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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I want to raise the issue that
Gawker as not a
reliable source on Wikipedia.
1. Gawker has been deemed an unreliable source several times in the past on the WP:IRS Noticeboard, and described as a tabloid, gossip site, and clickbait:
2. Gawker is a blog with questionable editorial oversight. They admit that they do not fact check their articles:
“Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.” WP:QUESTIONABLE “Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.” Omnipum ( talk) 00:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I too agree with Adrian, the source is fine. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 21:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Yvette d'Entremont, science writer and former analytical chemist, writing for Gawker, criticized the lack of scientific support for Hari's claims, and described her writing as "the worst assault on science on the internet".Gawker is reliable for verifying an author's identity, so we can be sure d'Entremont wrote it and that her writing met their editorial standards. The rest of it are facts that are all verifiable using the source provided, as they are attributed directly to d'Entremont. You can feel free to ask the great people over at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but they will tell you essentially what we are telling you here. Adrian [232] 21:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I notice from recent email shots that Hari has been putting out that she has started to acknowledge (quietly) that organic produce DOES use pesticides. Further, she has said a number of times that "processed" sugar is bad for people. This is devious (not to mention lying by obfuscation or omission) by implying that what she's selling/promoting is OK. In regards to pesticides she has used the qualifier "synthetic" to imply that synthetic is automatically "bad" (the opposite is true in many, but not all cases) although synthetics are usually cheaper/more cost effective a cost which is passed to the consumer. Sugar (primarily sucrose but also as HFCS) is a serious issue for Americans in particular but also to many people in the developed world. Hari has repeatedly suggested that organic and alternative forms of (sucrose primarily) are somehow superior. This is completely bogus as the extra micro-nutrients while detectable, are in amounts too small to have any benefit. I think it's well known that I am pro-science and a vocal campaigner against Hari and her ilk, therefore, I wonder if someone else would make these notes as I might be seen as biased? The only citations I have are from her emails but I expect she has made similar claims on her website and other marketing materials. Smidoid ( talk) 19:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I recently removed category:pseudoscience from this article, a change for which I gave a good and clear reason ("the category is for topics or theories that are pseudoscience; a person is not a pseudoscience theory"). My edit was reverted by David Gerard, without an edit summary or explanation. I do not find this acceptable. The category page states that, "This category comprises well-known topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)." A person is not a pseudoscientific topic. It should be obvious that while a different category might be appropriate, "category:pseudoscience" is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think for articles on living persons we should not be using blogs. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
After reviewing the past discussions ( Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_7#I.27m_an_investigator_quote and Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_7#Hari_response_to_criticisms), I don't see any consensus for inclusion. She claims all sorts of things. Much of what she claims is demonstrably wrong. Almost all of what she claims is part of her efforts to market herself. I think the quote falls in the latter category, and has no value in an encyclopedia article. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's the context in the source: [3]
Because, Gorski writes, "companies live and die by public perception. It's far easier to give a blackmailer like Hari what she wants than to try to resist or to counter her propaganda by educating the public."
Critics note that Hari lacks credentials in nutrition or food science; she's a former consultant who studied computer science. Hari declined to be interviewed for this story; through her publicist, she told NPR she isn't speaking to media until her new book is released in February. But when the Charlotte Observer asked her about such criticisms, Hari answered, "I've never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator."
But that lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition and health, says Kevin Folta, a professor of horticultural sciences at the University of Florida and vocal online critic of Hari. "She really conflates the science," he tells The Salt.
The context in the Charlotte Observer article is: [4]
“Anytime you challenge powerful entities in the food industry, you’re going to get blowback,” he says. “You’re going to be countered by science, or they’re going to engage in what I refer to as the politics of hate and division. They’re going to attempt to discredit you.”
What does Hari say about charges of mistakes? “I’ve never claimed to be a nutritionist,” she says. “I’m an investigator.”
However, many of Hari’s critics aren’t from the food industry. They’re academics who say they’re disturbed by errors in how she explains science.
It's a meaningless response from Hari as I read both sources. It's a diversion rather than a substantial response. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is the reordered version that I tried to implement, before it was reverted:
Hari is a former management consultant who has a degree in computer science, and has no expertise in nutrition or food science. In response to criticisms that she lacks training in these fields, Hari has stated, "I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator."[45] According to horticultural scientist Kevin Folta, however, Hari's lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition, and health.[45][63]
I really don't think that there's a problem with her quote when it is presented in this way. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Why include it at all - what specific portion of policy are editors interpreting to mean that we should include content such as this?A response to this seems a necessity to develop any policy-based consensus. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that consensus is moving in the direction of including the quote, but a few editors are holding out for excluding. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
An advocate would be pleased her opinion was being included...That's why we shouldn't include it. It can be interpreted multiple ways. If we can't give it proper context and clear meaning, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, certainly not a BLP. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I decided to look at the sources some more, to see if there is a way to help get agreement. At the moment, the section actually does not cite the Charlotte Observer source that also discussed the quote: [5]. We should cite it along with the NPR source that has the quote as well as Folta's response: [6]. But the Charlotte paper has another rebuttal, from Joseph A. Schwarcz, who is cited for something else lower on the page, and I think it would be good to include that too, because he is talking specifically about her lack of science education. So I now propose:
Hari is a former management consultant who has a degree in computer science, and has no expertise in nutrition or food science. [1] In response to criticisms that she lacks training in these fields, Hari has stated, "I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator." [2] [3] According to horticultural scientist Kevin Folta, however, Hari's lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition, and health. [2] Chemist Joseph A. Schwarcz also criticizes her lack of scientific knowledge, saying: "It isn't hard to deconstruct her arguments. Most of them are so silly. Her basic tenet is guilt by association." [3]
References
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
BLP points us to presenting the statements and opinions of the BLP subject when the BLP subject is involved in controversyI don't know what part of BLP you are interpreting to support this.
Hari's consistently stated response to such concerns isis original research, as I detailed in my response. I assume you meant, "Hari's consistently stated response to such concerns is 'I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator.'" My point is that it is not a consistent response from her. It is a one-time response. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, Tryptofish, for pointing to WP:BLP#Balance which begins, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."
We agree that we have reliable secondary sources. I hope it is safe to assume the tone is fine. What's left is "responsibly, conservatively" I don't see how it is responsible and conservative to present it at all given it's ambiguity and being a non-answer. I think we're much to close to WP:BLP#Balance's, "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."
The reason that I brought up more academically written sources, "You'd never see such content in an academic article, at least not without commentary specifically removing any ambiguity." [8], is to point out that the news sources we are using have other interests to serve, and better sources simply wouldn't have such content without removing the ambiguity. The Charlotte Observer is covering Hari as a local food activist and food-world celebrity. Because Hari declined an interview with NPR, they used the quote from the Observer. Eventually, we'll have the more academic sources, and they won't include such information without commentary, if at all. This ties directly to that last paragraph of BLP#Balance, "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies." -- Ronz ( talk) 18:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It's "responsible" to include her quote, because it's reliably sourced as what she says.It is what she said once. How can it possibly be responsible (and conservative) to include ambiguous information, let alone material so ambiguous that it would not be included in a better source without context, if at all?
Presenting what her critics say, while excluding what she says, fails the requirement of balance.Not in any way, but that's your argument, correct? It more important that we have a quote from her than if it has any meaning, than we care about the information quality? That's false balance. Note that we have other content about how she responds, we can expand upon that, and this quote in no way clarifies or summaries her responses. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The "Advocates of pseudoscience" cat states "This is a container category, which must not include articles." I think this cat is the wrong cat. The cat "People accused of pseudoscience" is a better fit. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates or Category:Pseudoscientific diet promoters works for me. I could not think of any other names for the cat. User:Tryptofish, you can decide which name is best. Both are good names. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see #Result of CfD. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
We can create Category:Proponents of pseudoscience. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
She did not create diets. She promotes dieting. Read User:Roxy the dog's comment. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
At long last, the CfD has been closed, with the result that the "creators" and "promoters" categories have been combined into a single Category:Diet food advocates. So, that leads us to deciding what to do for pages like this one, that are currently within the category. I think the best thing to do is to create a subcategory of the new category, that will also be a subcategory of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, and call it Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates. It would include Hari and several similar persons. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the two sources I brought up [9], as well as her own response, here's another that explains in detail how she responds, with multiple examples [10] ( Apr. 10, 2015)
Her response to the storm of criticisms over foolish articles was to “delete and deny”.
Ms. Hari has written responses to the New York Times, and to Gawker, but instead of demonstrating any remorse at her mistakes, or attempts to educate her followers as to how to avoid making similar mistakes, she attacks her critics as being “biased” (in the case of the NYT reporter), or a shill of the chemical or food industry (in the case of Orac, Steve Novella, Fergus Clydesdale, Joseph Schwarcz, and Yvette d’Entremont), and then utterly fails to actually address their criticisms in any substantive way.
Given her position of prominence and influence among many people seeking to improve their health through better eating, this refusal to acknowledge her own mistakes, or to engage seriously with criticisms of her message is very troubling. It is not consistent with a genuine attempt to educate her “Food Babe Army” to become independent, critical thinkers. Instead it is defensive, and smacks of spin…along with her heavy handed scrubbing of comments and banning of critics on her Facebook page.
Why does she take this approach, instead of owning up to her mistakes and trying to improve her understanding of nutrition and science? I fear that it is because she has a significant financial interest in continuing to pander to the pseudoscience community. She receives money from diverse sources, including book sales, speaking fees, andaffiliate links and advertisements for supplements that she recommends. Her “brand” is stunningly successful, and for her to admit that she was wrong about anything–or to accept any kind of criticism–would be to undermine that brand. Pseudoscience sells.
Viewed in that light, her tactics make rational (if ethically questionable) sense.
Given the two other sources, we have plenty to draw upon to present her responses in a neutral and encyclopedic manner, rather than using a meaningless quote about her claiming to be an investigator. I'm going to look for further sources documenting her responses. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
As for those credentials, Ms. Hari said that chemistry shouldn’t be necessary to decipher what to eat. She pointed out that her undergraduate major was actually in the College of Engineering at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, so she took “hard science, oh my gosh, Physics 3, Calculus 3.” Asked how she liked them, she said, “I mean, who likes those?”
Ms. Hari, however, dismissed this criticism as manufactured by “the processed food lobby” and “industry-funded science.” She sees herself as an activist and 21st-century Upton Sinclair (her reference) who provides information that “could be a lifesaver,” which is what she wrote in a widely mocked post, now deleted, that demonized the microwave oven for destroying nutrients and causing cancer.
But when I ask Hari why she thinks she is criticized so much, her answer is once again polished, immediate, and ardent. "A lot of comments are coming from people that don't want to attack my ideas, they want to attack me as an individual, because they don't want to reduce the amount of chemicals in our world," she says. "They're pro-chemical. Instead of supporting the consumer, they're food companies and chemical advocates. But people are learning for themselves that you don't have to be a nutritionist or scientist to know how to eat, and if you should, that's kind of a problem."
That response speaks to the very core of Hari's philosophy: You don't need a degree to eat healthfully, she says—and you shouldn't place your full trust in scientists, nutritionists, or regulatory bodies, either.
I've started a list of current and potential sources on the topic below, with short quotes for context. Please add any others. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I've never said I was a scientist or a nutritionist," but "I don't think you need to have those degrees to be intellectually honest, to be able to research, to be able to present ideas."
Hari says she is simply trying to help people understand what’s in their food and hold companies accountable. She says she has researched her critics and that they attack anyone who opposes alternative nutrition.
Ms. Hari said that chemistry shouldn’t be necessary to decipher what to eat.
Rather than responding factually and with data and reason, she resorted to ad hominem attacks on her critics.
You don't need a degree to eat healthfully, she says—and you shouldn't place your full trust in scientists, nutritionists, or regulatory bodies, either.
Others call out her lack of scientific education, her sensational presentation of issues, her consistently pejorative use of the word "chemical," and her silencing of critics. These we can't exactly dispute.-- Ronz ( talk) 15:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Some attacks (like the ones captured here) are based solely upon Hari's gender or appearance—and they deserve little mention other than a resounding condemnation. Others call out her lack of scientific education, her sensational presentation of issues, her consistently pejorative use of the word "chemical," and her silencing of critics. These we can't exactly dispute.
Her response to the storm of criticisms over foolish articles was to “delete and deny”.
Unfortunately, many of the critics out there, their sole purpose is only to criticize.
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I want to raise the issue that
Gawker as not a
reliable source on Wikipedia.
1. Gawker has been deemed an unreliable source several times in the past on the WP:IRS Noticeboard, and described as a tabloid, gossip site, and clickbait:
2. Gawker is a blog with questionable editorial oversight. They admit that they do not fact check their articles:
“Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.” WP:QUESTIONABLE “Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.” Omnipum ( talk) 00:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I too agree with Adrian, the source is fine. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 21:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Yvette d'Entremont, science writer and former analytical chemist, writing for Gawker, criticized the lack of scientific support for Hari's claims, and described her writing as "the worst assault on science on the internet".Gawker is reliable for verifying an author's identity, so we can be sure d'Entremont wrote it and that her writing met their editorial standards. The rest of it are facts that are all verifiable using the source provided, as they are attributed directly to d'Entremont. You can feel free to ask the great people over at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but they will tell you essentially what we are telling you here. Adrian [232] 21:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I notice from recent email shots that Hari has been putting out that she has started to acknowledge (quietly) that organic produce DOES use pesticides. Further, she has said a number of times that "processed" sugar is bad for people. This is devious (not to mention lying by obfuscation or omission) by implying that what she's selling/promoting is OK. In regards to pesticides she has used the qualifier "synthetic" to imply that synthetic is automatically "bad" (the opposite is true in many, but not all cases) although synthetics are usually cheaper/more cost effective a cost which is passed to the consumer. Sugar (primarily sucrose but also as HFCS) is a serious issue for Americans in particular but also to many people in the developed world. Hari has repeatedly suggested that organic and alternative forms of (sucrose primarily) are somehow superior. This is completely bogus as the extra micro-nutrients while detectable, are in amounts too small to have any benefit. I think it's well known that I am pro-science and a vocal campaigner against Hari and her ilk, therefore, I wonder if someone else would make these notes as I might be seen as biased? The only citations I have are from her emails but I expect she has made similar claims on her website and other marketing materials. Smidoid ( talk) 19:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I recently removed category:pseudoscience from this article, a change for which I gave a good and clear reason ("the category is for topics or theories that are pseudoscience; a person is not a pseudoscience theory"). My edit was reverted by David Gerard, without an edit summary or explanation. I do not find this acceptable. The category page states that, "This category comprises well-known topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)." A person is not a pseudoscientific topic. It should be obvious that while a different category might be appropriate, "category:pseudoscience" is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think for articles on living persons we should not be using blogs. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
After reviewing the past discussions ( Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_7#I.27m_an_investigator_quote and Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_7#Hari_response_to_criticisms), I don't see any consensus for inclusion. She claims all sorts of things. Much of what she claims is demonstrably wrong. Almost all of what she claims is part of her efforts to market herself. I think the quote falls in the latter category, and has no value in an encyclopedia article. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's the context in the source: [3]
Because, Gorski writes, "companies live and die by public perception. It's far easier to give a blackmailer like Hari what she wants than to try to resist or to counter her propaganda by educating the public."
Critics note that Hari lacks credentials in nutrition or food science; she's a former consultant who studied computer science. Hari declined to be interviewed for this story; through her publicist, she told NPR she isn't speaking to media until her new book is released in February. But when the Charlotte Observer asked her about such criticisms, Hari answered, "I've never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator."
But that lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition and health, says Kevin Folta, a professor of horticultural sciences at the University of Florida and vocal online critic of Hari. "She really conflates the science," he tells The Salt.
The context in the Charlotte Observer article is: [4]
“Anytime you challenge powerful entities in the food industry, you’re going to get blowback,” he says. “You’re going to be countered by science, or they’re going to engage in what I refer to as the politics of hate and division. They’re going to attempt to discredit you.”
What does Hari say about charges of mistakes? “I’ve never claimed to be a nutritionist,” she says. “I’m an investigator.”
However, many of Hari’s critics aren’t from the food industry. They’re academics who say they’re disturbed by errors in how she explains science.
It's a meaningless response from Hari as I read both sources. It's a diversion rather than a substantial response. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is the reordered version that I tried to implement, before it was reverted:
Hari is a former management consultant who has a degree in computer science, and has no expertise in nutrition or food science. In response to criticisms that she lacks training in these fields, Hari has stated, "I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator."[45] According to horticultural scientist Kevin Folta, however, Hari's lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition, and health.[45][63]
I really don't think that there's a problem with her quote when it is presented in this way. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Why include it at all - what specific portion of policy are editors interpreting to mean that we should include content such as this?A response to this seems a necessity to develop any policy-based consensus. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that consensus is moving in the direction of including the quote, but a few editors are holding out for excluding. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
An advocate would be pleased her opinion was being included...That's why we shouldn't include it. It can be interpreted multiple ways. If we can't give it proper context and clear meaning, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, certainly not a BLP. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I decided to look at the sources some more, to see if there is a way to help get agreement. At the moment, the section actually does not cite the Charlotte Observer source that also discussed the quote: [5]. We should cite it along with the NPR source that has the quote as well as Folta's response: [6]. But the Charlotte paper has another rebuttal, from Joseph A. Schwarcz, who is cited for something else lower on the page, and I think it would be good to include that too, because he is talking specifically about her lack of science education. So I now propose:
Hari is a former management consultant who has a degree in computer science, and has no expertise in nutrition or food science. [1] In response to criticisms that she lacks training in these fields, Hari has stated, "I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator." [2] [3] According to horticultural scientist Kevin Folta, however, Hari's lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition, and health. [2] Chemist Joseph A. Schwarcz also criticizes her lack of scientific knowledge, saying: "It isn't hard to deconstruct her arguments. Most of them are so silly. Her basic tenet is guilt by association." [3]
References
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
BLP points us to presenting the statements and opinions of the BLP subject when the BLP subject is involved in controversyI don't know what part of BLP you are interpreting to support this.
Hari's consistently stated response to such concerns isis original research, as I detailed in my response. I assume you meant, "Hari's consistently stated response to such concerns is 'I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator.'" My point is that it is not a consistent response from her. It is a one-time response. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, Tryptofish, for pointing to WP:BLP#Balance which begins, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."
We agree that we have reliable secondary sources. I hope it is safe to assume the tone is fine. What's left is "responsibly, conservatively" I don't see how it is responsible and conservative to present it at all given it's ambiguity and being a non-answer. I think we're much to close to WP:BLP#Balance's, "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."
The reason that I brought up more academically written sources, "You'd never see such content in an academic article, at least not without commentary specifically removing any ambiguity." [8], is to point out that the news sources we are using have other interests to serve, and better sources simply wouldn't have such content without removing the ambiguity. The Charlotte Observer is covering Hari as a local food activist and food-world celebrity. Because Hari declined an interview with NPR, they used the quote from the Observer. Eventually, we'll have the more academic sources, and they won't include such information without commentary, if at all. This ties directly to that last paragraph of BLP#Balance, "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies." -- Ronz ( talk) 18:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It's "responsible" to include her quote, because it's reliably sourced as what she says.It is what she said once. How can it possibly be responsible (and conservative) to include ambiguous information, let alone material so ambiguous that it would not be included in a better source without context, if at all?
Presenting what her critics say, while excluding what she says, fails the requirement of balance.Not in any way, but that's your argument, correct? It more important that we have a quote from her than if it has any meaning, than we care about the information quality? That's false balance. Note that we have other content about how she responds, we can expand upon that, and this quote in no way clarifies or summaries her responses. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The "Advocates of pseudoscience" cat states "This is a container category, which must not include articles." I think this cat is the wrong cat. The cat "People accused of pseudoscience" is a better fit. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates or Category:Pseudoscientific diet promoters works for me. I could not think of any other names for the cat. User:Tryptofish, you can decide which name is best. Both are good names. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see #Result of CfD. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
We can create Category:Proponents of pseudoscience. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
She did not create diets. She promotes dieting. Read User:Roxy the dog's comment. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
At long last, the CfD has been closed, with the result that the "creators" and "promoters" categories have been combined into a single Category:Diet food advocates. So, that leads us to deciding what to do for pages like this one, that are currently within the category. I think the best thing to do is to create a subcategory of the new category, that will also be a subcategory of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, and call it Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates. It would include Hari and several similar persons. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the two sources I brought up [9], as well as her own response, here's another that explains in detail how she responds, with multiple examples [10] ( Apr. 10, 2015)
Her response to the storm of criticisms over foolish articles was to “delete and deny”.
Ms. Hari has written responses to the New York Times, and to Gawker, but instead of demonstrating any remorse at her mistakes, or attempts to educate her followers as to how to avoid making similar mistakes, she attacks her critics as being “biased” (in the case of the NYT reporter), or a shill of the chemical or food industry (in the case of Orac, Steve Novella, Fergus Clydesdale, Joseph Schwarcz, and Yvette d’Entremont), and then utterly fails to actually address their criticisms in any substantive way.
Given her position of prominence and influence among many people seeking to improve their health through better eating, this refusal to acknowledge her own mistakes, or to engage seriously with criticisms of her message is very troubling. It is not consistent with a genuine attempt to educate her “Food Babe Army” to become independent, critical thinkers. Instead it is defensive, and smacks of spin…along with her heavy handed scrubbing of comments and banning of critics on her Facebook page.
Why does she take this approach, instead of owning up to her mistakes and trying to improve her understanding of nutrition and science? I fear that it is because she has a significant financial interest in continuing to pander to the pseudoscience community. She receives money from diverse sources, including book sales, speaking fees, andaffiliate links and advertisements for supplements that she recommends. Her “brand” is stunningly successful, and for her to admit that she was wrong about anything–or to accept any kind of criticism–would be to undermine that brand. Pseudoscience sells.
Viewed in that light, her tactics make rational (if ethically questionable) sense.
Given the two other sources, we have plenty to draw upon to present her responses in a neutral and encyclopedic manner, rather than using a meaningless quote about her claiming to be an investigator. I'm going to look for further sources documenting her responses. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
As for those credentials, Ms. Hari said that chemistry shouldn’t be necessary to decipher what to eat. She pointed out that her undergraduate major was actually in the College of Engineering at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, so she took “hard science, oh my gosh, Physics 3, Calculus 3.” Asked how she liked them, she said, “I mean, who likes those?”
Ms. Hari, however, dismissed this criticism as manufactured by “the processed food lobby” and “industry-funded science.” She sees herself as an activist and 21st-century Upton Sinclair (her reference) who provides information that “could be a lifesaver,” which is what she wrote in a widely mocked post, now deleted, that demonized the microwave oven for destroying nutrients and causing cancer.
But when I ask Hari why she thinks she is criticized so much, her answer is once again polished, immediate, and ardent. "A lot of comments are coming from people that don't want to attack my ideas, they want to attack me as an individual, because they don't want to reduce the amount of chemicals in our world," she says. "They're pro-chemical. Instead of supporting the consumer, they're food companies and chemical advocates. But people are learning for themselves that you don't have to be a nutritionist or scientist to know how to eat, and if you should, that's kind of a problem."
That response speaks to the very core of Hari's philosophy: You don't need a degree to eat healthfully, she says—and you shouldn't place your full trust in scientists, nutritionists, or regulatory bodies, either.
I've started a list of current and potential sources on the topic below, with short quotes for context. Please add any others. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I've never said I was a scientist or a nutritionist," but "I don't think you need to have those degrees to be intellectually honest, to be able to research, to be able to present ideas."
Hari says she is simply trying to help people understand what’s in their food and hold companies accountable. She says she has researched her critics and that they attack anyone who opposes alternative nutrition.
Ms. Hari said that chemistry shouldn’t be necessary to decipher what to eat.
Rather than responding factually and with data and reason, she resorted to ad hominem attacks on her critics.
You don't need a degree to eat healthfully, she says—and you shouldn't place your full trust in scientists, nutritionists, or regulatory bodies, either.
Others call out her lack of scientific education, her sensational presentation of issues, her consistently pejorative use of the word "chemical," and her silencing of critics. These we can't exactly dispute.-- Ronz ( talk) 15:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Some attacks (like the ones captured here) are based solely upon Hari's gender or appearance—and they deserve little mention other than a resounding condemnation. Others call out her lack of scientific education, her sensational presentation of issues, her consistently pejorative use of the word "chemical," and her silencing of critics. These we can't exactly dispute.
Her response to the storm of criticisms over foolish articles was to “delete and deny”.
Unfortunately, many of the critics out there, their sole purpose is only to criticize.