Talk:Vani Hari

New book
She has a new book to push and makes a fairly bold claim: " submitted freedom of information act (FOIA) requests and received hundreds of internal emails. I met with someone who admitted he had edited my Wikipedia page, because he was paid by a firm to discredit my work. I talked to other experts and went behind the scenes to really figure out more about what was going on." Clearly that's a direct violation of Wikipedia's rules. Although I'm editing anonymously, I'm one of the co-authors of The Fear Babe so I want to be open about that. The whole team on that book (front and back of house) has a clear instruction that we do not interfere or edit the main pages. Other editors might want to look into this - but Hari is playing the usual conspiracy game with this, so more experience editors should give it a look. 81.97.100.208 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She still around? Guess so: Hari uses guilt to scare people into thinking they are “poisoning” children and sending them to the hospital. http://www.iwf.org/blog/2807808/Health-Obsessed-Blogger-Recommends-Expensive-Organic-Treats-This-Halloween . --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Barely, at least based on the apparent reach of her Facebook posts these days. --tronvillain (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing directly from Hari would really be useful for this page in terms of reliable sourcing, but I'm curious if she actually names someone or if it just falls into aspersions territory for a standard shill gambit. I'm not sure there would be much if anything to add at this point though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Vani being Vani - I'm shocked Trump didn't appoint her head of the FDA given the amount of their own BS they both believe.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to know, but if there aren't reliable sources repeating or commenting on her claim, it doesn't need to be on the page. --tronvillain (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Attack biography
The article reads like an indictment against a business person who has challenged powerful food corporations. The article's purpose appears to be less biographical and more about questioning the credibility of her "dissent" with major food manufacturers.

Note that the purpose of this section is not because I'm interested in supporting Vani Hari or I'm a fan it is because this article is clearly inconsistent with other biographies that carefully avoid negative coverage. Is it necessary to ask that we exclude Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler and Idi Amin from consideration or is it because critizing Frito Lay actually is terrorism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.234.18 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.227.165 (talk)
 * We can't divine "purpose" nor does it matter; nor is the contention that biographies should "carefully avoid negative coverage" remotely accurate. WP:BLPPUBLIC states the opposite: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)