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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
In the article, in Wikivoice, "Science Babe" is bylined as "an analytical chemist and toxicologist". This is not accurate. I could call myself a "microbial ecologist", having worked in this field, but i would not use that description in a Wikipedia article if there were one about me (which there is not because i'm not notable enough). Calling her by that byline implies that she's an established and working scientist in that field, whereas she's working as a blogger/communicator and has worked tangentially in that field in the past, as far as i can glean.
Her self description: "Yvette holds a B.A. in theatre, a B.S. in chemistry, and an MSc in forensic science with a concentration in biological criminalistics. She currently runs SciBabe full time and resides in Southern California. Views expressed on this site are her own."
Description in BostInno: (questionable stretching in my reckoning, in an article that takes a side) "She holds a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, an MS in forensic science, and has worked as a toxicology chemist as well as a researcher analyzing pesticides for safety. And by using her knowledge, she has been able to challenge some of Hari’s core pseudoscientific claims."
LA Times: "31-year-old Anaheim chemist", "has a master's degree in forensics", "Recently laid off from pesticide manufacturer Amvac Chemical Corp."
SageRad ( talk) 14:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Or name alone. I see a title like "chemist" as implying an active working and somewhat established history of being one, whereas every person with a chemistry degree is not a "chemist" and more than every person with a sociology degree is a "sociologist" by common usage of the term, in common parlance, which is the language we must use in writing Wikipedia content for readers. If she's not currently working in the field and has no papers published and not much of a track record, is she a chemist, as it would be understood by readers when it's in Wikivoice? SageRad ( talk) 18:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Brustopher here removed content about Kraft although even this source which appears to be the source of the "malicious metonymy" phrase that i recall seeing in the article at one point, chalks the Kraft changes up to Hari, saying "This isn’t the first time that Hari has scored an unlikely victory over a food giant." This ABC News story headline -- Kraft Agrees to Take Yellow Dye Out of Mac and Cheese -- implies that the changes were in response to campaigns, and it also quotes the company's denial that it's in response to the campaign: "Company officials said, however, their decision was not in response to the petition that was launched on Change.org and has garnered more than 348,000 signatures." In a case like this, where to we fall? What does the article say? Does it completely omit mention of Kraft as a possibly change caused by Hari's campaign, or does it mention the campaign in a way that is non-committal about whether the campaign caused the change, or does it say that the campaign caused the change? Those seem to be the three possibilities. I feel like we're going to have to tread the middle path. SageRad ( talk) 20:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a need for clear consensus on whether or not to include Hari's subsequently deleted tweet repeating the vaccine-genocide antivax trope.
Q:: Should the tweet by Hari, stating vaccines have been "used as a genocide tool in the past" and sourced from the internet archive, [1], [2] and [3]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is disagreement as to how to represent claims of harassment by Hari and d'Entremont. The following questions would seem to summarise the possible positions:
I happen to know several of the properties she owns and I know there are pictures of them on Google StreetViewI have no words... Brustopher ( talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
A WP:SPA account has recently appeared to expand the article, Omnipum ( talk · contribs). I think the edits overall are undue, often promotional, and violate NPOV and BLP by attempting to promote Hari and her viewpoints over those from secondary sources, especially sources used to address the WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS issues here. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This diff shows the expansion fairly clearly. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The Career section is missing several career milestones that need to be updated and supplemented. Here is a short summary of the facts that need to be added to the Career section, which are all documented with mainstream media sources crediting Hari for these campaigns in my edit:
-- Omnipum ( talk) 19:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The linked sources all refer to Hari as being the instigator of change in each of these. --
Omnipum (
talk)
20:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As the article says that food experts criticized her Subway petition, it should be noted that John Coupland later clarified his statements about Hari's petition and
said he took her concerns too lightly. Also, the source doesn't support that "several" science experts "said that the level of azodicarbonamide permitted by the FDA for use in bread is too low to pose significant risk", as only two scientists are in the article - Coupland and Shelke. The revision in my edit clarifies that Coupland and Shelke stated that.
--
Omnipum (
talk)
19:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. How is it that I can't add that food science experts from EWG and CSPI supported Hari's petition, while it is allowed to state that other "several" food science experts didn't? This is unbalanced. The former should be removed then, and it belongs in the criticism section anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnipum ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've removed the new edit
[4] for the same reasons:
The experts at Environmental Working Group [1] [2] and The Center For Science In The Public Interest (CSPI) [3] [4] supported the removal of azodicarbonamide and urge against its use.
Yes. How is it that I can't add that food science experts from EWG and CSPI supported Hari's petition, while it is allowed to state that other "several" food science experts didn't? This is unbalanced. The former should be removed then, and it belongs in the criticism section anyway.--
Omnipum (
talk)
20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Who says they are experts? Have you read the discussions we've had about Nestle's interview? I'm not sure that EWG is a reliable source in this context, and it's certainly not a reliable medical source. CSPI's position appears to be misrepresented. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Looks like the link requires registration after 3 views of their website. Was able to capture a printable version of the article here:
http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Regulatory_News/2014/02/Petition_CSPI_attack_baking_us.aspx?ID={6DC46FFE-037C-43AF-9ED7-593E77974D72}&p=1
“At the very least, it should reduce the amount allowed to be used,” Ms. Lefferts said. “Chains like Subway and McDonald’s needn’t wait and should get rid of it on their own. ‘Food Babe’ blogger Vani Hari deserves credit for drawing the public’s attention to this substance.”
Biography just for informational purposes: Lisa Y. Lefferts is senior scientist at CSPI and focuses primarily on food additives. She has written a book and many articles on food safety issues. Prior to CSPI, her work consulting for non-profit organizations took her around the world, conducting trainings, representing Consumers International at Codex Alimentarius, and participating in FAO/WHO expert consultations. She has done extensive work assessing "green" label claims on various products. She also served as a Senior Editor of Environmental Health News. She received her B.A. from Oberlin College in Biology and Environmental Studies, and a Masters of Science in Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.--
Omnipum (
talk)
20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
Here's another source for CSPI:
http://www.cspinet.org/new/201402041.html
--
Omnipum (
talk)
21:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As for EWG, this is from the NPR source
already in the article - "Groups such as the Environmental Working Group argue that since it's not essential and it could pose health risks, azodicarbonamide should be removed from the food supply. "This is an unnecessary chemical that's added to bread," says EWG scientist David Andrews. And there are viable alternatives, such as ascorbic acid, which is a form of vitamin C."
--
Omnipum (
talk)
21:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you please elaborate and explain what you mean by this, as it doesn't make sense to me: "As far as CSPI is concerned, they are not overlooking the real science and neither are we. To present them in a manner that ignores the science (and their viewpoint) in the exact same way as Hari does is grossly inappropriate." -- Omnipum ( talk) 00:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm impressed with Omnipum's ability find details that we can agree upon. I hope we can continue. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to WP:COAT. It's not the best description, but I believe it makes sense in light of the discussion here: Editors trying to tie Hari's claims to actual science and actual experts. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Above, we have dialog between Ronz, Omnipum, and myself about whether to include some content from CSPI about adding azodicarbonamide to bread dough. It fits within the content, provides balance, and is definitely relevant to Hari. Above, Ronz was asked to explain their opposition further and did not, but did revert the addition of the content, with the reason "coatracking - discussed at length on talk" and yet did not discuss further here on talk to answer open questions. Ronz's original opposition was "it is now so far removed from Hari that I don't see why it belongs here" and both myself and Omnipum have replied to explain that it's actually not far removed from Hari and fits in the content of the article. Please explain yourself, Ronz. SageRad ( talk) 12:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, Ronz left this message on my talk page, which alleges that this article is under WP:ARB/PS sanctions, though i cannot find any mention of this page there. I am confused by the message. SageRad ( talk) 19:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Moving on to my next point in this paragraph RE: "NPR performed a follow up story about Hari's petition to Subway in which several food science experts said that the level of azodicarbonamide permitted by the FDA for use in bread is too low to pose significant risk.[31][32]".
I've tried to address all the concerns above. I changed the bit about CSPI to focus on their crediting Hari for drawing awareness. I moved the petition information back together (which I don't recall anyone mentioning). I added the same source used for the CSPI info to the NPR bit, and changed the wording slightly. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Brustopher here removed content about Kraft although even this source which appears to be the source of the "malicious metonymy" phrase that i recall seeing in the article at one point, chalks the Kraft changes up to Hari, saying "This isn’t the first time that Hari has scored an unlikely victory over a food giant." This ABC News story headline -- Kraft Agrees to Take Yellow Dye Out of Mac and Cheese -- implies that the changes were in response to campaigns, and it also quotes the company's denial that it's in response to the campaign: "Company officials said, however, their decision was not in response to the petition that was launched on Change.org and has garnered more than 348,000 signatures." In a case like this, where to we fall? What does the article say? Does it completely omit mention of Kraft as a possibly change caused by Hari's campaign, or does it mention the campaign in a way that is non-committal about whether the campaign caused the change, or does it say that the campaign caused the change? Those seem to be the three possibilities. I feel like we're going to have to tread the middle path. SageRad ( talk) 20:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Another source that claims Hari got Kraft to change the ingredients to Kraft Macaroni and Cheese (NPR). SageRad ( talk) 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Not all sources that credit Hari's actions for Kraft's changes are "slavishly" echoing Hari's claims. I find that absurd. Also, sources may vary, but so do the pseudoskeptic sources, as well. Those which demonize Hari also vary by quality, from pretty biased to extremely biased. Some critiques seem less biased but those are not the ones saying she's a pseudoscience purveyor. Note that the company is one side, and has a vested interested or an ideological interest in saying Hari didn't cause the change. We could state the controversy, but we should not simply accept Kraft's claim any more than Hari's claim. That is why i went to other sources to interpret the situation. SageRad ( talk) 12:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
And a further source, a New York Times article that Hari seems to be responsible for changes by various companies, but that often they will not credit her with the change for obvious reasons:
Perhaps because Ms. Hari inspires a measure of fear in companies, she is often neither mentioned nor credited with a change in practices.
Same thing other sources have been saying, as well. SageRad ( talk) 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A recent article in Food Safety News notes that Subway has announced that it's phasing out chicken and turkey raised with routine use of antibiotics, and credits Hari as part of the movement that has brought this about. Could be useful to include in this article on Hari. SageRad ( talk) 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Category was added here, and has been removed and added back.
First of all, she's a person and the article is a BLP, not an article about a theory. I scan for other person's in the list and i find Carl Baugh, a creationist. I find Fred A. Leuchter, a Holocaust denier. These are the people she's being lumped in with for calling out certain chemicals in foods that have some scientific support for being harmful, and for opposing wholesale antiobiotic use in raising animals, and for promoting diets with less sugar and more whole foods? Perhaps it's her support for the concept of toxins and detoxification that has people classifying her as pseudoscience? But these are in fact real concepts within science. Maybe it's based on some long-deleted tweet of hers about vaccination or the air in an airplane being pumped with nitrogen? Those would be considered embarrassing early mistakes, but not a systematic pushing of some kind of pseudoscience.
The guidelines for deciding whether something is pseudoscience states:
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
It seems to me that the bulk of her work is actually fairly in line with generally accepted science, and that she has a few vociferous critics who call her work "pseudoscience" but as stated in the above guideline, this does not qualify her for this category. Note that middle of the road scientists such as Dr Marion Nestle, who is in a fairly good position to judge, do not call her work pseudoscience, and merely nudge her to include more nuance in her explanations of science as well as to prioritize her focus to be more effective. That's not pseudoscience. So, i propose removing her from this category, unless a very strong and clear case can be made in accordance with the guidelines. Note that "pseudoscience" is generally seen as pejorative, so special care should be taken when applying this term to a WP:BLP. SageRad ( talk) 11:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck added the label back with edit reason of "There is no consensus to remove this and there was consensus to add it." But, there apparently was not consensus to add it, and it's been removed and reverted since its original addition. And there is apparently not consensus right now to retain it. Seems like a too forceful edit to me, in that we're discussing it here now. SageRad ( talk) 12:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see that there was an extensive discussion above on this topic, with multiple citations. I would not have removed the category had I seen this.
Having said that, many of the citations are news reports that refer to the same one or two original sources that critique her work. This is misleading. It would be much better to cite the original critiques, rather than multiple news reports of these. HGilbert ( talk) 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The page is already in Category:Diet and food fad creators. Since such fads are where Hari has been described as pseudoscientific, I just placed that category as a sub-category of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. Doing that means that this page, likewise, is in a sub-category of Advocates of pseudoscience. That, in turn, is a sub-category of Category:Pseudoscience, so I think that we can now remove the Pseudoscience category from this page. After all, a biography page should be in categories about persons (creators, advocates), not in the broader category of pseudoscience. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Probably beating a dead horse at this point, but "Perhaps it's her support for the concept of toxins and detoxification that has people classifying her as pseudoscience? But these are in fact real concepts within science." What? Detoxification (alternative medicine) is not the same thing as detoxification in medicine. Recommending someone to drink a "detox" cleanse is in fact a well notable version of pseudoscience in its purest form: presenting a concept that has not been shown according to science, but using sciencey-sounding words and concepts to promote it. (Notice detoxification (alternative medicine) within Category:Pseudoscience) Adrian [232] ( talk) 00:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Would someone be willing to present evidence that Hari promotes pseudoscientific (totally unscientific but appearing to be scientific) diets or detox regimens? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageRad ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 November 2015
Maybe it's time for an RfC on this? I have not followed this discussion very closely lately - but when I checked a few weeks ago, there were actually not a lot of reliable sources calling what Hari does "pseudoscience." IIRC it was David Gorski and Steven Novella who mentioned "pseudoscience" as editorials in their blogs. Most of the content and sources in the pseudoscience section do not actually refer to pseudoscience; it's just criticism of Hari from scientists. This is not appropriate sourcing to maintain a very derogatory/negative heading in a BLP IMO. And SageRed has raised good points that need to actually be considered and discussed rather than dismissed out of hand. Minor 4th 21:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Analysis of sources Here are the citations supporting the statement that Hari is promoting pseudoscience:
None of these are good sources for saying Hari is a pseudoscientist or "pushes pseudoscience." Minor 4th 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In brief, i think that there is a small echo chamber of closely related sources that call Hari's work "pseudoscience". We as editors must decide what are reliable sources and what are mainstream opinions. My reckoning is that there is a small group of people who have it out for Hari, and they have been trying very hard to create an echo chamber effect in the media to "take her down". This is *not* the general mainstream media reckoning of Hari. There was a bloom of critical pieces about her relatively simultaneously earlier this year. It is our task as editors of Wikipedia to discern reality from PR efforts. To make an analogy, if a small group of white supremacists were making certain claims about Obama due to a misplaced wish to take him down for his race, it would be our responsibility as editors *not* to hold what they say as legitimate just because they say it (even if they publish in sometimes-reliable publications). A piece in Elle and a piece in Gawker, and then a few other op-ed and blog pieces that echo those original "takedown" pieces do not make a full reflection of reality through reliable sources. We must be something like a weathervane here, and take more of a general reading. We would not put the Obama article in a category of "Black Nationalists" for instance, based upon a few sources who claim that to be the case. These are complex judgments of motivation and character. It is indeed a heavy judgment against someone to place them in the "pseudoscience" category. SageRad ( talk)
As I pointed out, this has all been discussed before. If we need more sources, two identified by David Gerard that I thought would be useful are: -- Ronz ( talk) 18:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
We must pay attention to quality and bias of sources. Even if there are five sources saying that X is true, if all five are biased in the same way, and the bulk other, more mainstream, sources on a topic are not saying X about the subject, then it's probably the case that the claim "X" is related to the bias. SageRad ( talk) 12:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To be absolutely clear, we are allowed to discuss sources, and we need to do so in order to create articles with integrity. There is a big difference between discussing sources, and "disparaging" people. You cannot shut down genuine dialogue about sources in this way. To do so is ridiculous. I cannot accept that, and that is not how Wikipedia works. I am obviously not talking about those authors to disparage them, but solely to discuss whether certain sources justify certain claims in Wikivoice. There's a huge difference. SageRad ( talk) 19:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, i'm not attacking the people. I'm noting a particular ideological bent shared by a small subculture of people who wrote those things. That's allowable, and even necessary to writing a good article.
Anyway, ironically relating to WP:BLPTALK, there is this in which Kingofaces43 restores text in this talk page that alleges Vani Hari's team of removing things from Google and Wayback Machine... now, i have no issue with this talk existing on this talk page, though i think it's probably not true, but this is the nature of the double standard being pushed here on this talk page when people try to prohibit me from talking about the nature of the sources that most vitriolically attack Hari. I support that edit by Kingofaces43, and i hope you all see that on talk pages we can talk about sources frankly. SageRad ( talk) 12:11, 16 November 2015 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
In the article, in Wikivoice, "Science Babe" is bylined as "an analytical chemist and toxicologist". This is not accurate. I could call myself a "microbial ecologist", having worked in this field, but i would not use that description in a Wikipedia article if there were one about me (which there is not because i'm not notable enough). Calling her by that byline implies that she's an established and working scientist in that field, whereas she's working as a blogger/communicator and has worked tangentially in that field in the past, as far as i can glean.
Her self description: "Yvette holds a B.A. in theatre, a B.S. in chemistry, and an MSc in forensic science with a concentration in biological criminalistics. She currently runs SciBabe full time and resides in Southern California. Views expressed on this site are her own."
Description in BostInno: (questionable stretching in my reckoning, in an article that takes a side) "She holds a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, an MS in forensic science, and has worked as a toxicology chemist as well as a researcher analyzing pesticides for safety. And by using her knowledge, she has been able to challenge some of Hari’s core pseudoscientific claims."
LA Times: "31-year-old Anaheim chemist", "has a master's degree in forensics", "Recently laid off from pesticide manufacturer Amvac Chemical Corp."
SageRad ( talk) 14:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Or name alone. I see a title like "chemist" as implying an active working and somewhat established history of being one, whereas every person with a chemistry degree is not a "chemist" and more than every person with a sociology degree is a "sociologist" by common usage of the term, in common parlance, which is the language we must use in writing Wikipedia content for readers. If she's not currently working in the field and has no papers published and not much of a track record, is she a chemist, as it would be understood by readers when it's in Wikivoice? SageRad ( talk) 18:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Brustopher here removed content about Kraft although even this source which appears to be the source of the "malicious metonymy" phrase that i recall seeing in the article at one point, chalks the Kraft changes up to Hari, saying "This isn’t the first time that Hari has scored an unlikely victory over a food giant." This ABC News story headline -- Kraft Agrees to Take Yellow Dye Out of Mac and Cheese -- implies that the changes were in response to campaigns, and it also quotes the company's denial that it's in response to the campaign: "Company officials said, however, their decision was not in response to the petition that was launched on Change.org and has garnered more than 348,000 signatures." In a case like this, where to we fall? What does the article say? Does it completely omit mention of Kraft as a possibly change caused by Hari's campaign, or does it mention the campaign in a way that is non-committal about whether the campaign caused the change, or does it say that the campaign caused the change? Those seem to be the three possibilities. I feel like we're going to have to tread the middle path. SageRad ( talk) 20:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a need for clear consensus on whether or not to include Hari's subsequently deleted tweet repeating the vaccine-genocide antivax trope.
Q:: Should the tweet by Hari, stating vaccines have been "used as a genocide tool in the past" and sourced from the internet archive, [1], [2] and [3]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is disagreement as to how to represent claims of harassment by Hari and d'Entremont. The following questions would seem to summarise the possible positions:
I happen to know several of the properties she owns and I know there are pictures of them on Google StreetViewI have no words... Brustopher ( talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
A WP:SPA account has recently appeared to expand the article, Omnipum ( talk · contribs). I think the edits overall are undue, often promotional, and violate NPOV and BLP by attempting to promote Hari and her viewpoints over those from secondary sources, especially sources used to address the WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS issues here. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This diff shows the expansion fairly clearly. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The Career section is missing several career milestones that need to be updated and supplemented. Here is a short summary of the facts that need to be added to the Career section, which are all documented with mainstream media sources crediting Hari for these campaigns in my edit:
-- Omnipum ( talk) 19:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The linked sources all refer to Hari as being the instigator of change in each of these. --
Omnipum (
talk)
20:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As the article says that food experts criticized her Subway petition, it should be noted that John Coupland later clarified his statements about Hari's petition and
said he took her concerns too lightly. Also, the source doesn't support that "several" science experts "said that the level of azodicarbonamide permitted by the FDA for use in bread is too low to pose significant risk", as only two scientists are in the article - Coupland and Shelke. The revision in my edit clarifies that Coupland and Shelke stated that.
--
Omnipum (
talk)
19:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. How is it that I can't add that food science experts from EWG and CSPI supported Hari's petition, while it is allowed to state that other "several" food science experts didn't? This is unbalanced. The former should be removed then, and it belongs in the criticism section anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnipum ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've removed the new edit
[4] for the same reasons:
The experts at Environmental Working Group [1] [2] and The Center For Science In The Public Interest (CSPI) [3] [4] supported the removal of azodicarbonamide and urge against its use.
Yes. How is it that I can't add that food science experts from EWG and CSPI supported Hari's petition, while it is allowed to state that other "several" food science experts didn't? This is unbalanced. The former should be removed then, and it belongs in the criticism section anyway.--
Omnipum (
talk)
20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Who says they are experts? Have you read the discussions we've had about Nestle's interview? I'm not sure that EWG is a reliable source in this context, and it's certainly not a reliable medical source. CSPI's position appears to be misrepresented. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Looks like the link requires registration after 3 views of their website. Was able to capture a printable version of the article here:
http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Regulatory_News/2014/02/Petition_CSPI_attack_baking_us.aspx?ID={6DC46FFE-037C-43AF-9ED7-593E77974D72}&p=1
“At the very least, it should reduce the amount allowed to be used,” Ms. Lefferts said. “Chains like Subway and McDonald’s needn’t wait and should get rid of it on their own. ‘Food Babe’ blogger Vani Hari deserves credit for drawing the public’s attention to this substance.”
Biography just for informational purposes: Lisa Y. Lefferts is senior scientist at CSPI and focuses primarily on food additives. She has written a book and many articles on food safety issues. Prior to CSPI, her work consulting for non-profit organizations took her around the world, conducting trainings, representing Consumers International at Codex Alimentarius, and participating in FAO/WHO expert consultations. She has done extensive work assessing "green" label claims on various products. She also served as a Senior Editor of Environmental Health News. She received her B.A. from Oberlin College in Biology and Environmental Studies, and a Masters of Science in Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.--
Omnipum (
talk)
20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
Here's another source for CSPI:
http://www.cspinet.org/new/201402041.html
--
Omnipum (
talk)
21:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As for EWG, this is from the NPR source
already in the article - "Groups such as the Environmental Working Group argue that since it's not essential and it could pose health risks, azodicarbonamide should be removed from the food supply. "This is an unnecessary chemical that's added to bread," says EWG scientist David Andrews. And there are viable alternatives, such as ascorbic acid, which is a form of vitamin C."
--
Omnipum (
talk)
21:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you please elaborate and explain what you mean by this, as it doesn't make sense to me: "As far as CSPI is concerned, they are not overlooking the real science and neither are we. To present them in a manner that ignores the science (and their viewpoint) in the exact same way as Hari does is grossly inappropriate." -- Omnipum ( talk) 00:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm impressed with Omnipum's ability find details that we can agree upon. I hope we can continue. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to WP:COAT. It's not the best description, but I believe it makes sense in light of the discussion here: Editors trying to tie Hari's claims to actual science and actual experts. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Above, we have dialog between Ronz, Omnipum, and myself about whether to include some content from CSPI about adding azodicarbonamide to bread dough. It fits within the content, provides balance, and is definitely relevant to Hari. Above, Ronz was asked to explain their opposition further and did not, but did revert the addition of the content, with the reason "coatracking - discussed at length on talk" and yet did not discuss further here on talk to answer open questions. Ronz's original opposition was "it is now so far removed from Hari that I don't see why it belongs here" and both myself and Omnipum have replied to explain that it's actually not far removed from Hari and fits in the content of the article. Please explain yourself, Ronz. SageRad ( talk) 12:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, Ronz left this message on my talk page, which alleges that this article is under WP:ARB/PS sanctions, though i cannot find any mention of this page there. I am confused by the message. SageRad ( talk) 19:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Moving on to my next point in this paragraph RE: "NPR performed a follow up story about Hari's petition to Subway in which several food science experts said that the level of azodicarbonamide permitted by the FDA for use in bread is too low to pose significant risk.[31][32]".
I've tried to address all the concerns above. I changed the bit about CSPI to focus on their crediting Hari for drawing awareness. I moved the petition information back together (which I don't recall anyone mentioning). I added the same source used for the CSPI info to the NPR bit, and changed the wording slightly. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Brustopher here removed content about Kraft although even this source which appears to be the source of the "malicious metonymy" phrase that i recall seeing in the article at one point, chalks the Kraft changes up to Hari, saying "This isn’t the first time that Hari has scored an unlikely victory over a food giant." This ABC News story headline -- Kraft Agrees to Take Yellow Dye Out of Mac and Cheese -- implies that the changes were in response to campaigns, and it also quotes the company's denial that it's in response to the campaign: "Company officials said, however, their decision was not in response to the petition that was launched on Change.org and has garnered more than 348,000 signatures." In a case like this, where to we fall? What does the article say? Does it completely omit mention of Kraft as a possibly change caused by Hari's campaign, or does it mention the campaign in a way that is non-committal about whether the campaign caused the change, or does it say that the campaign caused the change? Those seem to be the three possibilities. I feel like we're going to have to tread the middle path. SageRad ( talk) 20:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Another source that claims Hari got Kraft to change the ingredients to Kraft Macaroni and Cheese (NPR). SageRad ( talk) 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Not all sources that credit Hari's actions for Kraft's changes are "slavishly" echoing Hari's claims. I find that absurd. Also, sources may vary, but so do the pseudoskeptic sources, as well. Those which demonize Hari also vary by quality, from pretty biased to extremely biased. Some critiques seem less biased but those are not the ones saying she's a pseudoscience purveyor. Note that the company is one side, and has a vested interested or an ideological interest in saying Hari didn't cause the change. We could state the controversy, but we should not simply accept Kraft's claim any more than Hari's claim. That is why i went to other sources to interpret the situation. SageRad ( talk) 12:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
And a further source, a New York Times article that Hari seems to be responsible for changes by various companies, but that often they will not credit her with the change for obvious reasons:
Perhaps because Ms. Hari inspires a measure of fear in companies, she is often neither mentioned nor credited with a change in practices.
Same thing other sources have been saying, as well. SageRad ( talk) 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
A recent article in Food Safety News notes that Subway has announced that it's phasing out chicken and turkey raised with routine use of antibiotics, and credits Hari as part of the movement that has brought this about. Could be useful to include in this article on Hari. SageRad ( talk) 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Category was added here, and has been removed and added back.
First of all, she's a person and the article is a BLP, not an article about a theory. I scan for other person's in the list and i find Carl Baugh, a creationist. I find Fred A. Leuchter, a Holocaust denier. These are the people she's being lumped in with for calling out certain chemicals in foods that have some scientific support for being harmful, and for opposing wholesale antiobiotic use in raising animals, and for promoting diets with less sugar and more whole foods? Perhaps it's her support for the concept of toxins and detoxification that has people classifying her as pseudoscience? But these are in fact real concepts within science. Maybe it's based on some long-deleted tweet of hers about vaccination or the air in an airplane being pumped with nitrogen? Those would be considered embarrassing early mistakes, but not a systematic pushing of some kind of pseudoscience.
The guidelines for deciding whether something is pseudoscience states:
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
It seems to me that the bulk of her work is actually fairly in line with generally accepted science, and that she has a few vociferous critics who call her work "pseudoscience" but as stated in the above guideline, this does not qualify her for this category. Note that middle of the road scientists such as Dr Marion Nestle, who is in a fairly good position to judge, do not call her work pseudoscience, and merely nudge her to include more nuance in her explanations of science as well as to prioritize her focus to be more effective. That's not pseudoscience. So, i propose removing her from this category, unless a very strong and clear case can be made in accordance with the guidelines. Note that "pseudoscience" is generally seen as pejorative, so special care should be taken when applying this term to a WP:BLP. SageRad ( talk) 11:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck added the label back with edit reason of "There is no consensus to remove this and there was consensus to add it." But, there apparently was not consensus to add it, and it's been removed and reverted since its original addition. And there is apparently not consensus right now to retain it. Seems like a too forceful edit to me, in that we're discussing it here now. SageRad ( talk) 12:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see that there was an extensive discussion above on this topic, with multiple citations. I would not have removed the category had I seen this.
Having said that, many of the citations are news reports that refer to the same one or two original sources that critique her work. This is misleading. It would be much better to cite the original critiques, rather than multiple news reports of these. HGilbert ( talk) 17:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The page is already in Category:Diet and food fad creators. Since such fads are where Hari has been described as pseudoscientific, I just placed that category as a sub-category of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. Doing that means that this page, likewise, is in a sub-category of Advocates of pseudoscience. That, in turn, is a sub-category of Category:Pseudoscience, so I think that we can now remove the Pseudoscience category from this page. After all, a biography page should be in categories about persons (creators, advocates), not in the broader category of pseudoscience. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Probably beating a dead horse at this point, but "Perhaps it's her support for the concept of toxins and detoxification that has people classifying her as pseudoscience? But these are in fact real concepts within science." What? Detoxification (alternative medicine) is not the same thing as detoxification in medicine. Recommending someone to drink a "detox" cleanse is in fact a well notable version of pseudoscience in its purest form: presenting a concept that has not been shown according to science, but using sciencey-sounding words and concepts to promote it. (Notice detoxification (alternative medicine) within Category:Pseudoscience) Adrian [232] ( talk) 00:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Would someone be willing to present evidence that Hari promotes pseudoscientific (totally unscientific but appearing to be scientific) diets or detox regimens? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageRad ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 7 November 2015
Maybe it's time for an RfC on this? I have not followed this discussion very closely lately - but when I checked a few weeks ago, there were actually not a lot of reliable sources calling what Hari does "pseudoscience." IIRC it was David Gorski and Steven Novella who mentioned "pseudoscience" as editorials in their blogs. Most of the content and sources in the pseudoscience section do not actually refer to pseudoscience; it's just criticism of Hari from scientists. This is not appropriate sourcing to maintain a very derogatory/negative heading in a BLP IMO. And SageRed has raised good points that need to actually be considered and discussed rather than dismissed out of hand. Minor 4th 21:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Analysis of sources Here are the citations supporting the statement that Hari is promoting pseudoscience:
None of these are good sources for saying Hari is a pseudoscientist or "pushes pseudoscience." Minor 4th 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In brief, i think that there is a small echo chamber of closely related sources that call Hari's work "pseudoscience". We as editors must decide what are reliable sources and what are mainstream opinions. My reckoning is that there is a small group of people who have it out for Hari, and they have been trying very hard to create an echo chamber effect in the media to "take her down". This is *not* the general mainstream media reckoning of Hari. There was a bloom of critical pieces about her relatively simultaneously earlier this year. It is our task as editors of Wikipedia to discern reality from PR efforts. To make an analogy, if a small group of white supremacists were making certain claims about Obama due to a misplaced wish to take him down for his race, it would be our responsibility as editors *not* to hold what they say as legitimate just because they say it (even if they publish in sometimes-reliable publications). A piece in Elle and a piece in Gawker, and then a few other op-ed and blog pieces that echo those original "takedown" pieces do not make a full reflection of reality through reliable sources. We must be something like a weathervane here, and take more of a general reading. We would not put the Obama article in a category of "Black Nationalists" for instance, based upon a few sources who claim that to be the case. These are complex judgments of motivation and character. It is indeed a heavy judgment against someone to place them in the "pseudoscience" category. SageRad ( talk)
As I pointed out, this has all been discussed before. If we need more sources, two identified by David Gerard that I thought would be useful are: -- Ronz ( talk) 18:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
We must pay attention to quality and bias of sources. Even if there are five sources saying that X is true, if all five are biased in the same way, and the bulk other, more mainstream, sources on a topic are not saying X about the subject, then it's probably the case that the claim "X" is related to the bias. SageRad ( talk) 12:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To be absolutely clear, we are allowed to discuss sources, and we need to do so in order to create articles with integrity. There is a big difference between discussing sources, and "disparaging" people. You cannot shut down genuine dialogue about sources in this way. To do so is ridiculous. I cannot accept that, and that is not how Wikipedia works. I am obviously not talking about those authors to disparage them, but solely to discuss whether certain sources justify certain claims in Wikivoice. There's a huge difference. SageRad ( talk) 19:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, i'm not attacking the people. I'm noting a particular ideological bent shared by a small subculture of people who wrote those things. That's allowable, and even necessary to writing a good article.
Anyway, ironically relating to WP:BLPTALK, there is this in which Kingofaces43 restores text in this talk page that alleges Vani Hari's team of removing things from Google and Wayback Machine... now, i have no issue with this talk existing on this talk page, though i think it's probably not true, but this is the nature of the double standard being pushed here on this talk page when people try to prohibit me from talking about the nature of the sources that most vitriolically attack Hari. I support that edit by Kingofaces43, and i hope you all see that on talk pages we can talk about sources frankly. SageRad ( talk) 12:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)