![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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.
Editors are discussing how to construct one paragraph on this page. Which of these two versions is better? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Version 1:
Hari is a former management consultant who has a degree in computer science, and has no expertise in nutrition or food science. [1] According to horticultural scientist Kevin Folta, 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
Version 2:
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
Version 3 ( added subsequently):
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]
References
Version 4 ( added subsequently):
References
Version 5 ( added subsequently):
References
What does Hari say about charges of mistakes? "I've never claimed to be a nutritionist," she says. "I'm an investigator."
But when the Charlotte Observer asked her about such criticisms, Hari answered, "I've never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator.
(added 29 Sep 2016)
(added 30 Sept 2016)
Current version: "Hari is a former management consultant who has a degree in computer science, and has no expertise in nutrition or food science.[63] According to horticultural scientist Kevin Folta, Hari's lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition, and health.[45]" See Vani Hari#Criticisms. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have an issue with version 2. It says 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]. This quote does not tell the reader much. It is just bashing the subject. The part "Most of them are so silly." is nonsensical. This weakens the criticism rather than strengthening it. I don't understand the point for including such nonsense. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It's there for false balance. Does anyone believe that better sources would present the quote without clarifying what it means, if they bothered to include it at all? -- Ronz ( talk) 23:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I really do believe the attacks on me and this movement is a distraction from the need to reform the food system...My sole purpose is to get people healthier. Unfortunately, many of the critics out there, their sole purpose is only to criticize.
These were before I decided to make this my career. It's like saying that the New York Times or whoever aren't allowed to make mistakes. Back then I was blogging as a hobby
So what did Hari do in response?
She has accused critics of being shills for Big Pharma (whatever that is) and that they're being paid by Monsanto, the company that manufacturers pesticides and herbicides. She provided no evidence of these claims.
She refuses to debate, or even discuss, her conclusions with critics. Among others, Dr Joe Schwarcz of McGill University has repeatedly called upon her todiscuss her ideas in a respectful, public forum. Hari refuses to respond.
She attempted to delete her previous statements, further undermining her credibility.
Rather than responding factually and with data and reason, she resorted to ad hominem attacks on her critics. At one point she called critic Yvette d’Entremont “twisted."
I’ve never claimed to be a scientist or nutritionist, but a high percentage of the “expert” scientists, doctors, registered dietitians and nutritionists in this field have a financial relationship with the entities I investigate. They oftentimes are unwilling to disclose where their funding really comes from. Some use their credentials to promote and market new inventions by the food industry. Calling me “The Jenny McCarthy of Food” is another sexist attack and shows the low blows these experts are willing to take on an activist who calls them out.
In the same way you don’t need to be a doctor to know smoking causes cancer, you don’t need to have any credentials to read an ingredient label, research food ingredients, teach yourself what to eat or how to take care of your health (in fact, the argument that only a scientist would understand what’s natural and healthy food, makes my point).
On a regular basis, I seek the counsel of many credentialed experts in this field and present my data which often includes access to published, peer-reviewed research.
can be summed up as "I never claimed...That's an OR and POV violation without a source. The three I've provided present another viewpoint. I agree that the third, her official statement, is too self-serving to use alone. That leaves two sources, including one that we are already using. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
IMO, simple language would make clear that she has no training in food sciences, and the rest of the material simply muddies the paragraph. Shorter is often more effective. Collect ( talk) 13:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that we have better sources that detail how Hari addresses criticism in general, and the specific criticism of her expertise, this RfC is a waste of time. I think it premature to make any further proposals based upon the new sources without a broader discussion and taking the time to look for more. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added a version 5 that I believe removes the OR concerns, including the concerns by Collect Talk:Vani_Hari#Support_Version_4 and Markbassett Talk:Vani_Hari#Support_no_change_from_what_is_on_the_page_now_.5B7.5D
There are sources that blame Hari's mistakes on her lack of expertise and training. I'd be surprised if there are any sources that don't present it in that context. A good one shouldn't be hard to find. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
From the NPR source itself: 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.
[1] --
Ronz (
talk)
22:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
AdAge: Bloggers like her "know enough to sound credible, but they don't know the real science [or] how to interpret peer-reviewed research to fully understand the issues that they might be preaching about," said Julie Upton, a registered dietitian who runs a popular nutrition blog called Appetite for Health. "I stay awake at night worried that my profession is going to become a hobby because of these people."
Ms. Hari countered that "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." [2] -- Ronz ( talk) 22:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Looking further, I'm not clear that we can link the two together better without original research. Adding anything that's not in the Observer just introduces the problems again. If the quote was dropped, it would be much easier to treat the subject in a more neutral manner without any OR problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
After struggling to find ways around what I believe is OR, I think it best get crystal clear as to why the proposals are not OR. From version 2 for reference:
References
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...
What does Hari say about charges of mistakes? "I've never claimed to be a nutritionist," she says. "I'm an investigator."
Looking at what the sources actually say, and how editors have prioritized the NPR source over the Observer source, I'm guessing that editors feel that "such criticisms" in the NPR ref specifically mean the "lack of training" in the following sentence. That alone seems to be OR to me. How is it not? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Ronz has added a tag for original research to the language that was just adopted in the RfC. Does anyone else besides Ronz have this concern? I've already said that, if one simply reads the cited sources in their entirety, rather than taking short passages out of context, there is no OR in treating the "investigator" quote as a response to the criticisms about her lack of science training. I also think that the RfC established a consensus that the "Version 2" language is acceptable, and demonstrated no agreement that there was an OR problem. At least, that's what I believe. What do other editors think? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Vani_Hari#How_are_the_proposed_versions_with_the_quote_not_original_research.3F seems skimpy on discussion for a BLP. I believe that it's our OR to say the Observer source supports the content and what's in the NPR source. The Observer covers a great deal. If we want to go hunting for what the Observer means by "mistakes", how is it that we have decided it is specific just to her credentials? After all, the second paragraph identifies many mistakes, and her credentials aren' one of them:
But in interviews with food-policy advocates and academics, she is criticized for sensationalized and overblown claims. Other activists say she takes more credit than she deserves. And in some cases, the Observer found evidence of errors and inconsistencies.
--
Ronz (
talk)
15:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we have WP:FALSEBALANCE and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance problems throughout the article. Basically, we're relying too much on the sources that go out of their way not to analyze but instead provide he-said, she-said presentations and far too many quotes.
I think the lede is fine. I was originally only going to tag the "Criticisms" section. I think it's the worse, but "Career" has the same problems, if not to such an extent.
The organization is poor. The "Career" and "Criticisms" sections are catch-alls, giving equal weight to all within them. I'm not clear why "The Food Babe Way" is a subsection under " Influence". The "Marketing strategy" sub-section name doesn't describe it's content. I think a bit more chronology-focused organization would help. There's the period of time where the reporting on Hari was almost exclusively focused on her influence. The attention from NPR coverage in early 2014 of the Subway changed that, and the reporting started looking critically at her claims, mostly relying others' criticisms, quoting them liberally. By April 2015 there's quite a bit of analysis, much less reliance on the he-said/she said and extensive quoting. We should be relying more on the sources that analyze, and refrain from following the presentation style of the poorer sources.
Taking the example of the "I'm an investigator" quote. When I first started the discussion about it, I wrote 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.
NPR used the quote because Hari wouldn't grant them an interview. The Charlotte Observer used it in a different context. The proposals to present it as her response to criticisms of her lack of training is original research on our part, not supported by the sources. Worse, her lack of training isn't a criticism at all but a simple statement of fact that she doesn't dispute. If we want to cover her marketing strategy of presenting herself as an "investigator", then we should do so in that context. It's not covered well by sources, but maybe we can find new ones that do. If we want to present what she says about the expertise needed to "investigate" food health, we have sources that provide meaningful detail, but again this is her marketing of herself so shouldn't be presented as anything else.
We cannot take material out of context and present it as something it is not. We shouldn't be following the examples of the he-said/she-said reporting that's too common in the sources we've used. We should be relying on sources that analyze wherever such sources are available, and avoid giving much weight to anything that hasn't been met with much analysis. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Wisdom of repugnance needs to be incorporated into the article, perhaps even the lede given how heavily it is noted. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Detoxification (alternative medicine) needs to be incorporated into the pseudoscience content, perhaps elsewhere. It's one of, if not the main, pseudoscience she promotes. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the "The Food Babe Way" to it's own section rather than a subsection under " Influence", and renamed the "Marketing strategy" sub-section to "Financial interests". -- Ronz ( talk) 16:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I too remain unconvinced that the stylistic problems Ronz notes constitute an NPOV problem specifically, and feel he's completely failed to make a case. Does anyone other than Ronz disagree with removing the tag? - David Gerard ( talk) 01:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
BLP doesn't sayCorrect, so if you want to demonstrate some consensus, you need to do so, rather than just claiming it exists. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The Criticism section should probably be renamed, depending upon what it becomes. I assume need section that includes a general analysis of noteworthy opinions on Hari's claims, perhaps her presentation and marketing as well. I'd like to look for similar, GA-quality articles for ideas.
The Career section needs to be organized. If it remains solely chronological then it makes a strong case for a section with general analysis. We don't have detailed biographies to draw upon, but I'd hope that minimally we can find major milestones in her career to help with the organization of the section (Maybe Subway?). I've seen sections broken down by years or decades, but I find such organization can underemphasize major events and turning points. Of course, the sources may not give us much to go on...
The dose makes the poison needs to be included into the article body. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I had moved Vaccine controversies to the See also section, but have now removed it. Sourced only by her blog post it seems undue, possibly original research as well. The Crislip sources verifies it, but I think it might be undue to expand the paragraph further. Rewriting the last sentence to cover Crislip's and American Council on Science and Health's perspectives should work. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Her financial ties with Chick-fil-A need to be mentioned per the Observer (and other sources, if I recall correctly), as well as her not disclosing such ties. Any similar financial ties with the companies she's worked with should be identified. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is soap. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
See Vani Hari#Criticisms: "Hari has received wide criticism concerning the accuracy, consistency, and presentation of her many claims." This claim is unsourced. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There can be content about early life and education in the WP:LEDE. The lede is too short. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The lede is too shortGiven she's only recently become notable, and the types of sources we have to draw upon, I think the size of the lede is fine. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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.
Editors are discussing how to construct one paragraph on this page. Which of these two versions is better? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Version 1:
Hari is a former management consultant who has a degree in computer science, and has no expertise in nutrition or food science. [1] According to horticultural scientist Kevin Folta, 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
Version 2:
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
Version 3 ( added subsequently):
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]
References
Version 4 ( added subsequently):
References
Version 5 ( added subsequently):
References
What does Hari say about charges of mistakes? "I've never claimed to be a nutritionist," she says. "I'm an investigator."
But when the Charlotte Observer asked her about such criticisms, Hari answered, "I've never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator.
(added 29 Sep 2016)
(added 30 Sept 2016)
Current version: "Hari is a former management consultant who has a degree in computer science, and has no expertise in nutrition or food science.[63] According to horticultural scientist Kevin Folta, Hari's lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition, and health.[45]" See Vani Hari#Criticisms. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have an issue with version 2. It says 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]. This quote does not tell the reader much. It is just bashing the subject. The part "Most of them are so silly." is nonsensical. This weakens the criticism rather than strengthening it. I don't understand the point for including such nonsense. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
It's there for false balance. Does anyone believe that better sources would present the quote without clarifying what it means, if they bothered to include it at all? -- Ronz ( talk) 23:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I really do believe the attacks on me and this movement is a distraction from the need to reform the food system...My sole purpose is to get people healthier. Unfortunately, many of the critics out there, their sole purpose is only to criticize.
These were before I decided to make this my career. It's like saying that the New York Times or whoever aren't allowed to make mistakes. Back then I was blogging as a hobby
So what did Hari do in response?
She has accused critics of being shills for Big Pharma (whatever that is) and that they're being paid by Monsanto, the company that manufacturers pesticides and herbicides. She provided no evidence of these claims.
She refuses to debate, or even discuss, her conclusions with critics. Among others, Dr Joe Schwarcz of McGill University has repeatedly called upon her todiscuss her ideas in a respectful, public forum. Hari refuses to respond.
She attempted to delete her previous statements, further undermining her credibility.
Rather than responding factually and with data and reason, she resorted to ad hominem attacks on her critics. At one point she called critic Yvette d’Entremont “twisted."
I’ve never claimed to be a scientist or nutritionist, but a high percentage of the “expert” scientists, doctors, registered dietitians and nutritionists in this field have a financial relationship with the entities I investigate. They oftentimes are unwilling to disclose where their funding really comes from. Some use their credentials to promote and market new inventions by the food industry. Calling me “The Jenny McCarthy of Food” is another sexist attack and shows the low blows these experts are willing to take on an activist who calls them out.
In the same way you don’t need to be a doctor to know smoking causes cancer, you don’t need to have any credentials to read an ingredient label, research food ingredients, teach yourself what to eat or how to take care of your health (in fact, the argument that only a scientist would understand what’s natural and healthy food, makes my point).
On a regular basis, I seek the counsel of many credentialed experts in this field and present my data which often includes access to published, peer-reviewed research.
can be summed up as "I never claimed...That's an OR and POV violation without a source. The three I've provided present another viewpoint. I agree that the third, her official statement, is too self-serving to use alone. That leaves two sources, including one that we are already using. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
IMO, simple language would make clear that she has no training in food sciences, and the rest of the material simply muddies the paragraph. Shorter is often more effective. Collect ( talk) 13:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that we have better sources that detail how Hari addresses criticism in general, and the specific criticism of her expertise, this RfC is a waste of time. I think it premature to make any further proposals based upon the new sources without a broader discussion and taking the time to look for more. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added a version 5 that I believe removes the OR concerns, including the concerns by Collect Talk:Vani_Hari#Support_Version_4 and Markbassett Talk:Vani_Hari#Support_no_change_from_what_is_on_the_page_now_.5B7.5D
There are sources that blame Hari's mistakes on her lack of expertise and training. I'd be surprised if there are any sources that don't present it in that context. A good one shouldn't be hard to find. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
From the NPR source itself: 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.
[1] --
Ronz (
talk)
22:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
AdAge: Bloggers like her "know enough to sound credible, but they don't know the real science [or] how to interpret peer-reviewed research to fully understand the issues that they might be preaching about," said Julie Upton, a registered dietitian who runs a popular nutrition blog called Appetite for Health. "I stay awake at night worried that my profession is going to become a hobby because of these people."
Ms. Hari countered that "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." [2] -- Ronz ( talk) 22:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Looking further, I'm not clear that we can link the two together better without original research. Adding anything that's not in the Observer just introduces the problems again. If the quote was dropped, it would be much easier to treat the subject in a more neutral manner without any OR problems. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
After struggling to find ways around what I believe is OR, I think it best get crystal clear as to why the proposals are not OR. From version 2 for reference:
References
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...
What does Hari say about charges of mistakes? "I've never claimed to be a nutritionist," she says. "I'm an investigator."
Looking at what the sources actually say, and how editors have prioritized the NPR source over the Observer source, I'm guessing that editors feel that "such criticisms" in the NPR ref specifically mean the "lack of training" in the following sentence. That alone seems to be OR to me. How is it not? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Ronz has added a tag for original research to the language that was just adopted in the RfC. Does anyone else besides Ronz have this concern? I've already said that, if one simply reads the cited sources in their entirety, rather than taking short passages out of context, there is no OR in treating the "investigator" quote as a response to the criticisms about her lack of science training. I also think that the RfC established a consensus that the "Version 2" language is acceptable, and demonstrated no agreement that there was an OR problem. At least, that's what I believe. What do other editors think? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Vani_Hari#How_are_the_proposed_versions_with_the_quote_not_original_research.3F seems skimpy on discussion for a BLP. I believe that it's our OR to say the Observer source supports the content and what's in the NPR source. The Observer covers a great deal. If we want to go hunting for what the Observer means by "mistakes", how is it that we have decided it is specific just to her credentials? After all, the second paragraph identifies many mistakes, and her credentials aren' one of them:
But in interviews with food-policy advocates and academics, she is criticized for sensationalized and overblown claims. Other activists say she takes more credit than she deserves. And in some cases, the Observer found evidence of errors and inconsistencies.
--
Ronz (
talk)
15:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think we have WP:FALSEBALANCE and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance problems throughout the article. Basically, we're relying too much on the sources that go out of their way not to analyze but instead provide he-said, she-said presentations and far too many quotes.
I think the lede is fine. I was originally only going to tag the "Criticisms" section. I think it's the worse, but "Career" has the same problems, if not to such an extent.
The organization is poor. The "Career" and "Criticisms" sections are catch-alls, giving equal weight to all within them. I'm not clear why "The Food Babe Way" is a subsection under " Influence". The "Marketing strategy" sub-section name doesn't describe it's content. I think a bit more chronology-focused organization would help. There's the period of time where the reporting on Hari was almost exclusively focused on her influence. The attention from NPR coverage in early 2014 of the Subway changed that, and the reporting started looking critically at her claims, mostly relying others' criticisms, quoting them liberally. By April 2015 there's quite a bit of analysis, much less reliance on the he-said/she said and extensive quoting. We should be relying more on the sources that analyze, and refrain from following the presentation style of the poorer sources.
Taking the example of the "I'm an investigator" quote. When I first started the discussion about it, I wrote 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.
NPR used the quote because Hari wouldn't grant them an interview. The Charlotte Observer used it in a different context. The proposals to present it as her response to criticisms of her lack of training is original research on our part, not supported by the sources. Worse, her lack of training isn't a criticism at all but a simple statement of fact that she doesn't dispute. If we want to cover her marketing strategy of presenting herself as an "investigator", then we should do so in that context. It's not covered well by sources, but maybe we can find new ones that do. If we want to present what she says about the expertise needed to "investigate" food health, we have sources that provide meaningful detail, but again this is her marketing of herself so shouldn't be presented as anything else.
We cannot take material out of context and present it as something it is not. We shouldn't be following the examples of the he-said/she-said reporting that's too common in the sources we've used. We should be relying on sources that analyze wherever such sources are available, and avoid giving much weight to anything that hasn't been met with much analysis. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Wisdom of repugnance needs to be incorporated into the article, perhaps even the lede given how heavily it is noted. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Detoxification (alternative medicine) needs to be incorporated into the pseudoscience content, perhaps elsewhere. It's one of, if not the main, pseudoscience she promotes. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the "The Food Babe Way" to it's own section rather than a subsection under " Influence", and renamed the "Marketing strategy" sub-section to "Financial interests". -- Ronz ( talk) 16:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I too remain unconvinced that the stylistic problems Ronz notes constitute an NPOV problem specifically, and feel he's completely failed to make a case. Does anyone other than Ronz disagree with removing the tag? - David Gerard ( talk) 01:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
BLP doesn't sayCorrect, so if you want to demonstrate some consensus, you need to do so, rather than just claiming it exists. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The Criticism section should probably be renamed, depending upon what it becomes. I assume need section that includes a general analysis of noteworthy opinions on Hari's claims, perhaps her presentation and marketing as well. I'd like to look for similar, GA-quality articles for ideas.
The Career section needs to be organized. If it remains solely chronological then it makes a strong case for a section with general analysis. We don't have detailed biographies to draw upon, but I'd hope that minimally we can find major milestones in her career to help with the organization of the section (Maybe Subway?). I've seen sections broken down by years or decades, but I find such organization can underemphasize major events and turning points. Of course, the sources may not give us much to go on...
The dose makes the poison needs to be included into the article body. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I had moved Vaccine controversies to the See also section, but have now removed it. Sourced only by her blog post it seems undue, possibly original research as well. The Crislip sources verifies it, but I think it might be undue to expand the paragraph further. Rewriting the last sentence to cover Crislip's and American Council on Science and Health's perspectives should work. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Her financial ties with Chick-fil-A need to be mentioned per the Observer (and other sources, if I recall correctly), as well as her not disclosing such ties. Any similar financial ties with the companies she's worked with should be identified. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is soap. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
See Vani Hari#Criticisms: "Hari has received wide criticism concerning the accuracy, consistency, and presentation of her many claims." This claim is unsourced. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There can be content about early life and education in the WP:LEDE. The lede is too short. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The lede is too shortGiven she's only recently become notable, and the types of sources we have to draw upon, I think the size of the lede is fine. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)