet and report on Hari's claims. What wording would satisfy you for Butterworth's commentary that the media has failed to properly report on her, to wit, "“So, when are journalists going to hold truth up to this new self-promoting juggernaut? Why have so many news stories avoided questioning her claims as they would question her targets in the food industry. Surely, someone who believes that saying “Satan,” repeatedly to a glass of water will alter the water's physical properties needs to be treated with a dash of skepticism—no?”"? 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 00:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
To both of you, Please comment on Butterworth's commentary, an experienced journalist is just the sort of expert who should be able to comment on media failures to cover her accurately. This question was not about Gorski and Butterworth has not used the term "blackmail." 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. A Wikipedia article is not the best place to add material about the non-coverage of an issue in most mainstream sources. If some of her views or one-off comments haven't received coverage in many secondary reliable sources, than neither her views nor the criticism are probably needed in an article.
As an example, if she had a blog post in 2009 that she thought leprechauns were cute, and the silence from mainstream media regarding her admission was deafening, then we wouldn't add any mention of her view or the "media failure" to address it, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. This article is not supposed to be an exhaustive catalog of all the ways you might consider her in error, whether they were covered widely or not. That's an attack page without enough concern for NPOV or DUEWEIGHT. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be an itemized list of everything a person's ever said that is incorrect; it's supposed to be a NPOV summation of what's been covered more widely. Bringing up stuff like the one-post microwave nonsense probably does more to spread those views than counteract them. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
comments about WP:3O request (which has been closed because more than 2 editors are involved) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'd like to ask for some clarification here. Elaqueate, did you intend your first commentary above to attach to the Gorski section? This needs clarification and if so, to be moved to the appropriate spot. 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 06:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
|
Srich32977, please explain your commentary removal; you removed a significant number of sources and commentary by scientists and reputed, published authors that seems wholly in line with the RS and BLP policies. Also, you left a comment stating " Not improvements (discussed)" when I cannot find any discussion you make of these quotes or sources anywhere. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.193.8 ( talk • contribs)
Srich32977, your link to "MOS:QUOTE" redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style and after manually searching for the section and reviewing it I believe the quotes are displaying correctly. If you believe they are incorrectly formatted, please explain how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 16:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
IP has been blocked, rem off-topic commentary. Dreadstar ☥ 02:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Once again to Srich32977, I request that you provide the SPECIFIC sources, phrases, and information you have a problem with. You are being needlessly pedantic, deliberately obtuse, and generally making those who deal with you have to play 20-questions games trying to figure out what you are objecting to; you are also claiming to be supported by consensus based on discussions where there was no consensus to support your rather odd views of policy. In short I believe you are deliberately dealing in violations of the WP:CIVIL policy by engaging in a series of slights and sending those who discuss with you chasing after red herrings trying to figure out what you are talking about. Once again: Please provide, in a WP:CIVIL manner the specific things you object to so that wording can be worked out and if sources need discussion, a civil and consensus-building conversation can take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 ( talk) 19:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
A lot of the commentary on here says that scientific experts aren't "experts" to comment on Hari's tactics.
How about a social media expert instead? http://zachbussey.com/is-the-food-babe-more-dangerous-than-pumpkin-spice-lattes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.188.114 ( talk) 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC) |}
In this diff [5] we have two references removed. One is by a contributor to the Forbes newsblog and the other is a piece published by the Independent Women's Forum. I submit these are not SPS and are therefor reliable sources. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hatting banned sock edits and already addressed issues. Dreadstar ☥ 04:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Conspiracy TheoristGiven that Hari is making unfounded anti-vaccine claims, along with bizarre assertions regarding microwave ovens, I've labelled her also a conspiracy theorist. Happy to discuss. Mongoletsi ( talk) 18:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal life sectionI have removed duplicate content, the section called "Personal life". Identical material appears at the top of the Career section. -- Diannaa ( talk) 17:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
chipotleI just cut the following and am pasting it here: Hari began investigating what food ingredients were used at Chipotle Mexican Grill starting in 2012. Her investigation revealed the company was using genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) in their cooking oil and trans fats in their tortillas, and that their black beans contained genetically modified soybean oil. One week after posting her investigation to Foodbabe.com, Chipotle communications director Chris Arnold requested a meeting with Hari to discuss the public disclosure of its ingredients. [1] [2] In March 2013, as a result of Hari's efforts, Chipotle published its full ingredients list on all menu items, including where Chipotle uses GMOs. [2]
Here are my issues with this:
Happy to discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 19:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Articles disappearingThe issue just got a bit more prominence for me with Drmies recent edit [6] pointing it out to me, but since it seems like articles from the FoodBabe website tend to disappear for whatever reason somewhat often, should we maybe list those ghost articles here on the talk page just for future reference? One could make the argument there's damage control going on, much less nefarious reasons, or whatever, but this seems like a topic where me might need to be wary about the potential of sources being scrubbed (regardless of the actual reason) given the controversial nature of this topic. At least this way we have a record of sources that "disappeared" so folks can attempt to find them back again if there's anything of use in them. Feel free to edit below my signature or add comments below the reference(s) on what's best to do in these instances. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Food Babe Conspiracy TheoriesThere should probably be a section here for all her conspiracy theory stuff, such as her claims that "organized industry" are trying to pay people to give negative reviews to her books or post against her on outlets like Facebook and Twitter. In fact, she should be listed as a conspiracy theorist, much like Alex Jones (radio host). Let's Have Some Science ( talk) 17:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Mass blanking of talk pageI note that Jytdog has been participating in the mass blanking of this article and now added a "bot" to blank this talk page as well. What's with that??? Let's Have Some Science ( talk) 15:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend please check out his WP article. Novella is primarily notable for his skeptic activities, which are broad and deep. thx Jytdog ( talk) 15:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
in this dif Nyttend removed discussion of David Gorski. as you can see from his WP article and all the sources there (and the source provided in this article, Gorski speaks widely about pseudoscience and quackery. That is his key notability. I reverted. pls discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 17:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note on the whole discussion above. I am about to unwatch this article, but I wanted to wish you good luck working on this very difficult subject matter. Hari is notable b/c she gets people all whipped about claims that are quackery or pseudoscience. A NPOV article on her at Wikipedia is obligated by policy ( WP:PSCI) to call a spade a spade. (And no, we cannot WP:COATRACK bad science into WP in a BLP article b/c it is a BLP. PSCI applies everywhere). Just be sure to call the claim pseudoscience or quackery, not her. Those who are not comfortable with that, should nominate this article for deletion, because without describing the nonsense she spouts, we have no article. In my view an AfD would fail which will lead folks right back here... anyway, that's all. Good luck! Jytdog ( talk) 21:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Looks like there was a revert involving the content again. [9] involving Andy Dingley and Elaqueate. The source and general content has been the article since at least November, largely survived the disputed time period as well looking at which editors objected to it. The main issue appears to be that the content is addressing Hari directly rather than her actions in terms of BLP issues. I'm not sure how much WP:PARITY would apply in this case (what do we do in terms of BLP vs. NPOV if someone really is a quack?). All that aside, instead of a blanket revert, would it be easier to just paraphrase Gorski's comment so it's not as direct? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
|