Talk:Vani Hari/Archive 9

RfC: Hari's "investigator" quote
Editors are discussing how to construct one paragraph on this page. Which of these two versions is better? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Version 1:

Version 2:

Version 3 (added subsequently):

Version 4 (added subsequently):

Version 5 (added subsequently):

Support Version 2

 * 1) Support. The difference is whether to include or omit a quote from the subject of this BLP (the quote is not currently on the page, but has been the subject of some edit warring), and Version 2 includes the quote. Given that the paragraph as a whole criticizes this somewhat WP:FRINGEy person, it is appropriate per WP:BLP to not omit her "side". Admittedly, her statement is not a particularly persuasive one, but that is not a valid reason for editors to decide to omit it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not strongly opposed to Version 3, but I slightly prefer Version 2, because Version 2 provides more context. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I strongly oppose Versions 1 and 4, because they each are one-sided. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose Version 5 the most strongly of all, because it is simply Version 4 with WP:WEASEL words. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Vastly superior. This is a Wikipedia BLP, and the first version looks like it's going out of its way to avoid quoting the subject's actual response; but the second does not unduly credit her reply, merely states it. I think it's absolutely appropriate for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also prefer version 2 to version 3 - David Gerard (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The quote from the BLP subject adds a better context to the experts' statements that is more true to the sources, while also allowing for the inclusion of her response to her criticism. Her response is well-recorded in reliable sources which makes it worth mentioning here. Since the quote is not left as the "final word" and the implications of it are fairly criticized, this version avoids giving undue weight and the appearance of supporting fringe views. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 04:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. The two sources are criticisms of two different things: interpretation of the literature, and the quality of Hari's arguments. They are separate criticisms from two different notable promoters of science, and so it is not undue to include both. It is not necessary to include Hari's response to this particular criticism, because her response is obvious. When a BLP includes criticism of a specific viewpoint then it is necessary to include the response to said criticism. (For example: Hari points out that brewers are using fish swim bladders in beer; critics point out that this has been done for many years; Hari responds that she is aware of the historical use of isinglass but wanted to warn vegans.) In this case, we have two sources saying Hari is not qualified to discuss food science, but Hari obviously believes she is qualified. It doesn't add anything to the article if we say so. Roches (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I think it's good to have the two different criticisms there, since Folta and Schwarcz are experts in different fields. It's also good to have her response in there to avoid the accusation that we aren't including her side. --Krelnik (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, per Krelnik,Roches above. Also PS: it's bad form to change the options in an RfC while it's running. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, multiple views on her opinions, both from professionals in their fields.131.131.64.210 (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, it's concise, accurate and follows BLP well.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: It seems reasonable to include her response to criticisms, despite her fringe views. Including both of the criticisms also seems reasonable, as they seem to reflect much of the widespread criticisms of her assertions. --tronvillain (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Support with a small trimming.  "Most of them are so silly" doesn't add anything encyclopedic and should just be replaced with "...".  The "however" is also unnecessary. Otherwise, this segment is the best of the 6 (the 5 above, and the original in the article now). It presents both sides, and adequately explains why Hari is controversial.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Version 3

 * 1) Support - This version is concise and quotes the subject while not giving undue weight to the critics. Meatsgains (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - This version is more neutral without giving undue weight to the dissenters. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Giving her a chance to make her case for herself is appropriate per BLP, and the fact that it's not a very convincing argument is so much the better. That's how NPOV works: show both arguments fairly and let the reader decide. However, Schwarcz's comment is substantively redundant to Folta's, and is more schoolyard-style insulting. FourViolas (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I'd support version 2 as well, but Schwarcz's notability in the relevant areas is not well established by the proposed wording and I rather expect some may object to efforts to make that clear (I don't think it would particularly prejudicial, but I can see the potential for argument). This seems like a reasonable compromise between interests, but if the call becomes close, the closer or any party trying to evaluate consensus may feel welcome to count me as !supporting both version 2 and version 3.  S n o w  let's rap 01:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) Support; summoned by bot. Version 3 appears to be the most balanced of the lot. Having Schwarcz's added quote seems excessive, since it's basically stating the same as Folta's. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Version 4
(added 29 Sep 2016)


 * 1) Support This avoids the presentation of an uncontested fact in the first sentence in a manner which suggests that she had claimed any such training.  The rest of the paragraph makes clear her position and that she has no training in food sciences.  Sledgehammers do not make for good BLPs. Collect (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Version 5
(added 30 Sept 2016)

Support no change from what is on the page now

 * 1) None - the current is better than any of these three, RFC should have left that as an option. I think the RFC intent was perhaps mis-stated, but since it asked on 'how to construct one para', this is worse.  Do not mash two random critics and one random Vani comment into the same lead para, that's worse than what is there now.   All three options shown above on how to construct the para confusingly mix statements that are not directly related into one paragraph.  (An RFC about 'investigator quote' is different, and would get different feedback).  The context of this para -- I also think the Criticism section lead with NPR prominent makes better WP:DUE] sense from prominence of that, and that having a general Vani response in the end section makes [[WP:NPOV sense and makes better completeness for the section.  But placement of these three conjoined to the top of the section does not make sense to me.  Why ? Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as a matter of information, it is not a mash of random quotes. The sources present them as replies to one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish - the cites do not support that. Neither cite there states this as her response to thoe two individuals.  The Charlotte cite (July 2014, misstated here as August?), presents the line as a single line quote without context; the later (December 2014) NPR story that talks of qualifications explicitly says she did not interview with them and borrows the earlier quote.  Putting that line out there as background/context may be OK for a NPR piece -- but for WP putting them together as if related is not supported and also seems WP:SYNTH. Markbassett (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Both sources present the quotes as they are shown in Version 2. Both sources present Hari's quote as a response to criticisms, in general, that she lacks science training. And the sources present the quotes from the two scientists as refuting her claim in her quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Markbassett. We cannot make up who Hari was responding to, nor decide for ourselves what context her content might fit when there is none to draw upon. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that editors have differing opinions about this point means that it is good to have an RfC. My opinion is that that sources have determined that this is the context, so editors are not doing OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the RfC addresses these problems, nor the BLP problems that result if we try to add the content proposed in the RfC. Rather than proposals for article content changes, we need to concentrate on what the sources actually say and what our policies allow us to do with such sourced content. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish - Just noting the sequence. The Investigator statement is shown as a statement existing before those two articles, so it's context seems a general position of Vani rather than as a response to something.  So it might be put as a general preface or as a general tail, and the remark about misinterpreting the science occurred after that.  We just do not have a source showing either as a response, and it's not apparent to me why either would draw a response -- neither hers nor the criticism remark is prominent enough to draw specific attention.  Markbassett (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As you can see from what I said above, we largely agree about the sequence, but we disagree about the interpretation with regard to what that sequence means in terms of what the sources say and in terms of potential OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out in the Discussion section, there are far better sources to draw upon if we need to present her response to the specific criticism of her lack of expertise. None of the sources support the quote about her being an investigator. (I'll get the chronology of these other sources identified so it can be considered). --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Current version: "Hari is a former management consultant who has a degree in computer science, and has no expertise in nutrition or food science.[63] According to horticultural scientist Kevin Folta, Hari's lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition, and health.[45]" See Vani Hari. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have an issue with version 2. It says Chemist Joseph A. Schwarcz also criticizes her lack of scientific knowledge, saying: "It isn't hard to deconstruct her arguments. Most of them are so silly. Her basic tenet is guilt by association."[3]. This quote does not tell the reader much. It is just bashing the subject. The part "Most of them are so silly." is nonsensical. This weakens the criticism rather than strengthening it. I don't understand the point for including such nonsense. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, and as I said above, I'm not particularly opposed to #3. In a way, we are caught between two poles of editor opinion here. The reason I opened the RfC was because another editor was extremely insistent that we omit Hari's quote, and the discussion was just going around in circles. Adding the opinion from Schwarcz provides additional counter-balance to Hari's quote. Interestingly, the other editor opposes Hari's quote for much the same reasons that you oppose Schwarcz's quote: that, in editor opinion, the quote is unconvincing and may not really address the other "side", and may make the person being quoted look bad. Well, we have to take the sources as they come, and this is what these people have said. But as a purely factual matter, Schwarcz's comment was directly addressed to Hari's lack of science training and her "investigator" quote. Thus, the comment is directly about the topic of the paragraph, and is not just some random quote criticizing Hari. In any case, thank you for adding Version 3 to the RfC, and I'm happy to wait and see what the consensus will end up as, whatever it may be. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote from chemist Joseph A. Schwarcz included in version 1 and 2 is essentially non-information. It is unnecessary additional counter-balancing and a distraction. The readers might think it is a bit over the top because that is what I think. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, and I look forward to hearing what the community decides. As I said, another editor has been saying something very similar about the quote from Hari. It's good that the RfC presents a variety of choices. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's there for false balance. Does anyone believe that better sources would present the quote without clarifying what it means, if they bothered to include it at all? --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have a better idea you can add a 4th version. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question.
 * My idea is to give proper balance: Find a way to summarize her responses or find representative responses (being sure not to violate our policies as we do). Maybe that will be done by finding and quoting a typical response from her.
 * From April 23, 2015: I really do believe the attacks on me and this movement is a distraction from the need to reform the food system...My sole purpose is to get people healthier. Unfortunately, many of the critics out there, their sole purpose is only to criticize.
 * and These were before I decided to make this my career. It's like saying that the New York Times or whoever aren't allowed to make mistakes. Back then I was blogging as a hobby
 * From April 15, 2015 (currently used as a source):

So what did Hari do in response? She has accused critics of being shills for Big Pharma (whatever that is) and that they're being paid by Monsanto, the company that manufacturers pesticides and herbicides. She provided no evidence of these claims. She refuses to debate, or even discuss, her conclusions with critics. Among others, Dr Joe Schwarcz of McGill University has repeatedly called upon her todiscuss her ideas in a respectful, public forum. Hari refuses to respond. She attempted to delete her previous statements, further undermining her credibility. Rather than responding factually and with data and reason, she resorted to ad hominem attacks on her critics. At one point she called critic Yvette d’Entremont “twisted."
 * Those are responses that are fairly typical for her. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In her official response [ http://foodbabe.com/2014/12/06/food-babe-critics/ December 6, 2014] she states : I’ve never claimed to be a scientist or nutritionist, but a high percentage of the “expert” scientists, doctors, registered dietitians and nutritionists in this field have a financial relationship with the entities I investigate. They oftentimes are unwilling to disclose where their funding really comes from. Some use their credentials to promote and market new inventions by the food industry. Calling me “The Jenny McCarthy of Food” is another sexist attack and shows the low blows these experts are willing to take on an activist who calls them out.


 * In the same way you don’t need to be a doctor to know smoking causes cancer, you don’t need to have any credentials to read an ingredient label, research food ingredients, teach yourself what to eat or how to take care of your health (in fact, the argument that only a scientist would understand what’s natural and healthy food, makes my point).


 * On a regular basis, I seek the counsel of many credentialed experts in this field and present my data which often includes access to published, peer-reviewed research.
 * On the specific subject of her expertise, her response is that anyone can do it, she seeks the counsel of experts, andher critics are part of the problem that she is fighting.--Ronz (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So it looks to me like her consistent response to the criticism of her lack of expertise can be summed up as "I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator."
 * Including the accusations toward her critics about being shills would be a BLP issue against those subjects here. The fact that she deletes things is mentioned further down the criticism section. I think it may be worth it to add that she refuses to respond to her critics' specific issues, but that isn't related to the charge against her lack of expertise. A good portion of the official response in her blog is highly self-serving, especially the "I seek the counsel of many credentialed experts" part. If there is a way that all of these things can be summed up better without giving uncritical weight to fringe views, containing BLP violations, or a problematic use of sources, then I would support such a summary. The fact that these things aren't included in the current proposed versions isn't a good reason to block them, though. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 04:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * can be summed up as "I never claimed... That's an OR and POV violation without a source. The three I've provided present another viewpoint. I agree that the third, her official statement, is too self-serving to use alone. That leaves two sources, including one that we are already using. --Ronz (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's Hari's quote there. Not OR. I wasn't suggesting to use it without attribution or anything. I think maybe a few things are getting confused here. You seem to want to have the article represent her response to her critics in general, am I correct in that? What's being discussed in the paragraph here is the specific criticism of her lack of expertise. I don't see anything elsewhere that adds anything significant to her quote of "I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator." when it comes to her lack of expertise. I think it would be fine to have the article represent her general response to critics, but that is a rather different matter. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 18:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion even with the quote. The original research is in saying "can be summed up as". We've two sources that specifically address her responses to her lack of experience, and I've quoted from both. Neither supports using the investigator quote. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting quotes. You do have to be a doctor (or at least a medical researcher) to show that smoking causes cancer, which is the more apt analogy here. She does not draw on a body of existing research, she is generally engaged in novel synthesis, so actually her response merely reinforces the validity of the criticism. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If that cancer quote is used in an independent source, I'd argue for using it as it is much better than the investigator quote in being clearer what she means and fits into what the other sources say about her responses. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO, simple language would make clear that she has no training in food sciences, and the rest of the material simply muddies the paragraph. Shorter is often more effective. Collect (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Support rewrite from better sources
Given that we have better sources that detail how Hari addresses criticism in general, and the specific criticism of her expertise, this RfC is a waste of time. I think it premature to make any further proposals based upon the new sources without a broader discussion and taking the time to look for more. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When you say "rewrite", what specifically would that be? Please provide a draft of how it would be written. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think it would be premature to do so without more discussion. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That being the case, there is absolutely nothing wrong with whatever comes out of the RfC being implemented for the time being, and then being replaced with something else following further discussion. Myself, I find it difficult to understand what "something else" could be, without seeing some sort of proposed text. Absent proposed text, I tend to think something like "those sources are nice, but I'm not sure what to do with them", particularly because the source quotes have been so lengthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll make some initial proposals solely for the purpose of giving editors an idea of where we might want to turn our focus. Of course, no new proposals should be added to this RfC. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Version 5
I've added a version 5 that I believe removes the OR concerns, including the concerns by Collect Talk:Vani_Hari and Markbassett Talk:Vani_Hari

There are sources that blame Hari's mistakes on her lack of expertise and training. I'd be surprised if there are any sources that don't present it in that context. A good one shouldn't be hard to find. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

From the NPR source itself: But that lack of training often leads her to misinterpret peer-reviewed research and technical details about food chemistry, nutrition and health, says Kevin Folta, a professor of horticultural sciences at the University of Florida and vocal online critic of Hari. "She really conflates the science," he tells The Salt. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

AdAge: Bloggers like her "know enough to sound credible, but they don't know the real science [or] how to interpret peer-reviewed research to fully understand the issues that they might be preaching about," said Julie Upton, a registered dietitian who runs a popular nutrition blog called Appetite for Health. "I stay awake at night worried that my profession is going to become a hobby because of these people."

Ms. Hari countered that "I've never said I was a scientist or a nutritionist," but "I don't think you need to have those degrees to be intellectually honest, to be able to research, to be able to present ideas." --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking further, I'm not clear that we can link the two together better without original research. Adding anything that's not in the Observer just introduces the problems again. If the quote was dropped, it would be much easier to treat the subject in a more neutral manner without any OR problems. --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

How are the proposed versions with the quote not original research?
After struggling to find ways around what I believe is OR, I think it best get crystal clear as to why the proposals are not OR. From version 2 for reference:

Looking at what the sources actually say, and how editors have prioritized the NPR source over the Observer source, I'm guessing that editors feel that "such criticisms" in the NPR ref specifically mean the "lack of training" in the following sentence. That alone seems to be OR to me. How is it not? --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's only the first two sentences of Version 2, but I assume that you are quoting just those two sentences in order to explain your thinking about how the various parts do or do not relate. I've read what you say here several times, trying to keep an open mind. And, honestly, I just don't get it. I'm not seeing any OR or SYNTH in placing those sentences, with that wording, in that paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A simpler question then. What source verifies, "In response to criticisms that she lacks training in these fields, Hari has stated, "I never claimed to be a nutritionist." and how does that source do so? --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I thought you were tagging the page because of POV, not OR. Anyway, from the NPR source: "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." Thus, NPR, a reliable news organization, connects the "investigator" quote to what critics say about her lack of training in science. And from the Charlotte Observer itself: "Her campaigns have attracted increasing scrutiny, particularly on what critics call her lack of food science credentials.", followed by a specific example (beer) and a supporter saying that what such critics say "is to be expected". Then: "What does Hari say about charges of mistakes? “I’ve never claimed to be a nutritionist,” she says. “I’m an investigator.”" Yes, I have read your earlier comments about "mistakes", but you are taking "mistakes" out of context. But that's what the Observer is saying, and secondarily NPR confirms that it's what they said. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I can see how the NPR source might be interpreted that way.
 * "Mistakes" = "her lack of food science credentials" is our own interpretation of the Observer source. The NPR source might allow us to ignore it. I think this should be taken to BLPN once the RfC closes. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I sincerely think that it is not editor interpretation, but rather, what the Observer source plainly says. It's just a matter of reading the source as a whole, instead of taking one paragraph in isolation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

OR tag regarding RfC content
Ronz has added a tag for original research to the language that was just adopted in the RfC. Does anyone else besides Ronz have this concern? I've already said that, if one simply reads the cited sources in their entirety, rather than taking short passages out of context, there is no OR in treating the "investigator" quote as a response to the criticisms about her lack of science training. I also think that the RfC established a consensus that the "Version 2" language is acceptable, and demonstrated no agreement that there was an OR problem. At least, that's what I believe. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The language passed the RFC and Ronz is being querulous; it should be removed. The NPOV banner should be struck also - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please AGF, or at least address the policy issues. --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case, the relevant policy issues are increasingly those concerning disruptive editing - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That almost reads like you are ignoring content and policy to focus on an editor with which you disagree. BLP requires we get the content right and we follow our content policies strictly. We don't do that by looking elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vani_Hari seems skimpy on discussion for a BLP. I believe that it's our OR to say the Observer source supports the content and what's in the NPR source. The Observer covers a great deal. If we want to go hunting for what the Observer means by "mistakes", how is it that we have decided it is specific just to her credentials? After all, the second paragraph identifies many mistakes, and her credentials aren' one of them:

But in interviews with food-policy advocates and academics, she is criticized for sensationalized and overblown claims. Other activists say she takes more credit than she deserves. And in some cases, the Observer found evidence of errors and inconsistencies. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a bit misleading to link to the very end of the extremely long RFC that supports the current version and say it's "a little light". Most of the details are hashed out elsewhere. I have not been involved in this RfC to date and I'm fairly convinced that this is not OR. The actual text of the NPR article says:


 * "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.""


 * That's essentially the same claim we are making in the Wikipedia article. Maybe NPR is making assumptions based on what's in the Charlotte Observer article, but we consider them a reliable source and we're piggybacking on their reputation for fact-checking. I think there's an overwhelming consensus for Version 2 and these concerns about OR are certainly spurious. The OR tag should be removed. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So your argument is to take the NPR article and ignore the Observer? --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The NPR article by itself would be sufficient if there were no Charlotte Observer quote. Given that the Observer quote is broad (and can in fact be interpreted to mean what the NPR folks interpreted it to mean), I think it's reasonable to use the NPR article as support for the interpretation of the Observer quote, and to also supply the Observer article as the original source for the quote. In a way, it would be OR to say, "Well, NPR read the same article as I did, and I don't interpret it that way." We don't know that that's what happened. Could be the NPR reporter called the Observer reporter and said, "Hey, do you think this is an accurate assessment of Hari's point?" We have a reliable source that she said that, we have a reliable source that uses and references it, in context to say exactly what we're trying to use it and say with it. I really don't see how there's a question that this could be OR. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 21:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to make three points by way of reply. First, I thank Ronz for self-reverting the tag, in order to deescalate the dispute.


 * Second, I want to repeat what I said in that last section of the RfC discussion, about the Observer source. This is not about ignoring it. One needs to read the source as a whole, rather than to take portions out of context. The piece is written with a long passage about Hari's "credentials". It begins: "Her campaigns have attracted increasing scrutiny, particularly on what critics call her lack of food science credentials." After that, there is a specific example (about beer) that includes a Hari supporter saying that what such critics say "is to be expected". This is all continuing from the opening sentence about critics faulting her credentials. And then: "What does Hari say about charges of mistakes? “I’ve never claimed to be a nutritionist,” she says. “I’m an investigator.”" There is no OR here. Her quote is not simply about some unspecified "mistakes". It's her response to that exact kind of criticism.


 * Third, no one here believes that we should ignore policies. We all support NOR, NPOV, and BLP. The fact that other editors disagree with Ronz does not mean that we are disregarding the policies. It means that we have considered the policies, and believe that the content is policy-compliant. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I like your analysis of the Observer source, and it alleviates most of my OR concerns. I believe the quote above and article as a whole make it clear what the mistakes are: Hari's statements are often woefully inaccurate, and lack overall integrity beyond her making money by misleading her "army". Hari's response is to deflect the question by referring to her brand of being an "investigator". NPR then takes it out of content and focuses on her lack of credentials. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad that we were able to reach an agreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV problems
I think we have WP:FALSEBALANCE and Biographies_of_living_persons problems throughout the article. Basically, we're relying too much on the sources that go out of their way not to analyze but instead provide he-said, she-said presentations and far too many quotes.

I think the lede is fine. I was originally only going to tag the "Criticisms" section. I think it's the worse, but "Career" has the same problems, if not to such an extent.

The organization is poor. The "Career" and "Criticisms" sections are catch-alls, giving equal weight to all within them. I'm not clear why "The Food Babe Way" is a subsection under " Influence". The "Marketing strategy" sub-section name doesn't describe it's content. I think a bit more chronology-focused organization would help. There's the period of time where the reporting on Hari was almost exclusively focused on her influence. The attention from NPR coverage in early 2014 of the Subway changed that, and the reporting started looking critically at her claims, mostly relying others' criticisms, quoting them liberally. By April 2015 there's quite a bit of analysis, much less reliance on the he-said/she said and extensive quoting. We should be relying more on the sources that analyze, and refrain from following the presentation style of the poorer sources.

Taking the example of the "I'm an investigator" quote. When I first started the discussion about it, I wrote Almost all of what she claims is part of her efforts to market herself. I think the quote falls in the latter category, and has no value in an encyclopedia article. NPR used the quote because Hari wouldn't grant them an interview. The Charlotte Observer used it in a different context. The proposals to present it as her response to criticisms of her lack of training is original research on our part, not supported by the sources. Worse, her lack of training isn't a criticism at all but a simple statement of fact that she doesn't dispute. If we want to cover her marketing strategy of presenting herself as an "investigator", then we should do so in that context. It's not covered well by sources, but maybe we can find new ones that do. If we want to present what she says about the expertise needed to "investigate" food health, we have sources that provide meaningful detail, but again this is her marketing of herself so shouldn't be presented as anything else.

We cannot take material out of context and present it as something it is not. We shouldn't be following the examples of the he-said/she-said reporting that's too common in the sources we've used. We should be relying on sources that analyze wherever such sources are available, and avoid giving much weight to anything that hasn't been met with much analysis. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this appears to be the same arguments you were making about the matter raised in the RFC, where almost everyone disagreed with you, and comes across as an attempt at filibusting that RFC - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's just one example of a larger problem, and I've expanded upon the concerns by taking into account the other sources.
 * Note also that disagreement without evidence doesn't carry much weight, and shouldn't carry any weight in creating consensus in a BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope that by "disagreement without evidence" you don't mean "after the N+1th time people stopped responding to me in detail" - at this point it's really up to you to separate the points that haven't already been answered, with detailed reasoning, ad nauseam. I appreciate that BLP concerns are serious, but that's why we're having the RFC, and so far most people don't agree with you - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean there's a minimum level of evidence. In this case I don't believe it's been met. Simply saying something (or ignoring something), shouldn't carry any weight if there's no evidence in support.
 * The first half of the paragraph on the example is not new. The rest of that paragraph is new. Everything else is new. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My reaction is very similar to David Gerard's. (There is a very similar discussion at my user talk, that I have now closed because enough is enough.) On stylistic grounds, I'm friendly to the idea of decreasing some WP:QUOTEFARM, and I am potentially open to adding more sources if there's a good way to incorporate them. But I'm having trouble seeing how the points raised here are really a matter of BLP or NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have brought up WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:STRUCTURE to make it clearer? --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess that would come down to any issues about sources that fail WP:RS for BLP purposes, and the section organization of the page, respectively. But I'm still not really clear on the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting that another way, we can present issues by direct quotes from Hari and from scientists, or we can summarize descriptions of what Hari has said and quote from journalists reviewing what the scientists said, but I'm not really seeing how the latter is better at satisfying BESTSOURCES or STRUCTURE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These are STRUCTURE problems, with some WEIGHT due to WP:BESTSOURCES problems. The poor section titles themselves are SYN. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about it, and I do agree with the recent edits about section headers and levels. But it seems to me that POV problems are about POV, not just subpar writing or organization or even choice of sources. Those sections of the NPOV policy explain ways in which poor sourcing or poor page structure can give rise to POV problems, but they are not saying that any problem with sourcing or structure is automatically a problem with POV. For there to be a POV problem, this page would have to either (a) present Hari and her views too favorably, or (b) present Hari and her views too negatively. I can see how the criticisms here relate to good writing style (as per WP:QUOTEFARM, for example), but I remain unconvinced that the criticisms amount to a problem with POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wisdom of repugnance needs to be incorporated into the article, perhaps even the lede given how heavily it is noted. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Detoxification (alternative medicine) needs to be incorporated into the pseudoscience content, perhaps elsewhere. It's one of, if not the main, pseudoscience she promotes. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the "The Food Babe Way" to it's own section rather than a subsection under " Influence", and renamed the "Marketing strategy" sub-section to "Financial interests". --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I too remain unconvinced that the stylistic problems Ronz notes constitute an NPOV problem specifically, and feel he's completely failed to make a case. Does anyone other than Ronz disagree with removing the tag? - David Gerard (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced by your assertions. Recall my previous concerns with the need to base consensus on evidence and policy. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidently you are, but you're also the only one making the claim - David Gerard (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Completely un-involved editor here who just spent what is probably WAYYY too long reading through the article, talk page, and several archived talk pages after catching glimpse of a passing reference to this woman on Twitter... From an un-involved perspective, I must say I agree with David Gerard here and think the tag is unwarranted. The article is well-sourced from quite reliable sources and I remain fully unconvinced by Ronz' arguments here. Also, as an aside, that RfC likely should have included a leave as is choice instead of running under the assumption the current wording is inadequate. Just my 2 cents.  Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors   20:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Also an uninvolved editor, as I mention in the "OR tag" section below, I am also in agreement that the NPOV tag should be removed. The disputed section is basically a paraphrase of an article from a reliable source, with the primary source also cited. There seems to be a universal consensus here against Ronz's position. I recommend removing the NPOV tag. It's perfectly fine if Ronz wants to try and gather a consensus to change the article, but I think the burden of proof of POV content should be shifted onto Ronz (and any as-yet-identified people who might agree with him/her). 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP clearly defines where the burden of proof is. If you want an exception, you should be focusing on content and policy rather than editors. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP doesn't say "any one person gets a veto over everyone else." There was an RFC, you did not get a consensus for your side. Multiple uninvolved editors have come in here and come down in favor of the other side. I think it's well established that the consensus is that this is not NPOV or OR. At this point, I can say that we can safely remove the NPOV tag unless you have something new here. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 21:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP doesn't say Correct, so if you want to demonstrate some consensus, you need to do so, rather than just claiming it exists. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The Criticism section should probably be renamed, depending upon what it becomes. I assume need section that includes a general analysis of noteworthy opinions on Hari's claims, perhaps her presentation and marketing as well. I'd like to look for similar, GA-quality articles for ideas.

The Career section needs to be organized. If it remains solely chronological then it makes a strong case for a section with general analysis. We don't have detailed biographies to draw upon, but I'd hope that minimally we can find major milestones in her career to help with the organization of the section (Maybe Subway?). I've seen sections broken down by years or decades, but I find such organization can underemphasize major events and turning points. Of course, the sources may not give us much to go on...

The dose makes the poison needs to be included into the article body. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I had moved Vaccine controversies to the See also section, but have now removed it. Sourced only by her blog post it seems undue, possibly original research as well. The Crislip sources verifies it, but I think it might be undue to expand the paragraph further. Rewriting the last sentence to cover Crislip's and American Council on Science and Health's perspectives should work. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Her financial ties with Chick-fil-A need to be mentioned per the Observer (and other sources, if I recall correctly), as well as her not disclosing such ties. Any similar financial ties with the companies she's worked with should be identified. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Soap?
I don't think it is soap. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems to be a little less bad than that. On the other hand, the same information is still in the main text, and I'm not convinced that it's central enough to need to be in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's central to how she promotes herself, information that cannot be verified by any independent sources, and fits a typical trope that quacks rely upon. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Her key point can be mentioned in the lede and attributed to her. There is a reason she started looking into health issues and starting the blog. The lede will be incomplete without stating something.
 * It is still in the body. See "In her early 20s Hari was hospitalized with appendicitis.[15][18] In response, she began looking into health and nutrition issues.[2]" If it is a key point than perhaps it should stay in the article. The reader can decide if she is telling the truth. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be in the lede per the reasons given. Yes, it's still in the article. It's mentioned in multiple sources. Perhaps the presentation should be changed a bit? --Ronz (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The content is a bit too detailed to be in the lead section, which is then repeated in the body. It also doesn't adequately summarize what's written in the body about her life, so fails in that regard. For biographies, early life is rarely discussed in the lead unless it's particularly noteworthy anyway. That doesn't seem to be the case here. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 17:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Introduction to Criticisms section is unsourced
See Vani Hari: "Hari has received wide criticism concerning the accuracy, consistency, and presentation of her many claims." This claim is unsourced. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It introduces the section, summarizing the content and sources. I've already pointed out that there are problems having such a section, and suggested finding GA biographies on similar persons to determine how to better approach. Currently, we have a basic chronological narrative for the "Career" section, and analysis of her claims and marketing in the "Criticisms" section. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence is well-sourced explicitly throughout the section, and is a fair summary of the section as a whole as it is currently written. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 17:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Early life and education in lede?
There can be content about early life and education in the WP:LEDE. The lede is too short. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The lede is too short Given she's only recently become notable, and the types of sources we have to draw upon, I think the size of the lede is fine. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Only a few sentences in the body are dedicated to her pre-blogging life, most of which are already covered in the infobox. Early life is rarely discussed in the lead section of biographies unless it's particularly noteworthy. Hari is notable primarily for being a blogger and activist, which happened well after these things. What led up to that seems perfectly fine being confined to the body of the article, and we would risk giving it undue weight if placed in the lead section. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 17:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)