Talk:Vani Hari: Difference between revisions
→Section blanking and other edits: Does seem undue weight to the Skeptical Inquirer article relative to the other criticisms. |
|||
Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
Also, of course, the last two sentences seem questionable in their own right: "The claims by Hari that these chemicals cited above are dangerous have been debunked by experts in science and medicine." doesn't that contradict the class 2B carcinogens mentioned in the list immediately above? And this is just, just ... "These examples cast doubt on Hari's ability to understand science, her investigative technique and her role as a safety advocate." That's beyond the pale. We're criticizing her in Wikipedia's voice, we absolutely can not do that. I'm deleting that last one immediately per [[WP:BLP]]. The weight issues can be debated, but this last one is a personal attack on the subject, and has to go. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 21:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
Also, of course, the last two sentences seem questionable in their own right: "The claims by Hari that these chemicals cited above are dangerous have been debunked by experts in science and medicine." doesn't that contradict the class 2B carcinogens mentioned in the list immediately above? And this is just, just ... "These examples cast doubt on Hari's ability to understand science, her investigative technique and her role as a safety advocate." That's beyond the pale. We're criticizing her in Wikipedia's voice, we absolutely can not do that. I'm deleting that last one immediately per [[WP:BLP]]. The weight issues can be debated, but this last one is a personal attack on the subject, and has to go. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 21:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:I agree. The entire section is far too much undue weight to an article on a small circulation publication whose job it is to criticise. According to [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight|due weight]], we need to balance "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If we used this section for the entire page, it would be 10 times the length. {{ping|David Gerard}} {{ping|Dbrodbeck}} At this point, the consensus is to shorten, so I will proceed with that, unless you all would rather offer a different solution? [[User:Bikersur|Bikersur]] ([[User talk:Bikersur|talk]]) 23:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:01, 29 July 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vani Hari article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Some new sources
- Maria Godoy (4 December 2014). "Is The Food Babe A Fearmonger? Scientists Are Speaking Out". NPR.
- Kevin Folta PhD. (October 21, 2014). "Food Babe Visits My University".
- E.J. Schultz; Maureen Morrison (July 14, 2014). "Activist or Capitalist? How the 'Food Babe' Makes Money". Advertising Age.
Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2015
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alternative Views
Kingofaces43 I notice you reverted Robofish's addition of the WikiProject Alternative Views template based on the reasoning that Vani's views are fringe and not merely "alternative". While it sounds to me like "Alternative Views" is actually a euphemism for fringe views, it's up to them to decide what is inside their own scope. I notice that list includes John Titor, Jenny McCarthy, Atlantis and 9/11 Truth Movement, so I'm pretty sure Vani Hari falls within this scope as well. I didn't want to just get into a reversion war, but with your consent I think the WikiProject banner should be restored. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 14:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- The question though is if this article is actually in the scope of the project. From WP:WEIGHT, we have three types of views:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
- From my reading of the Wikiproject, they cover significant minority views (#2), while this article is primarily about a case of #3 (i.e., fringe). That's why I'm hoping Robofish can comment on why the tag is being added. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- You don't think the fact that Jenny McCarthy is in scope is a pretty clear precedent here? It's pretty evidently in scope to me, and it's really just a question of what the people who are actually *in* that project are interested in working on. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm just going by what the project says is it's scope right now. That other articles have been tagged or done something isn't justification for doing the same elsewhere (there's a guideline on that somewhere I need to dig up again someday). I left a note over at the Wikiproject to get more insight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we can let the participants in the project decide, because that's up to them, but I suspect they'll find her in scope. Their goal seems to be to focus on articles like this, and (assuming good faith here), to help maintain the line between "alternative" and fringe views, to the extent that there is one. If this were an article on Time Cube, I'd understand, but it's not like Vani Hari is a schizophrenic spouting out complete nonsense, all or most of her views are derived from one pseudoscientific school of thought or another. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 16:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I realize there is some ambiguity in their scope. My read was that their focus is on fleshing out significant minority views specifically without really focusing on fringe viewpoints, but I'll wait to see what the participants have to say before continuing that line of thought. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we can let the participants in the project decide, because that's up to them, but I suspect they'll find her in scope. Their goal seems to be to focus on articles like this, and (assuming good faith here), to help maintain the line between "alternative" and fringe views, to the extent that there is one. If this were an article on Time Cube, I'd understand, but it's not like Vani Hari is a schizophrenic spouting out complete nonsense, all or most of her views are derived from one pseudoscientific school of thought or another. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 16:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm just going by what the project says is it's scope right now. That other articles have been tagged or done something isn't justification for doing the same elsewhere (there's a guideline on that somewhere I need to dig up again someday). I left a note over at the Wikiproject to get more insight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- You don't think the fact that Jenny McCarthy is in scope is a pretty clear precedent here? It's pretty evidently in scope to me, and it's really just a question of what the people who are actually *in* that project are interested in working on. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not actually a member of the WikiProject, so I won't revert. I just thought from reading the article that this would fit in with the scope of that project, but that's really up to the project's members to decide. (I see now that I'd previously added the WikiProject template before and been reverted - oops, my apologies. If I'd seen that I wouldn't have added it a second time.) Anyway, no article needs a particular WikiProject template, so if this one's contentious it's probably best left out. Robofish (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Completely within scope, added it back. Main function is so that it shows up in the relevant article alerts - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- How is it within the scope exactly? Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Extremely non-mainstream scientifically, and that particular aspect is notable in itself (indeed, at length in the present article) - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Which would seem to put this topic outside of the scope of the project since we are talking about a fringe view rather than significant minority views. That's at least what I'm getting from the project description, so could you clear up what exactly the scope is? The main focus of the project seems to be to give more attention to significant minority views (i.e., #2 in my list above), but the views explained on this page don't quite reach that level. In other words, we're not talking about notability, but rather the level of acceptance relative to the mainstream view that we assess under NPOV. If this needs to be more than a one reply conversation, I might just pop over to the Wikiproject and pursue the question more there if it looks like this might stray too much beyond the context of this page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're mixing up a few different things here. The relevant project page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, which I got to in a single click from the header at the top of this page (so far easier to find yourself than asking me where you could find it) - if you want to argue that Ms Hari's scientific views are widely-accepted in the mainstream, therefore she shouldn't be considered relevant to the wikiproject, that'd be the point to argue - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Um, that was exactly the project page I was referring to. As I mentioned above, we're not talking about widely-accepted mainstream here. Instead the proejct states significant minority views, which Hari's views are not. Are you trying to say that project intends to cover fringe topics by using that language I outlined instead of significant minority views? If that is the case, some rewording might be needed there to avoid the ambiguity in the future, but that's not a conversation for here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- In any case, you're really not making your actual objection clear. What's the problem with the tag on this talk page (not even the article, but the maintenance area for editors)? Why do you object so strongly to it? - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I made the question clear and that was mostly so we could figure out at this article where the project would come into play if questions came up that would be good to bring to a project in the future. Does the project focus on significant minority views or WP:FRINGE views instead? We treat those as very different things with fringe views in mind as explained above many times. The project description says its scope is significant minority views, while you seem to be saying it's actually fringe views it is focusing on. That's where the conflicting information is coming in that's making it difficult to get a feel for the project and how it might apply to this page. I should note there is no stiff opposition here. I'm just trying to figure out how exactly the project is intended to relate here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think the point is that if it's WP:FRINGE, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway, so obviously fringe views aren't within the scope of what Alternative Views wants to add to Wikipedia. However, to the extent that Vani Hari's views are not mainstream, they are alternative (e.g. an alternative to the mainstream), and as such she is definitely within the scope of the project. It's also worth noting that fringe views are widely documented on Wikipedia, just not endorsed in WP's editorial voice. All of that stuff is within the scope of Alternative Views, as I pointed out in my very first objection to the removal of the tag. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 00:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE does not mean "shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway" - it just means "needs other notability"; notability amongst the fringe just doesn't count against it. Ms Hari's views are pretty obviously all of (a) fringe (b) alternative (c) notable - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like folks are still missing the point of the question (i.e., Hari's is not a significant minority view, which is much different than notability), so I'll bring it up at the project instead of dedicating space here where the question is becoming more of a meta one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Define "significant minority views". Please give examples. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like folks are still missing the point of the question (i.e., Hari's is not a significant minority view, which is much different than notability), so I'll bring it up at the project instead of dedicating space here where the question is becoming more of a meta one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE does not mean "shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway" - it just means "needs other notability"; notability amongst the fringe just doesn't count against it. Ms Hari's views are pretty obviously all of (a) fringe (b) alternative (c) notable - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think the point is that if it's WP:FRINGE, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway, so obviously fringe views aren't within the scope of what Alternative Views wants to add to Wikipedia. However, to the extent that Vani Hari's views are not mainstream, they are alternative (e.g. an alternative to the mainstream), and as such she is definitely within the scope of the project. It's also worth noting that fringe views are widely documented on Wikipedia, just not endorsed in WP's editorial voice. All of that stuff is within the scope of Alternative Views, as I pointed out in my very first objection to the removal of the tag. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 00:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- I made the question clear and that was mostly so we could figure out at this article where the project would come into play if questions came up that would be good to bring to a project in the future. Does the project focus on significant minority views or WP:FRINGE views instead? We treat those as very different things with fringe views in mind as explained above many times. The project description says its scope is significant minority views, while you seem to be saying it's actually fringe views it is focusing on. That's where the conflicting information is coming in that's making it difficult to get a feel for the project and how it might apply to this page. I should note there is no stiff opposition here. I'm just trying to figure out how exactly the project is intended to relate here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- In any case, you're really not making your actual objection clear. What's the problem with the tag on this talk page (not even the article, but the maintenance area for editors)? Why do you object so strongly to it? - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Um, that was exactly the project page I was referring to. As I mentioned above, we're not talking about widely-accepted mainstream here. Instead the proejct states significant minority views, which Hari's views are not. Are you trying to say that project intends to cover fringe topics by using that language I outlined instead of significant minority views? If that is the case, some rewording might be needed there to avoid the ambiguity in the future, but that's not a conversation for here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- You're mixing up a few different things here. The relevant project page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, which I got to in a single click from the header at the top of this page (so far easier to find yourself than asking me where you could find it) - if you want to argue that Ms Hari's scientific views are widely-accepted in the mainstream, therefore she shouldn't be considered relevant to the wikiproject, that'd be the point to argue - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Which would seem to put this topic outside of the scope of the project since we are talking about a fringe view rather than significant minority views. That's at least what I'm getting from the project description, so could you clear up what exactly the scope is? The main focus of the project seems to be to give more attention to significant minority views (i.e., #2 in my list above), but the views explained on this page don't quite reach that level. In other words, we're not talking about notability, but rather the level of acceptance relative to the mainstream view that we assess under NPOV. If this needs to be more than a one reply conversation, I might just pop over to the Wikiproject and pursue the question more there if it looks like this might stray too much beyond the context of this page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Extremely non-mainstream scientifically, and that particular aspect is notable in itself (indeed, at length in the present article) - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- How is it within the scope exactly? Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Completely within scope, added it back. Main function is so that it shows up in the relevant article alerts - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
They are views that generally are considered valid to a degree, but don't have the weight of the mainstream view. In my line of work, termite is a fun example. The mainstream view is that they now fall into a group called Blattodea. A decent amount of scientists might not consider the evidence for that new grouping strong enough with various evidence to still support the old grouping Isoptera that we would mention in an article (if it were the case) as a significant minority view. This would be legitimate discussion within the scientific community for both cases. Some blogger or old scientists that's gone senile making claims that termites should actually be in the same group as cattle would not be taken seriously at all and would be an example of a fringe view. That's how those three categories are used in practice, so "significant minority" often becomes an important distinction in terms of how ideas are weighted.
Either way, we're definitely getting outside the scope of the article now, so I'll bring the topic up at the project at a later date after finishing up other projects. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think most of AV counts as significant minority views, then. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, that's what caught my eye too, but that'll be something I bring up there at a later time when I've caught up on other things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hari's views are, in the main, "alternative" in the sense that they are alternative to well-founded, alternative to scientifically supportable and alternative to correct. It looks to me as if much of the focus of the alternative views project is Newspeak, recasting batshit craziness as "alternative" int he same way that peddlers of snake oil brand their products "alternative medicine" instead of what they are: fraudulent alternatives to medicine. This is a wider problem. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Section blanking and other edits
I'm concerned by someone who came by and blanked entire sections of this article without participation anywhere else. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've contributed many times before. The section you've added is far too much weight on one article. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to outline entire articles. If that was done for each section, every page would be far too long. There is no way this much weight can be given to one controversial article, without giving similar weight to achievements (which also wouldn't make sense). Bikersur (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Would you accept shortening the section in question? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Bikersur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It would have helped to discuss this on his user talk page. His edit summaries seem reasonable. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Informed user of this discussion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've restored the content in question. The removal is extremely dubious - the content is important and well-cited, and blank removal is inappropriate - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- After a repeated removal I've restored it again. Which part are you claiming doesn't stand up to scrutiny? You claim "too much coverage" but then you remove all of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- "the content is important and well-cited". Important is very subjective, particularly given the rest of things on page, and the section isn't well-cited given its length. It is all coming from the same source. Repeating a source doesn't make a section well sourced. Bikersur (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- So, to be clear, you are waging a one -man edit war against other editors with a much longer and broader editing history on Wikipedia, on the basis that you consider the judgement of the content's significance to be "subjective". And now you can stop doing that I think. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop edit warring Bikersur. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- +1 - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Editing is a collaborative thing. I've taken the effort to summarize the section in one sentence. The section was not blanked. The section relies fully one one weak source, repeated. If the page is to remain balanced, it cannot have 1/4 of the page dedicated to one article. It is undue weight. Please review this article prior to editing or commenting again. This is an article in an unkown source. If we gave this much weight to CNN articles, or NYTimes articles, etc, etc the page could expand exponentially. Bikersur (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Bikersur: You may wish to review WP:3RR - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Editing is a collaborative thing. I've taken the effort to summarize the section in one sentence. The section was not blanked. The section relies fully one one weak source, repeated. If the page is to remain balanced, it cannot have 1/4 of the page dedicated to one article. It is undue weight. Please review this article prior to editing or commenting again. This is an article in an unkown source. If we gave this much weight to CNN articles, or NYTimes articles, etc, etc the page could expand exponentially. Bikersur (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- +1 - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop edit warring Bikersur. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- So, to be clear, you are waging a one -man edit war against other editors with a much longer and broader editing history on Wikipedia, on the basis that you consider the judgement of the content's significance to be "subjective". And now you can stop doing that I think. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- "the content is important and well-cited". Important is very subjective, particularly given the rest of things on page, and the section isn't well-cited given its length. It is all coming from the same source. Repeating a source doesn't make a section well sourced. Bikersur (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- While I don't support the removal of the section in its entirety, there is a legitimate argument of due weight here. Why are these specific examples particularly relevant? Saying 'products she promotes (and earns revenues) on her website contain the same components that she claims as dangerous.' expresses the Skeptical Inquirer article's point sufficiently. Dialectric (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you all have an answer or suggestion? There has been no resolution...@David Gerard: @Dbrodbeck: Bikersur (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- At this point @Dbrodbeck: you are not contributing to the discussion at all, only reverting any changes, and edit warring. Please stop reverting until you take an attempt to summarize. Bikersur (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, wrong, incorrect. Please read WP:BRD. Please propose changes first, and stop screwing around. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see a consensus for a need to summarize this stuff. I'd be happy to look at proposed wording before it goes into the article. There was no such discussion after your (Bikersur's) block for edit warring. Then you came back and did the same thing. Stop it. Please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bikersur's changes do not appear to have consensus - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- At this point @Dbrodbeck: you are not contributing to the discussion at all, only reverting any changes, and edit warring. Please stop reverting until you take an attempt to summarize. Bikersur (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I second this. Having it be a separate section and at that length is definitely undue weight. Yoddler (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you all have an answer or suggestion? There has been no resolution...@David Gerard: @Dbrodbeck: Bikersur (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- After a repeated removal I've restored it again. Which part are you claiming doesn't stand up to scrutiny? You claim "too much coverage" but then you remove all of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've restored the content in question. The removal is extremely dubious - the content is important and well-cited, and blank removal is inappropriate - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
{{od)) I agree with Yoddler's assessment. The shorter version clearly summarizes the criticism without being excessively detailed. Edward321 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with the shorter section is that it gives no examples. The full version is indeed verbose, as it gives all the examples, but we should as a minimum give a couple of examples of the impermissible ingredients that are being used in her own recommended products, then link to the external source for the full list.
- Otherwise I'm reminded of the whitewashing over the aircraft air issue, where sources that described the atmosphere were removed as "irrelevant" because they didn't mention Vani Hari, then the section was removed because the claim that the air is normally 80% nitrogen was now "unsourced". If the section is to claim that Hari's product are using the same ingredients, then examples of those ingredients should be given. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- The version that's been reverted back to is not the consensus. An example or two is fine, but repeating a citation over and over to make an entire section look well sourced is not. Yoddler (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but there is no consensus for the change you wish to make Please consider discussing changes before making them. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- There are twice as many editors that say it should be shortened as those who say it should stay long. The amount of information included in the shorter version is more than generous given the citation. Yoddler (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but there is no consensus for the change you wish to make Please consider discussing changes before making them. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- The version that's been reverted back to is not the consensus. An example or two is fine, but repeating a citation over and over to make an entire section look well sourced is not. Yoddler (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Is this the edit in question? My contribution to this article has been adding the picture, so I hope I'm not going to be marked as on one "side" or the other. I am afraid I agree that this section does seem a bit long compared to the other criticisms in the article. Let's count. The Criticisms section we have: 2 respected scientists - 3 sentences. Controversial claims to increase traffic - 4 sentences. Beer campaign surgeon - 1 sentence. Flu shots -2 sentences. Water molecules Hitler - 2 sentences. Lack of credentials - 1 sentence. Elle magazine - 3 sentences. Skeptical Inquirer article - 16 sentences. In other words, this one criticism gets as many sentences as all the rest combined.
Also, of course, the last two sentences seem questionable in their own right: "The claims by Hari that these chemicals cited above are dangerous have been debunked by experts in science and medicine." doesn't that contradict the class 2B carcinogens mentioned in the list immediately above? And this is just, just ... "These examples cast doubt on Hari's ability to understand science, her investigative technique and her role as a safety advocate." That's beyond the pale. We're criticizing her in Wikipedia's voice, we absolutely can not do that. I'm deleting that last one immediately per WP:BLP. The weight issues can be debated, but this last one is a personal attack on the subject, and has to go. --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. The entire section is far too much undue weight to an article on a small circulation publication whose job it is to criticise. According to due weight, we need to balance "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If we used this section for the entire page, it would be 10 times the length. @David Gerard: @Dbrodbeck: At this point, the consensus is to shorten, so I will proceed with that, unless you all would rather offer a different solution? Bikersur (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Food and drink articles
- Low-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- Start-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Women writers articles
- Unknown-importance Women writers articles
- WikiProject Women articles
- WikiProject Women writers articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed North Carolina articles
- Unknown-importance North Carolina articles
- WikiProject North Carolina articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Unassessed Alternative Views articles
- Unknown-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles