Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 6

Title of d'Entremont
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)


 * How about we call her a science blogger? Minor4th  18:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Blogger" is not entirely accurate, as she has published articles in Gawker and Slate as well as elsewhere that are considered articles and not blogs. Though I'm not sure she would be considered a "science journalist" either. I usually just resort to the more general "science communicator" label when someone is trying to communicate science to the general public as she is. Adrian (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Chemist seems appropriate and is sourced. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Chemist and science populariser (or whatever term is suitable for what Adrian232 is describing) - the latter is something d'Entremont does, notably, that is not just being a chemist - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If is sourced I see no issue. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:51, 3 November 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)
 * I removed extant phrase so it had her name alone, and wrote the above comment explaining why "chemist" may not be appropriate. Adrian232 here then added the descriptor "science writer and former analytical chemist". SageRad (talk) 20:16, 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)

RfC: anti-vaccine tweet
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,, and
 * 1) Excluded altogether;
 * 2) Excluded unless more sources are provided;
 * 3) Included based on the sources provided or a subset thereof.

Opinions

 * Include based on the Vox source and the verifiable fact of its existence, since this is a well-known antivax trope and one which any person even slightly familiar with the subject should be well aware is a lie, thus it is (as Vox indicate) a data point in her making strong assertions based on poor to no actual knowledge. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Include per Guy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Include per sources and policy: it's notable as an individual incident (per BLP) and there is no sensible reason not to include the tweet itself when it's available from a respected archive - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Include. It is notable as an incident and as criticism from a reliable source, and verifiable as fact. Adrian (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak exclude It's mentioned in two different sources, but only really in passing. Other controversial posts by Hari which we include in the article (Satanic microwaves, airplane nitrogen) have received much more coverage and focus. Brustopher (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Include Perfectly acceptable sourcing. I'd say WP:WEIGHT compels us to keep discussion on the matter to a bare minimum, but the event has received come coverage that can provide insight on the subject. Indeed, the addition of the sources themselves may be of significant use to our readers in parsing the nature of this blogger and her perspectives.  S n o w  let's rap 05:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Include as is I think, as it stands, it complies with WP:WEIGHT. One needs to be careful it continues to do so. $Recruited by Feedback Request Bot.$ --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message. $(talk to me) (My edits)$ @  00:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Include Current text ("In an October 2011 blog post, Hari questioned the efficacy of flu shots,[45][46] and the following day tweeted that flu vaccines have been "used as a genocide tool in the past". The tweet was subsequently deleted.[47][48][4] Hari's position was criticised as false and dangerous by the American Council on Science and Health.[49]") is appropriate. EEng (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Include - Include as is. The sources are reliable and the information is notable and relevant to the page.  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Harassment
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:
 * 1) d'Endremont:
 * 2) Should the claim of harassment by d'Entremont cited to the interview in BostInno and backed by the presented examples drawn from her own social media feeds, be included?
 * 3) If so, should it be represented in Wikipedia's voice as d'Entremont having been harassed, or should it be attributed to d'Entremont, for example in the form d'Entremont is reported to have received "death threats following her takedown of 'Food Babe'"?
 * 4) Hari:
 * 5) Should the claim of harassment by Hari cited to the interview in The Atlantic and backed by the presented examples drawn from her own social media feeds, be included?
 * 6) If so, should it be represented in Wikipedia's voice as Hari having been harassed, or should it be attributed to Hari, for example in the form Hari states that she is "getting attacked every day with a death threat."?

Opinions

 * My view
 * 1: First preference 1.1, second preference 1.2. as attribution. The claim can be shown to exist but the comments seem to me to be trolling not harassment and there does not appear to be any independent analytical commentary re the legitimacy of these claims, they originate solely with d'Entremont in an interview.
 * 2: First preference 2.1, second preference 2.2. as attribution. The claim can be shown to exist but the comments seem to me to be trolling not harassment and there does not appear to be any independent analytical commentary re the legitimacy of these claims, they originate solely with Hari in an interview.
 * This should be obvious from the discussion above. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Claims of having experienced harassment should be assumed as fact and not opinion.
 * 1.1: include, 1.2: in Wikipedia's voice. The claim has been presented with evidence using screenshots and reported on via a reliable third-party source. A death threat does not need to be considered credible in order to be considered a threat of death. Furthermore, specific threats involving intimidation, regardless of whether the target feels intimidated or not, fall under the umbrella of online harassment. Online harassment has been documented on WP and other reliable sources to be defined as any comment directed at an individual that may be found derogatory or offensive. Harassment being discussed in a non-legal context and not as an accusation to named persons should not need independent verification, as the victim should be taken at her word about her own experiences when the described activity is not an extraordinary claim, falls clearly under the definition, and no reasonable doubt is made from reliable sources. (WP:YESPOV) Since these conditions are met it should be written as a matter of fact and not opinion; adding attribution would create the impression of doubt. (WP:ASSERT)
 * 2.1: include, 2.2: first preference in Wikipedia's voice. The claim has been presented with evidence using screenshots and reported on via a reliable third-party source. The claims made appear to fall under the definition of online harassment. This term has been documented on WP and other reliable sources to be defined as any comment directed at an individual that may be found derogatory or offensive. Harassment being discussed in a non-legal context and not as an accusation to named persons should not need independent verification, as the victim should be taken at her word about her own experiences when the described activity is not an extraordinary claim, falls clearly under the definition, and no reasonable doubt is made from reliable sources. (WP:YESPOV) Since these conditions are met it should be written as a matter of fact and not opinion; adding attribution would create the impression of doubt. (WP:ASSERT)
 * 2.2: second preference with attribution in the form of: Hari has written about her experiences being subjected to online harassment. WP:PARAPHRASE summary of Hari's blog post using WP:INTEXT attribution to Hari. I propose this as a neutral form attributing the perspective of harassment to Hari with minimally implied doubt. This is a factual statement, as it has been documented by reliable third-party sources that Hari has written about experiences that fall under the definition of online harassment, which is the term Hari uses in her blog.
 * I'm striking my opinion above, as after re-reading the discussion I feel I may have been more emotionally motivated to want to include this content. (Amended opinion follows.) Adrian (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1.1: Do not include. Harassment in this part seems to be a WP:COATRACK problem. It doesn't say anything to support d'Entremont's views about Hari except maybe the actions of her followers.
 * 1.2: Second preference include in Wikipedia's voice. If included, the claim about harassment should be in Wikipedia's voice: The claim has been presented with evidence using screenshots and reported on via a reliable third-party source. A death threat does not need to be considered credible in order to be considered a threat of death. Furthermore, specific threats involving intimidation, regardless of whether the target feels intimidated or not, fall under the umbrella of online harassment. Online harassment has been documented on WP and other reliable sources to be defined as any comment directed at an individual that may be found derogatory or offensive. Harassment being discussed in a non-legal context and not as an accusation to named persons should not need independent verification, as the victim should be taken at her word about her own experiences when the described activity is not an extraordinary claim, falls clearly under the definition, and no reasonable doubt is made from reliable sources. (WP:YESPOV) Since these conditions are met it should be written as a matter of fact and not opinion; adding attribution would create the impression of doubt. (WP:ASSERT)
 * 2.1: Do not include. Including Hari's blog post about harassment in this part seems to be WP:UNDUE. Even though it was reported upon in the cited secondary source, it was a minor point in the article. Since this is the only time she has appeared to have spoken about online harassment, and hasn't been involved otherwise to speak out about online harassment (as far as I can tell), this would make it not particularly due for a "career" section.
 * 2.2: Second preference Include in Wikipedia's voice. If included, the claim about harassment should be in Wikipedia's voice: The claim has been presented with evidence using screenshots and reported on via a reliable third-party source. The claims made appear to fall under the definition of online harassment. This term has been documented on WP and other reliable sources to be defined as any comment directed at an individual that may be found derogatory or offensive. Harassment being discussed in a non-legal context and not as an accusation to named persons should not need independent verification, as the victim should be taken at her word about her own experiences when the described activity is not an extraordinary claim, falls clearly under the definition, and no reasonable doubt is made from reliable sources. (WP:YESPOV) Since these conditions are met it should be written as a matter of fact and not opinion; adding attribution would create the impression of doubt. (WP:ASSERT)
 * 2.2: third preference with attribution in the form of: Hari has written about her experiences being subjected to online harassment. WP:PARAPHRASE summary of Hari's blog post using WP:INTEXT attribution to Hari. I propose this as a neutral form attributing the perspective of harassment to Hari with minimally implied doubt. This is a factual statement, as it has been documented by reliable third-party sources that Hari has written about experiences that fall under the definition of online harassment, which is the term Hari uses in her blog.
 * (Amended opinion above.) Adrian (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Further analysis given in Claims of harassment above. Adrian (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we compromise on butthurt? ;-) To be clear, if the claim was that they had been attacked, it would be 100% fine IMO. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 09:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Neither. Don't even bother to mention these things. Empty death threat rhetoric happens every day on the Internet in any situation where anyone is making controversial statements. Just leave it out. For what it's worth, though, the claim of harassment by "SciBabe" that was in the article struck me as a special pleading sort of claim just by its being there in that context, more of an agenda than the mention of threats against Hari as she's the subject of this article. I'd say leave all this out, as it's not really notable in my estimation. SageRad (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hari commented on a Persicope recently (no longer available unless archived elsewhere) that people were driving past her house taking pictures. Like pretty much all of her claims, it's simply a claim. I happen to know several of the properties she owns and I know there are pictures of them on Google StreetView. It's reasonable to assume that people posted these pictures on the Internet as people do - but that does not imply any sort of threat. Stupid - but hardly conclusive. Towards the end of same broadcast she make joking remarks about "woo" to the clear embarrassment and chagrin of her host. Smidoid (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I happen to know several of the properties she owns and I know there are pictures of them on Google StreetView I have no words... Brustopher (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not include. Someone who attracts public attention can't complain about a lack of privacy. Hari is presenting herself as an everyday person who's just a little concerned about what they're putting in our food. She might even think she is such a person, but she's not. Everyday people have a reason to be concerned if they receive threats. But everyday people do not have internet-wide nicknames like "Food Babe." Hari is playing off the fact that she's getting threats in order to gain more publicity and sympathy from her audience. This means that the negative publicity does not belong in this article or any other; even Jane Fonda has only a few words about negative publicity. Roches (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent expansion
A WP:SPA account has recently appeared to expand the article,. 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)
 * 1) Hari's Chipotle restaurant blog post got them to publish their ingredients online and remove GMOs from their food.
 * 2) Hari visited Kraft headquarters and they said they had no plans to change mac & cheese. In April 2015 Kraft removed all artificial food dyes from all mac & cheese.
 * 3) The scientists at the EWG and CSPI both supported the removal of azodicarbonamide from Subway's bread.
 * 4) As this 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.
 * 5) Hari's blog post about Starbucks PSL showed that they use class IV caramel color and no pumpkin. This year they debuted a new PSL without caramel color and with pumpkin.
 * 6) Hari's blog post about about beer said that she contacted Heineken and they confirmed they use caramel color in Newcastle beer. She included this in her 2015 book. In 2015 Heineken removed caramel color from Newcastle.
 * 7) Hari's 2015 petition against General Mills and Kellogg's to remove BHT from cereal, supported by claims made by EWG. These companies sell the same cereals in Europe without BHT. General Mills has removed BHT from some U.S. varieties since the petition.
 * A lot of this sounds like post hoc ergo propter hoc rationalization: Because B happens after A does not mean A caused B. Unless the company says she was the cause, or reliable third-party sources come to that conclusion based on evidence, we cannot assume that there is a causal relationship happening here. That would make those statements not facts at all. It's possible that Hari partially or entirely caused such events to happen, but without WP:Verifiability we cannot make such claims. What you can do is state the verifiable facts and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. A lot of these things on your list appear to be addressed in the article already. Adrian (talk) 20:01, 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)
 * Thanks for responding and Welcome to Wikipedia. Could you please indicate you've read the WP:COI information that I left on your talk page so we don't have it weighing on your contributions? --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 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 for the same reasons: "The experts at Environmental Working Group and The Center For Science In The Public Interest (CSPI) 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)


 * If you have a problem with the word "experts" then we can just say CSPI and EWG supported their petition and others can sort out who they believe is an expert. --Omnipum (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're learning fast, and that's admirable given the circumstances.
 * I'm still looking through the sources. The FoodBusinessNews link doesn't work and I'm having a difficult time finding the actual reference. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 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)

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)
 * I've restored just the bit about EWG supporting removal. I left both sources to show that the first is just a very poor rehash of the EWG press release. 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. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 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)
 * Certainly. Thank you for asking. My apologies for not referring to the policies and past discussions. I hope you don't mind a quick reply for now:
 * I mentioned earlier, "Have you read the discussions we've had about Nestle's interview?" In that interview, Nestle clearly differentiates the science of toxicology from the pseudoscience that Hari subscribes to of Detoxification (alternative medicine). Nestle then refers to the nuance of the science, rather than pushing the point that other critics make that Hari simply doesn't understand the science. CSPI does understand the science, hence they conclude their recommendations with, "At the very least, FDA should reduce the amount allowed to be used." Here at Wikipedia, we have a great deal of established consensus on how to handle situations pitting pseudoscience against science including: WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:ARB/PS, and WP:MEDRS. (I can continue with this if you like, but at least this identifies some of the key areas of consensus that apply.) --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not an accurate representation of the Nestle interview. In the interview, Nestle defines "toxins" as "poisons". She never calls Food Babe's work "pseudoscience". Those two implications are not in the interview. Let's keep that clear. SageRad (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe it is accurate, though indeed Nestle goes to great length to avoid pointing out the pseudoscience directly as other critics do. That is why I wrote, "Nestle then refers to the nuance of the science, rather than pushing the point that other critics make that Hari simply doesn't understand the science." I should have noted it is these other critics, especially d'Entremonts, that directly point out the pseudoscience and worse. Nestle sides with d'Entremonts where the science is concerned, as we note. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as i have said, i believe it was an inaccurate summarization of Nestle. From my two listens to the interview, i take away that (1) she pointedly did not call Hari's work "pseudoscience" even though the interviewer made a point of saying that some have used that term in regard to Hari, and (2) she did not say that Hari had most of her science wrong, or doesn't understand it, or anything close. She said that there were points on which Hari presented things in terms that were too black and white and could use more nuance, although that is hard when explaining things to a lay public. In fact, throughout the interview, it seems that Nestle is largely agreeing with the concerns of Hari. She does recommend different prioritization, notably on antibiotic overuse in meat production. Nestle doesn't "side" with "Science Babe" but rather affirms that the science line by line is generally correct in Science Babe's article about Hari when directly asked by the interviewer. She doesn't speak in praise of Science Babe in any way that i can hear. That is not "siding" with Science Babe. That is affirming that the specific claims in Science Babe's "takedown article" are generally valid. I agree with this, but it's also the case that Science Babe's article is picking the worst of the record and i think that Nestle gets that, though she doesn't say that either. We can't attribute to her things she doesn't say. SageRad (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see nothing but points about things I never said nor meant. I clarified once. If you don't understand, ask questions. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're implying things that are not in the interview. It's subtle but i think you are. Also, "where the science is concerned" -- there is not a single "the science" involved. Nestle affirms the science behind most of Hari's claims and actions. Science Babe's article is cherry-picking thing, and Nestle agrees with the science in that article, but that is not the same as saying that Hari is wrong about most of the science. If Nestle thought that, she would have said it. She said that Hari tends to simplify and to not pay enough attention to levels and doses of some toxins. That's what i see in it. I'm done with back and forth. Others can lilsten to the interview too.  SageRad (talk) 17:13, 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 don't believe whether Vani is called a pseudoscientist pertains to this paragraph, and that we've swayed from the main point here. To further clarify my point, I would just like to add a mention to this paragraph in the career section stating: "CSPI supported the removal of azodicarbonamide from Subway's bread". This is evidenced by this source: http://www.cspinet.org/new/201402041.html
 * As stated by their Senior Scientist:
 * "Considering that many breads don't contain azodicarbonamide and that its use slightly increases exposure to a carcinogen, this is hardly a chemical that we need in our food supply. We urge the Food and Drug Administration to consider whether the Delaney amendment, which bars the use of food additives that cause cancer in humans or animals, requires the agency to bar its use. At the very least, it should reduce the amount allowed to be used. 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." --Omnipum (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting us back on track.
 * I doubt "pseudoscientist" is used as a label for anyone in any Wikipedia article.
 * Re: "CSPI supported the removal of azodicarbonamide from Subway's bread". My concern is that this misrepresents CSPI in order to promote Hari's viewpoints, and promotes a viewpoint of pseudoscience over that of science. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it promotes a viewpoint of pseudoscience, isn't it a simple fact that CSPI did indeed support the removal of azodicarbonamide from Subway's bread as evidenced in my source above?--Omnipum (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It's a misrepresentation of the source to promote others' viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What is misrepresented? They say here that Subway should remove it: "Chains like Subway and McDonald's needn't wait and should get rid of it on their own."--Omnipum (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already explained. This is an article about Hari. I understand the inclination to try to find supporters of Hari (and the pseudoscience), following the poor reporting approaches (False balance and others mentioned in the Hiltzik reference). However, the sources are press releases and a very poor churn of that press that uses quotes liberally. Further trimming the information from the sources to be more in line with Hari's viewpoints is simply inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How is the statement by the senior scientist at CSPI considered pseudoscience? For brevity, her entire statement cannot be included on a wikipedia page, and she has not been taken out of context. Did you read her entire statement here? http://www.cspinet.org/new/201402041.html --Omnipum (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first question is a straw man, but makes my point. We cannot have a discussion if it's based upon misrepresentations of what I write (or misunderstandings so large that they appear to be misrepresentations). --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a 3rd party source for CSPI that I believe we can agree upon - via CNN here: "The controversial chemical has been used by commercial bakers for the purpose of strengthening dough but has been poorly tested, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. One of the breakdown products, derived from the original substance, is called urethane, a recognized carcinogen, the organization says. Using azodicarbonamide at maximum allowable levels results in higher levels of urethane in bread "that pose a small risk to humans," CSPI said. Another breakdown product is semicarbazide, which poses "a negligible risk to humans" but was found to cause cancers of the lung and blood vessels in mice, CSPI said. CSPI advocates for reducing the amount of the chemical that is allowed to be used. "We urge the Food and Drug Administration to consider whether the Delaney amendment, which bars the use of food additives that cause cancer in humans or animals, requires the agency to bar its use," CSPI said. The controversial chemical has been used by commercial bakers for the purpose of strengthening dough but has been poorly tested, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest."
 * Using the CNN article as the source, I want to add the following to the Subway paragraph: "The Center For Science In The Public Interest (CSPI) stated, "The controversial chemical has been used by commercial bakers for the purpose of strengthening dough but has been poorly tested" and advocates for reducing the amount of azodicarbonamide that is allowed to be used in food."--Omnipum (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better, but it is now so far removed from Hari that I don't see why it belongs here. I'm not sure it belongs in azodicarbonamide, but that should be first. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully support the inclusion. I do not see the logic of Ronz's objection. It's not "far removed from Hari" as Hari is mentioned in the story, and in fact the story is largely about her campaign, and the topic is in that paragraph already (although pushing against Hari's view) and this is directly related to that. Therefore, i fully support its inclusion, and i do not at all understand the nature of Ronz's objections except that they're in line with the general direction of his edits on this article in general. We can also edit the azodicarbonamide article, and should, but it's not either/or and there is no correct order per policy. SageRad (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that this is not far removed from Hari as the article is about her petition. I will add my proposed text above to the paragraph, thank you.--Omnipum (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Ronz removed calling it "Coatracking". What is the definition of coatracking and how does it apply to CSPI's quote from the CNN article about Hari's petition?--Omnipum (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a very good question. I'll be interested in the answer. SageRad (talk) 00:20, 4 November 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)
 * So, that seems to imply very strongly that you hold a POV that Hari's claims are not tied to "actual science" and "actual experts" -- which is false, by the way. If you look at her claims, such as those about aluminum, for instance, you'll see that she often cited scientific research. i think you're letting ideological blinders affect your editing here, and it's resulting in the blocking of other editors doing good work. That is how i see it. 17:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hari doesn't understand science, so if she "uses" it, it's cherry-picked for support of her pre-judged position, not taken on its merits. For aluminium she uses the anti-aluminium research (a partial view of the consensus, but with some support) and she uses it to decry others' products, but she then goes on to sell her own recommended products despite their own aluminium content. You can't pick and choose like that and still be said to be "doing science". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether to include CSPI on azodicarbonamide
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,. SageRad (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I Agree with SageRad. Ronz, whether you like it or not, CSPI supported Hari's claims about azo. They put out a press release immediately following her petition stating that she deserves credit for drawing public attention to the issue. CNN reported it and it is properly sourced. --Omnipum (talk) 18:14, 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)
 * If you look at the top of this talk page, there is now a notice that the discretionary sanctions from that case apply to this page. I agree that they apply, because Hari is active in advocating views about science that are contrary to the scientific mainstream. The fact that the case took place some time ago does not matter, because the rulings are still in effect. I've been following what has been going on on your user talk page, and I regret that Ronz presented the message as a warning and with reference to the current GMO case, but that should not change the fact that this page should be edited in accordance with the sanctions in place from the PS case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

NPR
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]".
 * 1) These sources (both from NPR) do not support "several food science experts" as only two scientists were quoted in the article: John Coupland and Kantha Shelke.
 * 2) The audio interview doesn't even mention Coupland, while the NPR article takes a comment made by John Coupland in a blog post (they did not interview him for the piece). The NPR source uses one quote his blog post which is taken out of context, making it seem as if he agrees that it's use is "too low to pose a significant risk", but if you read his entire post he actually says "in my recent piece on the Food Babe’s campaign, I treated concerns about the safety of this ingredient much too lightly and this is an attempt to put that right" and "small amounts of semicarbazide and urethane have been shown to form from azodicarbonamide breakdown during baking and these compounds may pose a health risk. In particular urethane is listed as a carcinogen under California Prop 65.  The real question is whether these tiny concentrations in bread are toxicologically significant. At the moment CSPI say the risks are real and the additive should be banned while FDA says its safe and permits its use at up to 45 ppm in dough."
 * 3) This sentence should be removed due to poor sourcing or reworded as follows:
 * NPR performed a follow up story about Hari's petition to Subway in which food science experts said that the level of azodicarbonamide permitted by the FDA for use in bread may be too low to pose significant risk, in which Dr. John Coupland opined “small amounts of semicarbazide and urethane have been shown to form from azodicarbonamide breakdown during baking and these compounds may pose a health risk. In particular urethane is listed as a carcinogen under California Prop 65. The real question is whether these tiny concentrations in bread are toxicologically significant. At the moment CSPI say the risks are real and the additive should be banned while FDA says its safe and permits its use at up to 45 ppm in dough.” Source: http://johncoupland.tumblr.com/post/76699232713/so-what-is-azodicarbonamide-actually-doing-in  --Omnipum (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. There are many references beyond NPR on the matter. Francl, Hamblin, d'Entremont, Stanford all cover it. It shouldn't be restricted to just NPR. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

Kraft - did Hari cause the changes?
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)
 * To explain my edit. Basically a gazillion years ago back when I saw the article at BLPN the sentence in the lede was something like "Hari claims credit for changes to..." which made it seem like there was no proof that it was her doing in any of the cases. So I trimmed it only to the companies who stated Hari influenced their decisions and rephrased. Was just keeping it in line with previous changes I'd made. Middle path seems a wise one, as Kraft denies their decision was due to Hari's campaign, so we can't explicitly state in WP's voice that she caused it.Brustopher (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Another source that claims Hari got Kraft to change. Also notes that Alsip is not a scientist. SageRad (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hari is all about "post hoc" claims. Someone changed ergo I did it. Anyone who hasn't got a boner for her knows this clearly. Mark Alsip NEVER claimed (to my knowledge at least that he is a scientist). He has, however, roundly debunked huge numbers of her claims - using evidence from scientific papers, respect journals and actual scientists, and has told me specifically someone matching SageRad's profile (I can't be sure) has repeatedly commented on his posts in support for Hari. Lewis Lazare's contention that Hari got XYZ to change is not supported by any evidence in this article and is merely repeating Hari's own claims. Kraft has specifically said (and it may OR may not be lying) that Hari had NOTHING to do with this and that it was part of normal product development. This sort of claim is no different to Hari's more recent announcement that she's gotten Subway to remove antibiotics from its meat - something else there is no evidence (save for her own echo chamber and legion fans) to support. Smidoid (talk) 21:29, 8 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)
 * lots of sources on the Internet make the same claim because they just slavishly repeat Hari's claims which is no surprise. That still does not make it true. The only people who know for sure are Kraft and right now they are pretty clear that this is post hoc on her part. How about you stop defending her and write to Kraft yourself, explaining you're an editor for Wikipedia and ask for a clarification. When I was writing professionally 25+ years ago, that's what I did because Post Hoc claims are easier to come by than hard facts; and are almost always contradictory. If you ask Google about GMO you'll almost certainly be directed to an anti-GMO site despite the fact that most respected experts in the field say GMOs are safe. 04:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs)
 * The Salt is a self-described blog of food experts. Probably not a good enough source on its own for whether Hari deserves credit for her campaigns. All the Chicago Business Journal gives Hari credit for is compelling companies to "pay attention". The Washington Post and ABC News merely imply that she might have been the cause (also noting the caveat that the company itself gives information contradicting such a claim). I think there may need to be more than that in order to override the company's statements and have Wikipedia name Hari the cause. Adrian [232] 04:56, 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:

Same thing other sources have been saying, as well. SageRad (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at that source, and I think that it's worth citing in multiple instances. In part, I agree with you that this page should include information about how she might be influencing companies, even if they do not credit her. This is a BLP about her, and we should include her influences on society. But, there's another side to that. You cherry-picked a short passage from the source. It also says: "But her statements — often incorrect — and faulty reasoning have produced numerous memes and parodies, not to mention aggressive reactions from doctors and scientists, who call her scientifically illiterate." and "In both cases, Ms. Hari usually profits, promoting expensive alternatives for which she receives Amazon affiliate commissions." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Further actions by Subway possibly in part due to Vani Hari's work
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)
 * That article says no such thing. It credits Hari as being part of a coalition that welcomed the change. They didn't even deliver their petition. Adrian [232] 04:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree too. I think i did read into it a little too much originally. I do think it's relevant the amount of coverage of Hari and others in the consumer's movement for less routine use of antibiotics in meat production, in Food Safety News. I think it will probably be the case the companies will not generally credit Hari or anyone with a change but will take positions similar to this, and it will be the work of observers to make the call as to whether the changes are attributable to pressure from a consumer awareness standpoint. Note that they didn't deliver the petitions because the change was made before they delivered them. It's still seems quite likely that the changes were made due to awareness of pressure, though this source does not directly say that. SageRad (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category
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:

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)


 * Strongly agree. I have removed the category; she appears to be merely a surprisingly effective food activist. She cites genuine scientific research, not pseudo-anything. Her interpretations may be extreme at times, but they are based on legitimate research into and questions about the effects of various food stuffs, not on pseudoscientific theories. HGilbert (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Gee, I see a lot of RSs mentioned above that use the label pretty clearly. I don't think we ought to care who she is 'lumped in with', that is a red herring (I just looked up 'American people of Punjabi descent' and she is lumped in with Bobby Jindal.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Several sources all with very similar bent use the term "pseudoscience" which is one POV about Hari, but not a universal POV, and in my reckoning not even a dominant or mainstream view. The term is generally being used by avowed "skeptics" which appears to be a certain class of critics that comes from an apparently very strong pro-chemical-industry perspective. I don't think that can be our determining source on whether Wikipedia categorizes Hari as pseudoscience. The other persons in the list is useful to establish precedence as to the weight of actual pseudoscience pushing needed for an individual to be classified in this category, and so i don't see it as a red herring. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 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)


 * It's supported by the sources which were already listed in the previous discussion on the topic. Multiple RSes have unambiguously called her work "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientific". Look up this page. You can't claim a local consensus to ignore WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As i said above, that is one minority view on Hari. It is not a general view of her. It's an agenda-pushing term used by a small contingent who have set their sights on her as a target. I see past discussion on this that did not establish consensus, and also included a strong opinion by a self-avowed "skeptic" which sort of makes my point. But this is now and we are discussing this now. There are many reliable sources that commend her work and do not call her a pseudoscience pusher, which is a notable contrast to those that do, and must also be taken into account. Any report that discusses her work with seriousness and does not call her a pseudoscience pusher is a source that opposes this category, and there are many of those. SageRad (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "many reliable sources that commend her work"
 * Examples please, because that's an exceptional claim that would require exceptional sources. There is a distinct lack of sources that are both reliable, and commendatory. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not really an exceptional claim. But anyway, CBS News. Gorski is briefly quoted at the end of this report, but as a minority viewpoint, and the word "pseudoscience" is not used. There's no dearth of such sources of this sort that comment on her ability to cause change in the food industry. SageRad (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's sourced by multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Should we add more to the article itself to make even clearer? --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We should discuss it here, with integrity, as adults and responsible editors, and not allow a minority POV that's being pushed by the industry to become commonly accepted knowledge in Wikivoice. That is what i think we should do. SageRad (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Pushed by the industry'? What industry would that be?  Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not going there in this forum. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 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)
 * Good work. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Adept solution! HGilbert (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You sure everyone in that category is an advocate of pseudoscience? Brustopher (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the subsubcat is far enough from being a proper subset of the larger cat, we could put this article back in the larger cat - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone (blush)! Actually, no, I'm not entirely sure that all the other pages in the diets category are really pseudoscience advocates, and that could prove to become an issue in time. But I feel moderately comfortable in that the category is defined in terms of fads, rather than in terms of medically validated diets. We can watch for whether that happens. Another solution if that happens is to move the diets category back out, but create a new category for Hari and others, that would be a subcategory of the advocates category, maybe something like Category:Advocates of pseudoscientific diets. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 6 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
 * Already done: discussed, documented, reviewed, discussed further, sourcing improved, discussed even further, resulting in a strong consensus.
 * Just to be clear "totally unscientific but appearing to be scientific" is a strawman. We follow the sources and consensus, and none hold us to such a definition. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm questioning this supposed consensus, and I was not involved in said discussions. How is what I said a strawman? I think that's a definition of pseudoscience.  I'll get onto it in a couple of days. I'm going to look into it further. If you care to point me to the most relevant discussions,  I'd appreciate it.  If not,  I'll find them on my own. Thanks.  SageRad (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please think of it this way. Strictly speaking, Wikipedia does not actually determine that something is pseudoscience. Instead, Wikipedia reports what the preponderance of reliable sources say is pseudoscience. The page cites a very large number of reliable sources that say this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "and I was not involved in said discussions" Yes, you were. I suspect if you looked, you'll find you were involved in multiple such discussions, if not all of them that have occurred since you first started commenting here. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it may be important to note a few reasons why it's Wikipedia's policy to defer to the reliable sources. The sources Wikipedia defers to are noteworthy experts on the subject, who take the time to evaluate individual incidents and conclude whether or not the particular case is pseudoscience or not pseudoscience, for example. That's more rigorous than individual editors, and more importantly it's humbling and something tangible to use to determine what information is the best to use. Since these experts have already made their evaluations, there is no need for us to debate whether their conclusions are valid or not. But it's easy to see why they came to those conclusions if you look at the information provided. Adrian [232] 21:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary discussion break
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. Minor4th  21:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of sources Here are the citations supporting the statement that Hari is promoting pseudoscience:


 * 1) Charlotte Observer- Does not mention pseudoscience at all.


 * 1) Bloomberg News, dead link - quotes an NPR interview that quotes Novella's blog saying Hari pushes pseudoscience


 * 1) Sydney Morning Herald - references Science Babe's blog/hit piece by a journalist who is not a science expert


 * 1) LA Times Blog piece by economy writer Michael Hilzik who refers to Hari as "spectacularly successful new dispenser of pseudoscientific hogwash."  That is obviously this non-scientist's opinion

None of these are good sources for saying Hari is a pseudoscientist or "pushes pseudoscience." <b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times is using the term as others have described it. In the piece he cites Orac (David Gorski), Michelle Francl in Slate , and Yvette d'Entremont as some of his reasoning for applying the term, as well as Keith Kloor, a fellow journalist. Also I don't see where this is a "blog", it's a column in the Business section, and a secondary source. As per WP:PARITY these places are where these kinds of things play out. Adrian [232] 22:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Look up his bio on LA Times. They refer to his column as a blog. Irrespective of PARITY, we don't use shoddy sources for negative BLP info..  In any event, Tryptofish has changed the heading, and I think that's appropriate. I still think much of the material in that section violates BLP sourcing requirements as well as UNDUE. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 23:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We still have at least 3 science experts, Gorski, Novella, and d'Entremont, specifically referring to her ideas as "pseudoscience", and several journalists reporting on the issue in their columns/blogs referring to it as "pseudoscience". As well as others describing what essentially falls under its umbrella. I respect Tryptofish trying to keep the peace, but I still think it's been shown the term applies here. Adrian [232] 23:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought that changing the section header, while still indicating that there is definitely scientific criticism, was appropriate per BLP. As I said earlier in this talk, I agree with deleting the word "widely", not because it's incorrect (it isn't), but because it's unnecessary. I also support the addition of a reply from Hari, again on BLP grounds. But, all of that said, I would not want to see the section tilt too far away from indicating that she has, indeed, been criticized for spreading pseudoscience, and that the critics are expressing mainstream views as Wikipedia regards the mainstream. I'm not seeing the sources as "hit pieces". We have a responsibility to present to our readers an accurate representation of what the sources tell us about scientific fact, because otherwise we are misleading readers into believing false information about dietary decisions. Getting that right is not at odds with BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored the header. This issue has been discussed in depth with lots of RSes, as noted - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noting that she does indeed promote a pseudoscientific view of the world, aeroplane cabin pressure and atmosphere, toxins, fish bladders etc. Per WP:NPOV we of course reflect that, as shown in this discussion, and all the previous ones. (Just to reinforce the obvious consensus) -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noting that making mistakes is not pseudoscience, and you're pulling out the the same old and famous gaffes of Hari's mostly from before she was popular and before she was professionally doing what she does, which she's retracted and said things like "not my best work"... mistakes do not make pseudoscience. They just are mistakes. SageRad (talk) 14:51, 8 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)
 * There must be sources for all that Sage? You know, all the ones that show her statements about the way the world works to be correct? Please bring them, and if they are reliable we will of course incorporate them. Should I wait here? -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that it is so obviously clear that reliable sources regard what she says as pseudoscience that it is starting to sound ridiculous when editors argue that it's just some mistakes in understanding science. It's pseudoscience, per multiple reliable sources. I don't much mind having been reverted on the section header, although I also think that changing the header back was needlessly battleground-y. However, the edit restoring the pseudoscience category, an edit I have now reverted, was really a bad idea. As discussed above in this talk, and widely agreed to by other editors, Category:Diet and food fad creators is now a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. Per WP:SUBCAT, normal practice is to omit the parent category when a page is in a subcategory. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8385295/science-reporting-ethics --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_food_babe_a_taste_of_her_own_medicine --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with you about "pseudoscience", I want to note that you just reverted an edit that presented Hari's reply to criticism. Since you point to past discussion, I want to make sure that you saw where I said that I agreed with including what Hari said, because this is a BLP about her. I take your point about not wanting to have the page devolve into he-said-she-said, but I hope that we can agree on some sort of way to include Hari's response. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not looked too closely at the topic yet, but there appears to be multiple sources that discuss how she has responded to criticism. It appears they've found her to be dishonest, dismissive, and a bit paranoid. To present one of her responses out of the proper context is questionable for an encyclopedia article, though typical of he-said/she-said news reporting. Including such a vapid response could also be seen as a snub against her. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to replacing it with a less vapid one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 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)
 * You are going to the meta level without addressing the strength of the object level: the RSes that have addressed the matter, and have been cited repeatedly, overwhelmingly support the claim - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then let me get specific. Mark Alsip, Kevin Folta, Steven Novella, Julia Belluz, and Yvette d'Emtremont are part of a small but vocal group of avowed pseudoskeptical axe grinders. Gorski and Senapathy are as well. These are an ideological group who have created a very loud echo chamber effect in the media. A few op-ed pieces echo their claims, like Hilzik. It's as Keith Kloor writes in his blog on the matter, that pseudoscience is rampant on the Internet and there exists "has prompted an army of science bloggers dedicated to countering it". (And before you jump and point out that Kloor is down on Hari too, note that he is included in this small army of science bloggers that he is describing.) It really is a small but mission-oriented group who have decided what they consider pseudoscience and are dedicated to taking it down in this way. It is not the mainstream media's general position or take on Hari. It doesn't appear to be a general scientists' point of view on Hari. It appears to me to be a small group of dedicated people, something akin to if all Dungeons and Dragons fanatics has a position on Vani Hari that differed from the mainstream view of her, and then Wikipedia took the small group of people's word for it instead of CBS News and other more mainstream sources. This is a sociological phenomenon happening here, and i'm looking out for Wikipedia to not follow the ideological pushings of a minority group. The same would hold true in regard to a minority pushing by any group. It's notable as a position of a group of people, but not as a consensus about reality. It's notable to point out in the article, for instance, that there is a small army of bloggers who have it out for Hari, as Kloor points out, but not to adopt their positions as Wikipedia's reflection of reality. SageRad (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Then let me get specific. Mark Alsip, Kevin Folta, Steven Novella, Julia Belluz, and Yvette d'Emtremont are part of a small but vocal group of avowed pseudoskeptical axe grinders. Gorski and Senapathy are as well. These are an ideological group who have created a very loud echo chamber effect in the media. " That's a BLP violation. Please stop. The only thing you'll accomplish by trying to argue for content changes by attacking sources you don't like with BLP violations is to get yourself blocked or banned. I think we need a formal WP:AE warning at this point, minimally. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness' sake, let's stop the demands for heads on stakes, and I'm saying that to both "sides". Whether or not those authors are "axe grinders" is a distraction in this particular instance, because they are nonetheless reliable sources as critics of Hari. It is a bogus rhetorical trick to argue that sources for criticism cannot be written by people who are critics (and being a critic is not the same thing as having an axe to grind). Sources expressing a point of view opposite to Hari's point of view are going to have a point of view. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A strong opinion piece is a good source for that being the opinion of the writer, but not necessarily for the actual content's veracity. I could say that Mark Alsip says that Hari practices pseudoscience, but to say "Hari practices pseudoscience" in Wikivoice is another matter entirely. I am indeed troubling the notion that the sources listed to support that claim are actually reliable for making that judgment in a way that would fit NPOV. This is according to WP:BIASED. SageRad (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A BLP violation in what sense? I don't understand what you're saying, Ronz. Looking at sources carefully is what editors are supposed to do, and guarding against articles being occupied by particular agendas and points of view is what we're supposed to do here. SageRad (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In hopes of heading off further off-topic arguing, Ronz is saying that you saying negative things about those authors violates BLP with respect to those authors. Let's just let that pass without further litigating it, please. As for Wikipedia's voice, to treat scientific consensus and its evil twin, pseudoscience, as roughly co-equal POVs is akin to WP:FLAT. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Two points:
 * 1. This is a talk page, so it's not subject to the BLP guidelines for articles. We are allowed to speak frankly here, and in fact it's the best way to create good articles. I certainly would not put those claims into an actual article about any of those authors without serious sourcing, but here on a talk page we can speak frankly.
 * 2. The definition of "scientific consensus" and "pseudoscience" are the issues here. I understand what the terms mean. I am very much against actual pseudoscience. We can't allow strongly biased people to define those terms for us in the article. It really has to be based on good sources. I think it's an epistemological sleight of hand to phrase it as Flat Earth versus Science, as that's buying into the very trope that Alsip and company are selling. SageRad (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPTALK actually says that BLP applies here 'BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts.'. The first sentence of WP:BLP says 'Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.'  Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, point taken. I stand corrected that BLP guidelines actually do apply to talk pages. Still, what i said about these writers is that they are a clique-ish group of avowed "skeptics" which i have seen to mean a certain kind of pseudoskepticism. We must be able to talk in this way on a talk page in order to discuss sources. And, if you wish to bring up the BLP guidelines for talk pages, then there are dozens of completely gratuitious swipes at Vani Hari here in this talk page and the archives, so apparently others haven't heard of this guidelines. My point about these writers is that they clearly have an ideological axe to grind and Hari is their target. This is largely self-avowed by these writers, as well, and even the targeting of Hari is somewhat demonstrable through quotes like "takedown piece" and Folta's email correspondence with CFSAF and others about Vani Hari. SageRad (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that you're aware of what BLP says, please stop disparaging people in an attempt to undermine the reliable sources that they have authored.
 * "We can't allow strongly biased people to define those terms for us in the article." Of course, "strongly biased people" is just furthering the BLP violation. Please stop it. As for the rest, these are exactly the type of sources that we rely upon to identify pseudoscience. This has been discussed at length, and SageRad has participated in those discussions. Time to drop the stick. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 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)
 * You're not discussing sources, you are attacking the authors. The sources are reliable. The sources are exactly the type we want for documenting accusations of promoting pseudoscience. That discussion happened a month ago and you participated in it here. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, i wish we could discuss the content and not get onto this tangent. I was characterizing the authors' bent in writing the pieces. That's not an "attack". If there were a piece that showed a strong tinge of racism or white supremacism, and someone wanted to use it as a source that included that racist judgment, then i would have to comment on that source and its author's bent as well. We are editors with minds, and we can use them. We know that all sources are not created equal. A piece in the NY Times has more weight that a piece in CSICOP, for most people, i would assume. We see people challenge sources all the time. It's part of the process here. If it seems that a writer has a strong agenda then that is relevant information to discuss about the source. SageRad (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * People attacking Hari's views is not the same thing as being racist against a person or otherwise attacking them. These sources come from experts in the field of science and pseudoscience. Half of them hardly even know each other outside of the general scientific skepticism community, and being part of that professional community is not some kind of bias. That would be akin to saying that astrophysicists cannot have an opinion on astrophysics because they all talk to each other and have an opinion about what astrophysics is. Utterly ridiculous. Adrian [232] 22:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, and i'm criticizing their views and their positions and not them if one can make that distinction. I am saying that i find it to be clear that they are part of a small posse of people who are on a mission to discredit and "take down" Vani Hari, and do not represent a general, uninvolved position on Vani Hari that would be suitable to reflect with Wikivoice. I also do not think that they represent "experts" on science, but rather promoters of a specific ideology that is different from science as a pure pursuit and mode of knowledge. They are self-appointed "experts" and said to be "experts" in the same small circles in which they run, by each other especially, which gives rise to the impression that it's an echo chamber. I could call myself an "expert" on anything, but that wouldn't make me one. Scientific skepticism is well and good. Scentists are by nature and by definition skeptics. However, this particular brand of "skepticism" appears to me more like pseudoskepticism on a mission. This is not to "attack" these authors, but rather to make an observation on the nature of the sources in the interest of integrity of this Wikipedia article. I don't want Wikipedia to be taken by a PR campaign, and i also don't want a BLP to embody it in Wikivoice. SageRad (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously we can't just keep going round in circles. We might just have to agree to disagree, but i must be able to register this reckoning here, and it must be apparent that it's not a complete consensus that thinks that Wikivoice should echo this particular small group of writers, while ignoring a more mainstream assessment of Hari, in declaring her to be primarily a purveyor of pseudoscience, instead of a genuine food activist. SageRad (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying people who criticize her brand of pseudoscience are in some sort of conspiracy is a tad much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a "a more mainstream assessment of Hari" that's being outright ignored?! Sources please. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is literally an ad hominem attack, Sage. You're not attacking their views, you are attacking the people in order to discredit their views. Adrian [232] 01:48, 10 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)
 * "Actually, i'm not attacking the people." Please drop it. The repetition is just making a strong case against that opinion. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not how dialogue works. SageRad (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean that we're getting away from the proper use of this talk page, I agree. So drop the stick, stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)