Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 8

Gawker not a reliable source
I want to raise the issue that Gawker as not a reliable source on Wikipedia.

1. Gawker has been deemed an unreliable source several times in the past on the WP:IRS Noticeboard, and described as a tabloid, gossip site, and clickbait:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_131#List_of_unusual_deaths
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#Gawker.com
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_180#Media_as_RS_for_their_own_controversies_.28GamerGate.29

2. Gawker is a blog with questionable editorial oversight. They admit that they do not fact check their articles: “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.” WP:QUESTIONABLE “Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.” Omnipum (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * http://themoderatevoice.com/nick-denton-on-journalisms-future/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/05/gawker-got-pranked-kony-isnt-looking-for-peace-here-are-the-facts/
 * While Gawker is indeed dubious, it ought to be kept in mind D'Entremont is an analytical chemist with specialist knowledge and expertise. Furthermore her article and criticisms of Hari were covered by multiple other sources. Therefore D'Entremont's criticisms should be kept in the article. Brustopher (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If a source is not reliable how can it still be used? It appears to me that Gawker has never been considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Shouldn't then the other sources be used instead of Gawker? SMH seems to be a reliable source at first glance, but not sure about BostInno. Omnipum (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the archived discussions you linked rightly point out that whether a source is reliable depends on what it is being used for and who the author is. It's not a good idea to simply throw out everything that comes from one of the internet's largest blogs, which does have editorial oversight. In the case of d'Entremont, everything used is attributed directly to her. d'Entremont cites her sources, and has scientific training. We also have other RS's referencing the article, as the article is notable to the subject of criticism about Hari. If you have reason to suspect that the specific information provided in that article is unreliable or incorrect, I'd be willing to consider it, but eliminating all content simply because it originates at Gawker is neither reasonable nor Wikipedia's policy. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 05:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What proof is there that Gawker has editorial oversight? I've read the opposite is true.
 * http://themoderatevoice.com/nick-denton-on-journalisms-future/
 * http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/03/gawker-to-be-penalized-by-new-fact-based-search-algorithm-says-google/
 * Omnipum (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.” WP:QUESTIONABLEOmnipum (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Adrian232. We have reliable sources supporting the d'Entremont reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then reliable sources should be used instead of Gawker, which is not reliable. Omnipum (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the source appears reliable and we're qualifying it to be safe. To throw out a source for such reasoning would be a POV violation. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How would that be a POV violation? As you know, the WP:NPOV policy still requires reliable sources be used: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Furthermore: "The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality” Neutrality of sources and “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources… Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well… Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
 * In other words - reliability doesn’t require neutrality, but neutrality requires reliability. This is why only reliable sources can be used, and Gawker is not one of them. Omnipum (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You really haven't made your case to impeach this particular source - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that Gawker is a reliable source for wikipedia articles? Omnipum (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to impeach the source, arguing from someone's Wordpress-based blog and the Daily Caller (an actual unreliable source/ conservative propaganda site full of anti-science conspiracy theories) aren't the best way to go about it. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I too agree with Adrian, the source is fine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it fine here when Gawker has been deemed an unreliable source multiple times? Omnipum (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not saying Gawker has excellent editorial control. However, Gawker does have editors, and they do not allow just anybody to write whatever they want there. They also can, and have, pulled articles that didn't meet a certain standard. That makes them distinct from a WP:SPS, for example. What matters here is whether the source is reliable for what it's being used for in the article. For example, I wouldn't use a pop music review as a source for mitosis in single-celled organisms, nor a study about mitosis in a biology journal as a source for pop music criticism. I certainly don't believe Gawker is a great place for sourcing most facts to state in Wikipedia's voice, but this is the text we are using the source for: Yvette d'Entremont, science writer and former analytical chemist, writing for Gawker, criticized the lack of scientific support for Hari's claims, and described her writing as "the worst assault on science on the internet". Gawker is reliable for verifying an author's identity, so we can be sure d'Entremont wrote it and that her writing met their editorial standards. The rest of it are facts that are all verifiable using the source provided, as they are attributed directly to d'Entremont. You can feel free to ask the great people over at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but they will tell you essentially what we are telling you here. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 21:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree Gawker is a piss-poor site BUT I will add another voice to this. I know Yvette and she's done quite well from that post but her credentials are impeccable and her own book on this sort of assault against rational is out next year. The real advantage she got from Gawker is the exposure which almost put a complete stop to Vani's unstoppable anti-fact behemoth. That's why Vani put so much effort into the damage limitation exercise. Look at it this way, if a priceless diamond is transported in a plain package by a scruffy main in a raincoat, does that devalue the diamond? Smidoid (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Change of tactic - updates needed
I notice from recent email shots that Hari has been putting out that she has started to acknowledge (quietly) that organic produce DOES use pesticides. Further, she has said a number of times that "processed" sugar is bad for people. This is devious (not to mention lying by obfuscation or omission) by implying that what she's selling/promoting is OK. In regards to pesticides she has used the qualifier "synthetic" to imply that synthetic is automatically "bad" (the opposite is true in many, but not all cases) although synthetics are usually cheaper/more cost effective a cost which is passed to the consumer. Sugar (primarily sucrose but also as HFCS) is a serious issue for Americans in particular but also to many people in the developed world. Hari has repeatedly suggested that organic and alternative forms of (sucrose primarily) are somehow superior. This is completely bogus as the extra micro-nutrients while detectable, are in amounts too small to have any benefit. I think it's well known that I am pro-science and a vocal campaigner against Hari and her ilk, therefore, I wonder if someone else would make these notes as I might be seen as biased? The only citations I have are from her emails but I expect she has made similar claims on her website and other marketing materials. Smidoid (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ideally we'd want a third-party WP:RS covering the claims - we have that for most of the claims in this article - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As to the claims themselves, I have the emails (which I can post here - with headers as needed). As for refuting these claims - a large slice of Hitchen's Razor applies. In both cases, Hari has almost (but not quite) backtracked on previous claims by qualifying them with finger-pointing. She has, for years, claimed (by direct inference or implication) that organic doesn't use pesticides: a claim that is clearly false. Even things that had little or no forensic trace of pesticides were described as being "full of pesticides" - with Starbucks coming in for a hammering on television - quoted here . She goes on to make other outrageous and emotive claims about cancer too. As for sugar, here is an extract from a Jul 29 2016 emailing. I can't reproduce the bold text here, capitalization as in original:


 * "That HORRIBLE ingredient I was talking about yesterday is REFINED PROCESSED SUGAR. I’m human, just like you, and I love sweets! For most of my life, I was addicted to sugar. As a result, my health suffered a lot too. My teeth were awful, my skin was a mess, my body was inflamed, my energy was low and I was overweight."


 * Note also the claims she makes (some of which are questionable) in relation to her poor diet: inflammation, for example, could have been caused by other factors - if, indeed, she had it at all! I believe her teeth were awful - but funny that she never mentions how they are now perfect... (cough, cough). Here's another quote (2011) that makes similar claims for refined sugar... not what she's selling of course. http://foodbabe.com/2011/12/19/ditch-refined-sugar/ That perfect Hollywood smile she flashes everywhere should raise questions. I don't object to her having cosmetic dentistry, but I do object to her effectively pretending she never had any. Some more of her claims here . Here is a another quote from that same email:


 * "Study after study is coming out that shows how toxic sugar is to the body and how it leads to a myriad of diseases - heart disease, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's, liver disease, and more. "


 * Once again, she uses (frankly dubious) medical claims (she's no more a doctor than I am) to attack processed sugar. You'd have to read the whole thing in context to see this. We know that obesity is a factor in these things and that consumed sugars (sucrose and HFCS) contribute to obesity in the West but the reality here is she's using scare tactics to sell her own brand of junk. Sugar is bad, of that there is no question, but the implication that ONLY processed stuff is bad, is deliberately deceptive and it's a reasonably assumption that Vani knows this too. Note also the repeated use of "toxic" a weasel word she is particularly fond of. The dose makes the poison and sugar is not toxic even in fairly large doses for healthy people. Eating too much of anything that contains calories will, over time, contribute to net weight gain.


 * Here's an example where the "synthetic" qualifier is used - this one is an email from July 22 2016:


 * "Just some of the reasons why I personally use and love Nutiva’s coconut oil: It is certified organic. This means no synthetic pesticides or GMOs were used in its production and it is free of harmful additives."


 * This is also another case of her affiliate marketing which is never fully disclosed, a bug bear for all the businesses which go out of their way to comply. As for the "harmful" additives... well, you do the math. Surely an email from the source is a reliable indicator? I have these emails in their entirety but how to put them here without claims of editing? Smidoid (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this approach can avoid fundamental OR problems without independent sources. Did The Fear Babe ever get any prominent reviews, or enough that it might be due to mention? --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not yet, sadly. I'm afraid that just being clearly factual doesn't swing it for Wikipedia - for controversial living biographies like this one, where people will argue down to the phrase level (c.f. this talk page and its archives), we seem in practice to need the most unimpeachable of sources for simple factual statements, let alone anything one side objects to. Even if the subject quite definitely said something absolutely appalling, we'd still need it to have been noted in third-party sources - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Unimpeachable? That's an interesting point David - since at least one of the statements in this article is refuted by Hari without challenge: how is that reliable source> As for Fear Babe [full disclosure: I was on the production team] it contains sections written by two doctoral level scientists (Kevin Folta and Mike Petrik) and was reviewed by at least one more who prefers to remain anonymous. Quite what the authors have to do to get it recognised is beyond me. The Food Babe Way certainly got on the NYT's Bestseller list (for one week as I recall) but that was entirely down to a huge marketing campaign organised by someone who does that for a living. I know the authors were given some pretty risqué allegations against Hari but those statements where withheld from the book despite holding up to fairly serious scrutiny. The truth, really is, out there: somewhere. Her support for Gerson is clear and noted on Page 343 of the first edition under Natural Health and Healing. Also listed here are Anne Wigmore and the Burzynski Clinic . Both Burzynski and Gerson (plus their variations) have probably lead people to their deaths, actor Steve McQueen among them.


 * As another example - on Page 216 of the FBW, Vani terrifies readers over BT toxin in GM corn - explaining how the insect's stomach "explodes". It seems she either doesn't/didn't know -or- refused to acknowledge that organic processors use BT systemically with precisely the same effect! The same claim was repeated by that guy on Infowars during an interview with Vani... These are first hand claims - but it needs an experienced editor to find what you call a reliable source [that's not a dig, I don't know what counts any more - what satisfied my lecturers isn't enough here] to refute this. It's basic knowledge of organic pesticides to me - but I'm just a schmuck. Yet another, which I believe has been noted before, that the Flu Vaccine tweet was live right up until the first chapter of Fear Babe (which referenced it) was released to the public on, I think, Kavin Senapathy's site. Call that a coincidence? I don't. Help me out here - what IS a unimpeachable source? Smidoid (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience
I recently removed category:pseudoscience from this article, a change for which I gave a good and clear reason ("the category is for topics or theories that are pseudoscience; a person is not a pseudoscience theory"). My edit was reverted by David Gerard, without an edit summary or explanation. I do not find this acceptable. The category page states that, "This category comprises well-known topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)." A person is not a pseudoscientific topic. It should be obvious that while a different category might be appropriate, "category:pseudoscience" is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't you notice, just above? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did. I also looked through the talk page archives. There is nothing that answers the point that a category for pseudoscience topics such as astrology and creationism cannot be properly applied to articles about individual persons. So while I am not going to revert back, I still think this edit of yours was unreasonable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked editors to participate in the CfD discussion. But I haven't gotten any takers, and it looks like the category about Diet creators, which is certainly more appropriate as it applies to persons (and I agree with you that it would be better to have a person-based category, but it should be a sub-category of Advocates of pseudoscience), isn't going to be the kind of sub-category that it needs to be. So unless that discussion changes soon, I think the solution is going to have to be the creation of a new category. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hari certainly HAS promoted pseudo-science in the past: in particular vocal support for things like Gerson Therapy, a dangerous and ineffective treatment for cancer that's responsible for an unknown number of deaths since over the years. References to this claim are in her book (with further references in The Fear Babe book which exposed many of her most egregious failures and false claims). Smidoid (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Further point I see from the pseudo-science section this note: "Hari responded by stating that the quote was taken out of its context of hormone-mimicking chemicals and growth stimulants, which can cause problems even in very small amounts" - Hari can respond and make (more fallacious) claims but I saw the quote *in context* and it most certainly wasn't referring to anything of the sort. I believe this has been discussed elsewhere - probably previously on the talk page. I absolutely agree that she should be able to explain her errors - but this is not a place where we should allow them to be brushed aside. She's as honest as a politician and just as devious. After all, her livelihood depends on it! Smidoid (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears the CfD was resolved by renaming and removing the diet creator category from the "Advocates of Pseudoscience" subcategory. This is unfortunate, because I do believe that this page should be in a subcategory of "Advocates of Pseudoscience". However, it remains true that the "Pseudoscience" category itself is not intended for *people* but for *topics*, so it remains inappropriate for this page. In light of that I have removed it. I would like to recommend that instead of reverting my change, someone should determine an appropriate subcategory of "Advocates of Pseudoscience" to create and add that category here. Academician (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Blog
I think for articles on living persons we should not be using blogs. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems reliable for the info. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ronz. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a group blog with an editorial board, and is generally considered reliable for discusison of quackery. You already know this. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm an investigator quote
After reviewing the past discussions (Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_7 and Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_7), I don't see any consensus for inclusion. She claims all sorts of things. Much of what she claims is demonstrably wrong. Almost all of what she claims is part of her efforts to market herself. I think the quote falls in the latter category, and has no value in an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's the context in the source: Because, Gorski writes, "companies live and die by public perception. It's far easier to give a blackmailer like Hari what she wants than to try to resist or to counter her propaganda by educating the public." Critics note that Hari lacks credentials in nutrition or food science; she's a former consultant who studied computer science. Hari declined to be interviewed for this story; through her publicist, she told NPR she isn't speaking to media until her new book is released in February. But when the Charlotte Observer asked her about such criticisms, Hari answered, "I've never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator." But that lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition and health, says Kevin Folta, a professor of horticultural sciences at the University of Florida and vocal online critic of Hari. "She really conflates the science," he tells The Salt.

The context in the Charlotte Observer article is: “Anytime you challenge powerful entities in the food industry, you’re going to get blowback,” he says. “You’re going to be countered by science, or they’re going to engage in what I refer to as the politics of hate and division. They’re going to attempt to discredit you.” What does Hari say about charges of mistakes? “I’ve never claimed to be a nutritionist,” she says. “I’m an investigator.” However, many of Hari’s critics aren’t from the food industry. They’re academics who say they’re disturbed by errors in how she explains science.

It's a meaningless response from Hari as I read both sources. It's a diversion rather than a substantial response. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing these details, and it's fine with me to reopen the discussion. What you have quoted here makes something clear that wasn't clear to me before: the quote from Hari is not presented in the sources as the "final word", and what we have quoted from Kevin Folta is actually presented as a rebuttal to Hari, rather than Hari's quote being a rebuttal to Folta. So I just reordered the paragraph to reflect that source. I get it, that Hari's comment is pretty thin on insight. But this is a WP:BLP nonetheless, and we should still let her voice be heard. It's a mistake to delete what she says simply because it is wrong. But it was also a mistake to have made it sound like what she said refuted the criticisms. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ronz, you should not have reverted me without even giving me enough time to post what I said above. And the quote had been here quite stably for a few months, so it's not like an emergency suddenly came up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning in favor of including the quote in some form or another. Even though it's a rather blatant self-serving attempt to dismiss the criticism against her, it's also the only real response she has given to any of it, and she deserves to have her response represented. Quite frankly, it makes her sound a bit ridiculous, as she is subtly admitting that she is a non-expert and shouldn't be relied upon, but those are her own words. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 21:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that. I think some editors are just too quick to delete what she says, on the basis that they think we shouldn't say something that is incorrect. But we (Wikipedia) aren't saying it: she is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is the reordered version that I tried to implement, before it was reverted:

I really don't think that there's a problem with her quote when it is presented in this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been several similar discussions. In each case people trying to be fair, seek to include Hari's response as the final word on some criticism. In each case Hari's response is self-serving and at odds with the observed facts. Is she not claiming to be a nutritionist? Then she should not be pontificating about food. Since she does pontificate about food, her lack of any qualification on which to base such pontification is a legitimate criticism, and her self-serving excuse that she never claimed to be an expert while spouting her deliberately sciencey-sounding faux-expert nonsense can safely be ignored. If you call yourself the food babe and write on the subject of food with an air of asserted authority, as Hari does, then you don't get to wave away criticism with the pretence that you were not claiming to be a specified class of expert. I myself would exclude her response. If we must include it, then your version is OK. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with what you said about it being inadvisable to present her quote "as the final word". And that is why my suggested version gives Kevin Folta the last word, not her. Besides, the source presents it with Folta rebutting Hari, so it is also more accurate to present it that way here. This does seem to me to be fair, but it isn't presenting Hari's words uncritically. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If we must include her self-serving response, then your version is fine. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Two questions:
 * Why include it at all - what specific portion of policy are editors interpreting to mean that we should include content such as this?
 * Why include it given that it makes her sound ridiculous? --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hari is ridiculous. Her own pronouncements, especially the ones which she then tries to "vanish" in embarrassment, make her prone to ridicule. Sometimes the encyclopedic description of something or someone is that they are ridiculous, by their own efforts, on multiple occasions, as evidenced by multiple knowledgeable and qualified people in her field of publicity describing her in such terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. Why does the quote help the matter, especially when it's meaning is ambiguous? Are we including it to give her a slight while avoiding libel (which is how I interpret its use in the two sources)? --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The one thing in its favour is that we do tend to put responses from sources in BLPs, particularly controversial ones, and that this is quite definitely her consistent response when the concern is raised in public, and that RSes have run it as such, so it's publicly known as her response on the matter. That it's a response that leaves everything to be desired, as several above note, is why I'm not as gung-ho for it as I have been previously. But I think its presence is entirely supportable, though I wouldn't say it's mandatory - David Gerard (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see it as both "supportable" and as "somewhat preferable", but likewise not "mandatory". Where Ronz asked about it being "a slight", I don't see it quite that way. Readers are, of course, free to conclude that it's an unimpressive comment, and when I read the page as just another reader, instead of as an editor, that is the way that I read it. But as an editor, I see it as "just the way it is". That's what she says, and that's indicative of who she is. It's appropriate for us to present that. I was thinking about what Guy said earlier, about well-meaning editors who make the error of thinking that we need to quote her as a rebuttal, and it occurs to me that well-meaning editors can also make an error in thinking that we need to protect our readers, or protect what the page seems like, by making sure that we do not pass along any bogus things that she says. But that would indeed be a mistake. As long as we follow the source by presenting Folta's comments as a rebuttal, it's more encyclopedic to include it, than to leave it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an NPOV violation to exclude her response. I restored her response. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Per BLP, let's get some consensus.
 * Why include it at all - what specific portion of policy are editors interpreting to mean that we should include content such as this? A response to this seems a necessity to develop any policy-based consensus. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, you need to stop asserting that X violates Y policy when it is blindingly obvious that editors in good standing with extensive experience of Wikipedia disagree. You can certainly say that in your opinion it violates NPOV, but a strong case has been made that inclusion also violates NPOV by giving undue weight to an excuse that does not even pretend to address the actual criticism. Much as when quacks include disclaimers to the effect that their articles should not be construed as medical advice, these are no protection in law when they are plainly giving medical advice. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should include or exclude her response based on if it was an excuse or was not an excuse that does or does not directly address the specific criticism. It is not a reason to delete it if I don't like or like her response. Context is important in BLPs. We include one side of the debate, but we can also include the other side. Her response is her side of the story. See WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." The reader can decide if it was a response to the criticism or she was not directly responding to the "actual criticism". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the reason for excluding it is that it is a non-sequitur. When you build a highly profitable media empire based on writing sciencey-looking faux-authoritative bullshit, the fact that you don't explicitly claim to be qualified to write that bullshit is not in any way a response to criticism that you are not, in fact, qualified to write the bullshit. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether it is a non-sequitur or is not a non-sequitur is a matter of personal opinion. My personal opinion about her response is irrelevant. What matters it that it brings WP:BALANCE and context to the paragraph. See WP:IMPARTIAL: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The reader can determine if it is or is not a "non-sequitur". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See false balance. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:FALSEBALANCE: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones." WP:FALSEBALANCE is not applicable to this situation because the opinion is not about a minority view or extraordinary claim. It is an opinion and response by the subject of this article. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We do have two sources that use the quote, which suggests it might be due. Is that it?
 * Given that both sources don't comment on the quote directly, while undermining all validity to it, why are we including it? How does it help readers understand her of criticisms of her? She says all sorts of things, much of it nonsense, and almost all of it self-serving. This is the context that I think matters. --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted, that it's in two sources indicates it's her actual response to the criticism in question. I think that's relevant. An advocate would be pleased her opinion was being included, an anti-advocate would be pleased her opinion was so self-defeating, a skeptic would be infuriated at such a terrible answer ... and it's not excessive, I think. I'm not wedded to it, but I lean towards its inclusion and don't think it's hugely problematic - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that consensus is moving in the direction of including the quote, but a few editors are holding out for excluding. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What David said. The problem is that it is a shit response. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What QuackGuru wrote. That is not the issue IMO. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An advocate would be pleased her opinion was being included... That's why we shouldn't include it. It can be interpreted multiple ways. If we can't give it proper context and clear meaning, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, certainly not a BLP. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ronz, at this point, you are pretty much the one editor holding out for excluding the quote, and I think you are being a little too stubborn about it. This is a BLP about Hari, so please stop making the argument that we should exclude her own statements on BLP grounds. And we can give it proper context, by following it with Folta's rebuttal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What matters are our policies. You've chosen to make appeals that only vaguely refer to them. How about working to build the strong policy-based consensus required here? --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFPUB, which IIRC originated specifically as a right of reply for BLP subjects. The point of contention in the present discussion is if it's too self-serving. We do tend, on balance, to include subjects' own responses on a matter that's RS-notable as an individual item at all. YMMV, but this terrible Hari response has been quoted in multiple RSes as her actual considered response, so I think it would not be harmful to include. You think it's too self-serving, I think she shoots herself in the foot with it. That an advocate would like it should I think actually be ignored. And unlike the typical case of SELFPUB, this is actually quoted in multiple RSes - David Gerard (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ronz, it is nonsense to say that I have been vague about policy or that I am not working to build consensus. In fact, at this point, I would say that the consensus is to include the content, but that you are single-handedly obstructing the consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of taking the remark personally, respond with actual evidence. You're definitely assuming there's policy behind your points, but I can't find you ever explicitly stating them. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Investigator section break
I decided to look at the sources some more, to see if there is a way to help get agreement. At the moment, the section actually does not cite the Charlotte Observer source that also discussed the quote:. We should cite it along with the NPR source that has the quote as well as Folta's response:. But the Charlotte paper has another rebuttal, from Joseph A. Schwarcz, who is cited for something else lower on the page, and I think it would be good to include that too, because he is talking specifically about her lack of science education. So I now propose:

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikilink Kevin Folta to make clear this is a notable expert's opinion. Otherwise, support - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed that lack of link, as it is on the page now. Unless there is an earlier mention of Folta on the page, I will make that correction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Folta's name is already linked at the page. I simply overlooked the link in setting up the proposal here. I just added back the links to this proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good. This gives the quote an accurate context as portrayed in the source material as well as additional context to the criticism against her, and resolves possible due weight or false balance issues. Support. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 19:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So, do we have consensus? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if requests to identify policies go unanswered.
 * I'm saying the material is inherently unencyclopedic. The material is both meaningless and ambiguous, something that we simply shouldn't have in any encyclopedia article, much less a BLP. The news sources that we're using as sources take advantage of the ambiguity to make their articles entertaining and open to the widest possible audience. Encyclopedias should do neither. You'd never see such content in an academic article, at least not without commentary specifically removing any ambiguity. We cannot do that in this situation without relying on other sources, which don't appear to exist. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, I wasn't really asking you, because you've made it abundantly clear that you are going to filibuster against what the rest of us seem to be saying. So at some point pretty soon, we are going to have a consensus without you. So the first link I'll give you is WP:Consensus, where it says that consensus need not be unanimous.


 * But, to humor your request, WP:BLP points us to presenting the statements and opinions of the BLP subject when the BLP subject is involved in controversy. It points us away from presenting the statements of the critics of the BLP subject without also presenting the BLP subject's "side". And in no way does it allow editors to decide to omit the BLP subject's statements because we disagree with the statements or believe that the statements are ambiguous. And WP:NPOV says pretty much the same things. The content is reliably and verifiably sourced, from multiple sources. To a significant degree, we are also dealing with WP:Fringe, and the proposal complies with that, because it gives the "last word" to the critics. Now if you think that "the material is inherently unencyclopedic" per WP:NOT, you can certainly take this page to WP:AfD, but you won't get far with that. Given that Hari is notable, it is appropriate for the page to present what she says, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good argument against inclusion. So what is the policy or guideline that would lead one to argue that everything else the page presents about Hari belongs on the page, but this one sentence must be omitted? It sounds to me like you are arguing that we should omit it because one would "never see such content in an academic article". Well, guess what? Wikipedia isn't an academic article, although we should certainly strive for high-quality content and reliable sourcing. Don't believe me? Take a look at WP:NOTJOURNAL, bullet points 6, 7, and 8.


 * I'm being extremely patient with you. But if you don't like it, WP:ANI is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding with some specifics.
 * Can you please WP:FOC?
 * I'm not saying that an AfD would be necessary. Please don't bring up such non-issues.
 * I fail to see how anything in NOTJOURNAL applies in any manner.
 * BLP points us to presenting the statements and opinions of the BLP subject when the BLP subject is involved in controversy I don't know what part of BLP you are interpreting to support this.
 * My concern is that the quality of sources we're relying upon have a reason for their ambiguity, and that as an encyclopedia we should not have such ambiguity. If anyone want's to make a case for including ambiguity, especially one that can be taken as insulting to the subject of this article, please make it. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not assert that you actually want to have an AfD, so that's a non-issue. I was trying to make the point that we are dealing with a page about Vani Hari, not some great thinker, and so it is unreasonable to expect that we must demand her quotes to be free of ambiguity or whatever it is that you are objecting to.


 * About NOTJOURNAL, you had just said that you wanted this page to follow the standards of an "academic article".


 * About BLP, we are dealing with a choice between two ways of presenting this information. The way that you seem to prefer consists of explaining why Vani is criticized for a lack of science training, and specifically without a quote from her, in which she expresses what she believes about her need or non-need for such training. It seems to me to go against BLP to present only criticisms of her, without also including what she says about it (regardless of whether editors think that what she says is convincing or not).


 * About the quality of the sources, the sources are: the Chicago Tribune, National Public Radio, and the Charlotte Observer. They are all reliable sources, and none of them is skewing their reporting on Hari to be "entertaining". There is nothing wrong with their quality.


 * Finally, you say that you are concerned that the "ambiguity" is something "that can be taken as an insult". Certainly, we should not insult BLP subjects. But there is no insult, at least not in Wikipedia's voice. Here, again, is her quote: "I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator." That's all it is. It's her take on why she feels it's OK for her not to have training in nutrition science. Now editors can think that it's not a very good argument, but it's reliably sourced that it's her position on it. Again, I think it's pretty clear that BLP tells us that, when we are presenting the criticisms of her for not having science training, we ought to also present her position on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "Hari's consistently stated response to such concerns is" - would that be suitable wording? I don't think the lack of content in the response is an issue at all - if her consistent response was "grobbledonk-SQUARK", and we had multiple citations that it was, that would likely be a fact well worth noting for instance - David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. It's OR. It's not her consistent response. What she does is to try to scrub her past statements, claim that there is a conspiracy of some sort, play the martyr, try to diminish the depth of her ignorance, etc. This quote summarizes none of this.
 * Tryptofish, you misrepresent my concerns. I expect you just don't understand. I'll try to clarify, but first I must point out that once again you have not been able to identify what portion of BLP or any other policy supports your point. Can you please do so now? --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's possible that I misunderstand, and it's also possible that I disagree with you. As for BLP, two parts. First: the lead, where it references strict adherence to WP:NPOV. Second: WP:BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Claiming that a sourced quote in an RS is "original research" is nonsensical, and greatly diminishes the force of your other arguments. We have broad consensus for its inclusion, and I don't think you've really supplied a coherent reason for your attempted veto to be binding - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. Hari's consistently stated response to such concerns is is original research, as I detailed in my response. I assume you meant, "Hari's consistently stated response to such concerns is 'I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator.'" My point is that it is not a consistent response from her. It is a one-time response. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the proposal is "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]" The part "consistently" is not part of the current proposal. Am I missing something? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not part of any formal proposal, but newly suggested wording . If it were a consistent response, it would be almost certainly be WP:DUE. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it really helps to add the "consistently" part, as it does have OR issues, and I don't think that it improves anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral. I do want to echo some of Ronz' sentiments that when dealing with a WP:FRINGEBLP in practice, especially at WP:FTN, we generally don't engage in tit-for-tat due to WP:DUE by giving the BLP subject a voice against their criticism, such as “X does and says this, Y experts say they are peddling pseudoscience, X says they aren’t a scientist.” That inclusion here would go against that practice. That being said, if we absolutely had to include it (which I don't see a strong need to) the proposal at the top of this break would be adequate. In a way, Hari's statement can be considered absurd enough that it wouldn't necessarily be a tit-for-tat too, so that's why I'm entirely on the fence about it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should stay away from tit-for-tats (tits-for-tat??). But, the way that I propose writing it, it really is not that at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem that Ronz seems to be is picking up that maybe hasn't been articulated clearly yet is that the issue isn't so much how we propose writing it with respect for tit-for-tat. Instead, the real world events happened in the type or order I mentioned in my example where Hari's comment as a FRINGEBLP on being an "investigator" wouldn't normally qualify for inclusion here in response to criticism against her. It's a hard one though because it has echoes of politicians saying they aren't a scientist but going on to make scientific claims supporting climate change denial, etc. Sometimes those tactics are notable when sufficiently discussed and dissected in sources, but I'm not seeing an extremely strong case right now for absolutely needing the sentence including her comment. Not so much that I outright oppose it either though.


 * As I mentioned before though, I don't have an extremely strong preference either way on either using your text or not including at all, though I'd consider the crux of the matter to be why her comment really warrants inclusion in the first place rather than how it's presented at this point in time. I'm not really planning to be a stick in the mud on this wherever it goes, but with previous discussions to leave the comment out, I thought it was warranted to make sure this aspect was articulated clearly in case it wasn't getting across. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you know me well enough as an editor to know that I am not some sort of anti-science type (not that you said that I was, of course!), so you can rest assured that I am not trying to argue, in Wikipedia's voice, or via the way her quote is presented, that her fringe-y response is a valid response. But I think a reader of the page can better understand who Hari is, by seeing that quote, than if the quote were left out, and it's up to the reader to draw any conclusions. That's very much why I give Folta and Schwarcz the last words. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, Tryptofish, for pointing to WP:BLP which begins, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."

We agree that we have reliable secondary sources. I hope it is safe to assume the tone is fine. What's left is "responsibly, conservatively" I don't see how it is responsible and conservative to present it at all given it's ambiguity and being a non-answer. I think we're much to close to WP:BLP#Balance's, "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."

The reason that I brought up more academically written sources, "You'd never see such content in an academic article, at least not without commentary specifically removing any ambiguity.", is to point out that the news sources we are using have other interests to serve, and better sources simply wouldn't have such content without removing the ambiguity. The Charlotte Observer is covering Hari as a local food activist and food-world celebrity. Because Hari declined an interview with NPR, they used the quote from the Observer. Eventually, we'll have the more academic sources, and they won't include such information without commentary, if at all. This ties directly to that last paragraph of BLP#Balance, "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies." --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * We do not need secondary sources to document that Hari said this. We would need secondary sources if we were to further discuss, in Wikipedia's voice, the meaning or implications of what Hari said. For example, if purely hypothetically, someone wanted the page to say: "Hari has stated that she is an investigator rather than a nutritionist or scientist, because her campaigns are about policy rather than about science, thus dismissing criticisms that have been leveled at her by scientists" (wow, that's awful!), then I would agree that we would need secondary sources to back that up. And that's what the beginning of BLP#Balance is referring to. Hari's quote is neither "criticism" nor "praise" of Hari. It's neither "claims [of] guilt" nor "overly promotional". It's what she says. It's "responsible" to include her quote, because it's reliably sourced as what she says. It would be neither "responsible" nor "disinterested" nor "balanced" to omit it because we disagree with her because we think it's a non-answer whereas she thinks it's an answer. And it is unreasonable to demand that we wait until some academic writes about it before we can trust mainstream newspapers that report that she said it. What you are doing is wiki-lawyering the exact language of BLP#Balance while missing the main point: that the BLP should maintain a balance between what Hari says and what her critics say. Presenting what her critics say, while excluding what she says, fails the requirement of balance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You ignore the ambiguity, which is the focus of my concerns.
 * It's "responsible" to include her quote, because it's reliably sourced as what she says. It is what she said once. How can it possibly be responsible (and conservative) to include ambiguous information, let alone material so ambiguous that it would not be included in a better source without context, if at all?
 * Presenting what her critics say, while excluding what she says, fails the requirement of balance. Not in any way, but that's your argument, correct? It more important that we have a quote from her than if it has any meaning, than we care about the information quality? That's false balance. Note that we have other content about how she responds, we can expand upon that, and this quote in no way clarifies or summaries her responses. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring the "ambiguity". I'm rejecting it as a valid reason to exclude the quote. As an editor, although you can appropriately make judgments about due weight, you do not get to omit the response of a BLP subject to criticism on the basis that you think it is a weak response. What you are calling "ambiguity" is just an alternative way of saying that it is not a clear and persuasive rebuttal of the criticisms of her. We all agree that it's not a good rebuttal. We agree that she said it "once". That means that she said it. And she said it in a specific context, which was that she was responding to criticisms of her lack of science knowledge, the criticisms we present in that paragraph. There is context, in that her quote is followed by what two scientists have said. I'm not arguing that "it is more important that we have a quote from her than if it has any meaning". I'm saying, and have already said repeatedly, that it is somewhat preferable to include the quote than to leave it out. It has some meaning, not a lot of meaning, but not zero meaning either, and it's not just some random quote. This was never a line in the sand for me, but you have made it a matter of aggressive reverting and prolonged talk page parsing.


 * At this point in the discussion, I think the best next step is to have an RfC, so that is what I am going to do now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong cat
The "Advocates of pseudoscience" cat states "This is a container category, which must not include articles." I think this cat is the wrong cat. The cat "People accused of pseudoscience" is a better fit. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake - I had forgotten about that consensus. But I don't think "people accused of" is any better - and I don't think there is a category like it on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not a duplicate cat. I think the cat can be restored. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the category for deletion - it certainly shouldn't be restored to this article. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We really do need to find a way of categorizing this page in terms of pseudoscience advocacy, without running afoul of other rules (and "People accused of" is not going to pass BLP). At Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 17 I labored mightily to get a category for "Food fad creators", but it did not fly. We should try to get at this an alternative way. Perhaps we can make a new category of Category:Fad diet creators, as a subcategory of Category:Diet creators. We could put Hari in it, and move a few of the other members of the Diet creators category into it, and I don't think that would be particularly controversial. Note how the category page description already talks about food fads. But then, we could also place the new category as a subcategory of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. It's at least worth a try. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that Hari hasn't created a diet. -Roxy the dog™ bark 00:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Depends on how one defines "diet". It's true that she does not advocate for a complete meal regimen. But she certainly does say eat this and don't eat that. If one looks at the other occupants of the Diet creators category, there are plenty that fit the latter definition. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could just not beat around the bush, and create either Category:Pseudoscientific diet creators or Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Both cats are not neutral. She is not a diet creator, therefore the cat "Pseudoscientific diet creators" is not accurate. The cat "Pseudoscientific diet advocates" is a possible BLP violation. She does not advocate for pseudoscience diets. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the page, she does. Take a look at the other subcategories of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience – they are not considered BLP violations. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors are not allowed to use the cat "Advocates of pseudoscience" for articles because I assume there are BLP concerns. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But the container category contains: Category:Pseudoscientific biologists, Category:Pseudoscientific physicists, and Category:Pseudoscientific psychologists. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not object to you creating a new cat but the names you selected are not accurate. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates or Category:Pseudoscientific diet promoters works for me. I could not think of any other names for the cat. User:Tryptofish, you can decide which name is best. Both are good names. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I appreciate that. I'll give it a few days, in case any other editors want to comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been over two weeks. Have you decided which name is best? I'm not sure what others think. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for the other CfD to close, which admittedly is like watching paint dry. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm still waiting. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Idea
We can create Category:Proponents of pseudoscience. QuackGuru ( talk ) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That would certainly look like an attempt to circumvent the clear consensus regarding the "Advocates of pseudoscience" cat. StAnselm (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that won't work because of the resolution of the Category:Pseudoscientists CfD. Instead we need a subcategory that fits Van Hari more specifically. Something along the lines of "Advocates of Chemophobia", perhaps? Academician (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also oppose such a broad category. It needs to be more narrowly delimited. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also just reverted Category:Diet promoters. What on earth was the reason for that? The distinction between diet creation and diet promotion is too trivial to justify separate categories, and it does absolutely nothing to address the issue of pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong cat again
She did not create diets. She promotes dieting. Read User:Roxy the dog's comment. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note the discussion above. At this point, I'm thinking that our best option might be Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That discussion is irrelevant to this discussion. They are two separate issues. Arthur Agatston is developer of the South Beach Diet. therefore, the cat 'Diet creators" makes sense. Vani Hari did not create any diet as far as I know. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Really, I've already addressed all of that above, every bit of it. In any case, she certainly advocates about diets, and there is not much difference between advocacy and promotion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'd like to wait to hear from more editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you understand she is not a "diet creator"? If she is a "diet creator" then what is the name of the new diet? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the distinction being made, and I said above that I think it is a sufficiently minor distinction that it does not require separate categories. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean that I do not understand what you are saying. What is it called? "The Food Babe Way". And again, at this point, I'd like to wait to hear from more editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems rough consensus that some category along these lines would be appropriate and useful, and QuackGuru's objections don't seem to be in a useful form for advancing the discussion. QuackGuru, please suggest a category name that you would consider usable that people are likely to accept the existence of - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:David Gerard, "Diet promoters" is a cat I proposed for this article. That is the discussion for this specific thread. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Tryptofish, the article states, "Hari's first book, The Food Babe Way, was released February 10, 2015.[7]" Me thinks "The Food Babe Way" is a book that promotes dieting. I have not been able to find a source stating Vani Hari is the developer of "The Food Babe Way diet". There is a difference between a book and the creation of a new diet. Right? There are far more people promoting diets than there are diet creators. The new cat can be added to numerous articles, while the diet creators cat can only be used on a limited number of articles. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As David Gerard just explained to you, no one else here seems to agree with you. I've already explained my reasoning on this, but here goes again. First of all, no matter which section of this talk page it is, most editors here are interested in finding a category that conveys the pseudoscientific nature of what Hari advocates, not in parsing the differences between diet creation and diet promotion. But you can't have it both ways: if you claim that the Food Babe stuff is not a specific diet, and therefore should not be called "diet creation", then you cannot reasonably argue that it should be called "diet promotion". Does a diet have to have a capitalized name (such as the Scarsdale Diet) to be considered a "diet", or do "diets" also include when someone says "eat this and this, but don't eat that and that"? It depends on how one defines the word. It's not a categorical difference. And are "creators" and "promoters" really non-overlapping sets? No, not in the real world. Pretty much every person whose page is in the "Diet creators" category created and promoted some sort of named diet or some sort of system of eating some things and not others. In fact, this page seems to indicate that there are various food products that Hari advocates for on the basis of whatever her criteria are, that are not found together in some other "diet creator's" diet. It's not like she says that she is a disciple of someone else's diet system, and here is how she wants people to adopt that existing diet. She calls herself "The Food Babe", and she calls what she advocates "The Food Babe Way", not someone else's way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, per WP:OVERLAPCAT, I'm thinking seriously of taking this to WP:CfD and proposing that Diet creators and Diet promoters be merged back together. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * She promotes orthorexia and other fad diets, IMO. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Result of CfD
At long last, the CfD has been closed, with the result that the "creators" and "promoters" categories have been combined into a single Category:Diet food advocates. So, that leads us to deciding what to do for pages like this one, that are currently within the category. I think the best thing to do is to create a subcategory of the new category, that will also be a subcategory of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, and call it Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates. It would include Hari and several similar persons. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Better sources for her responses to criticism
In addition to the two sources I brought up, as well as her own response, here's another that explains in detail how she responds, with multiple examples ( Apr. 10, 2015)
 * Her response to the storm of criticisms over foolish articles was to “delete and deny”.
 * Ms. Hari has written responses to the New York Times, and to Gawker, but instead of demonstrating any remorse at her mistakes, or attempts to educate her followers as to how to avoid making similar mistakes, she attacks her critics as being “biased” (in the case of the NYT reporter), or a shill of the chemical or food industry (in the case of Orac, Steve Novella, Fergus Clydesdale, Joseph Schwarcz, and Yvette d’Entremont), and then utterly fails to actually address their criticisms in any substantive way.
 * Given her position of prominence and influence among many people seeking to improve their health through better eating, this refusal to acknowledge her own mistakes, or to engage seriously with criticisms of her message is very troubling. It is not consistent with a genuine attempt to educate her “Food Babe Army” to become independent, critical thinkers. Instead it is defensive, and smacks of spin…along with her heavy handed scrubbing of comments and banning of critics on her Facebook page.
 * Why does she take this approach, instead of owning up to her mistakes and trying to improve her understanding of nutrition and science? I fear that it is because she has a significant financial interest in continuing to pander to the pseudoscience community. She receives money from diverse sources, including book sales, speaking fees, andaffiliate links and advertisements for supplements that she recommends. Her “brand” is stunningly successful, and for her to admit that she was wrong about anything–or to accept any kind of criticism–would be to undermine that brand. Pseudoscience sells.
 * Viewed in that light, her tactics make rational (if ethically questionable) sense.

Given the two other sources, we have plenty to draw upon to present her responses in a neutral and encyclopedic manner, rather than using a meaningless quote about her claiming to be an investigator. I'm going to look for further sources documenting her responses. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good find. I wasn't aware of that article until now. My main concern with the sources presented so far, other than Hari's own blog, is that two are written like op-eds rather than news sources (see WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSOPINION). The Business Insider article is reposted from a personal blog. Granted, the author, Jennifer Raff, is a well-accredited scientist and expert, so at the very least information from there can be attributed to her as an expert's criticism. The Drovers article  appears to be under full editorial control by the magazine, but I do know at least one editor here who had expressed concern about its use as a source for certain things. Currently it is only being used as a secondary source for the fact that one of Hari's tweets was deleted, which is rather uncontroversial.
 * I strongly believe that this is the right track toward including the information about Hari's response to criticism. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 18:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While writing this I also noticed Raff quotes a NYT article that is currently being used on this page:
 * There is quite a bit more in there about how she responds to criticism, also.&#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 18:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, these are rather lengthy quotes from sources. I would be very interested in seeing an actual draft of how they might be presented on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * From the same NYT article:
 * I have her Upton Sinclair comparison a few times now, but in blogs and similar sources. I'm not sure how due it is to bring up.
 * I think this quote from the Drovers article summarizes her response best, "Rather than responding factually and with data and reason, she resorted to ad hominem attacks on her critics." She avoids discussing the facts, and instead attacks her critics. It's verifiable and prominent in multiple reliable sources. To claim it summarizes her responses is probably a stretch. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This Prevention(APRIL 8, 2015) article summarizes her "anyone can figure it out" philosophy:
 * Also, I've removed her response to her "There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest" quote. It was our summary to her blog post, sourced only by her blog. I thought there were secondary sources on this, but I could only find commentary in the same sources and same quality of sources. There's a bit more detail on her advice not to eat something you cannot pronounce, which is related.
 * Per FRINGE, Detoxification_(alternative_medicine) needs to be added to the article itself. Given it's a fundamental part of her viewpoint and well-documented as such, in the lede too. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I've removed her response to her "There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest" quote. It was our summary to her blog post, sourced only by her blog. I thought there were secondary sources on this, but I could only find commentary in the same sources and same quality of sources. There's a bit more detail on her advice not to eat something you cannot pronounce, which is related.
 * Per FRINGE, Detoxification_(alternative_medicine) needs to be added to the article itself. Given it's a fundamental part of her viewpoint and well-documented as such, in the lede too. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I've removed her response to her "There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest" quote. It was our summary to her blog post, sourced only by her blog. I thought there were secondary sources on this, but I could only find commentary in the same sources and same quality of sources. There's a bit more detail on her advice not to eat something you cannot pronounce, which is related.
 * Per FRINGE, Detoxification_(alternative_medicine) needs to be added to the article itself. Given it's a fundamental part of her viewpoint and well-documented as such, in the lede too. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary of sources addressing her responses to criticism
I've started a list of current and potential sources on the topic below, with short quotes for context. Please add any others. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently used in the article
 * I've never said I was a scientist or a nutritionist," but "I don't think you need to have those degrees to be intellectually honest, to be able to research, to be able to present ideas."
 * Hari says she is simply trying to help people understand what’s in their food and hold companies accountable. She says she has researched her critics and that they attack anyone who opposes alternative nutrition.
 * I've included the quote above to show that there is much better content to draw upon than the "I'm an investigator" quote, which is also in this same source. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ms. Hari said that chemistry shouldn’t be necessary to decipher what to eat.
 * Rather than responding factually and with data and reason, she resorted to ad hominem attacks on her critics.
 * Ms. Hari said that chemistry shouldn’t be necessary to decipher what to eat.
 * Rather than responding factually and with data and reason, she resorted to ad hominem attacks on her critics.
 * Rather than responding factually and with data and reason, she resorted to ad hominem attacks on her critics.
 * Rather than responding factually and with data and reason, she resorted to ad hominem attacks on her critics.


 * Potential sources
 * You don't need a degree to eat healthfully, she says—and you shouldn't place your full trust in scientists, nutritionists, or regulatory bodies, either.
 * Others call out her lack of scientific education, her sensational presentation of issues, her consistently pejorative use of the word "chemical," and her silencing of critics. These we can't exactly dispute. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Some attacks (like the ones captured here) are based solely upon Hari's gender or appearance—and they deserve little mention other than a resounding condemnation. Others call out her lack of scientific education, her sensational presentation of issues, her consistently pejorative use of the word "chemical,"  and her silencing of critics. These we can't exactly dispute.
 * Her response to the storm of criticisms over foolish articles was to “delete and deny”.
 * (The Washington Times published the same article, identifying the author: --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately, many of the critics out there, their sole purpose is only to criticize.
 * (The Washington Times published the same article, identifying the author: --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately, many of the critics out there, their sole purpose is only to criticize.
 * Unfortunately, many of the critics out there, their sole purpose is only to criticize.