Talk:Vani Hari: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:53, 22 March 2016

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 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 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.

Biography C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Food and drink Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: North Carolina Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina.

Alternative Views Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Additions to Influence section

The mention that Hari was included in the following lists were removed by Ronz and I believe they should be included in the “Influence” section:

In January 2016, The Greatist named Hari among "The 100 Most Influential People in Health and Fitness" http://greatist.com/health/most-influential-health-fitness-people

In January 2016, The Daily Meal named Hari among "America’s 50 Most Powerful People in Food for 2016". http://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/america-s-50-most-powerful-people-food%7C−

In February 2016, The Daily Meal named Hari among "The 13 Most Powerful Women in Food". http://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/13-most-powerful-women-food

The Daily Meal and Greatist are reliable 3rd party sources and it cannot be challenged that Hari was included in these lists. I see no credible reason to exclude them.
--Omnipum (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these notable? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Omnipum (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are those not your typical click-bait lists seen on other websites? minimal information - check! Lots of crappy ads - check! Reliable source for Wikipedia - bzzzzzt! Ravensfire (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not serve this conversation. I am being respectful and I suggest you do the same.

Other sources:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodculture/the-13-most-powerful-women-in-food/ss-BBpIyjC
http://www.fooddive.com/news/why-leading-industry-players-made-the-daily-meals-50-most-powerful-people/413038/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/02/beach-beat-nuggets-of-news-from-recent-days/#.VtituJMrKRs/
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Derby-doc-on-most-influential-list-6756578.php
IFT found this list "notable" enough to share with their followers: https://twitter.com/ift/status/703361416514953216

Previous years these lists were featured in the media as well:

--Omnipum (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you respond to my edit summary, "partial rv - needs third-party sources or other indications that these are noteworthy"? --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I don't understand. I thought I just did. What are you looking for?

--Omnipum (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition - these BLP wikipedia profiles include these lists, so why shouldn't it be in Hari's?

--Omnipum (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. Find a GA article where there's such lists with discussions about how they're encyclopedic, then we can learn from what others' think on such matters.

First, could you strike out the non-third party links or otherwise identify those that are third-party from those that aren't? --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For 'other sources': The MSN resource is a news aggregator which simply reposted the original source in an automatic fashion. Food Dive appears to be a blog that would not meet WP:RS, nor does their post mention Hari. Food Safety News specifies that the article is in the opinion section, and the author is a journalist not a notable expert on the subject, thus would not meet WP:RS. The CT Post article does not mention Hari. Twitter shares are not typically used to determine notability.

For 'previous years': The first Huffington Post link is a blog run by The Daily Meal, and is simply them using their HuffPo outlet to share their own content. The second HuffPo link appears to be more aggregated content, as it is a snippet of the original article followed by a link to it. The IHRSA resource is a blog post by a trade association; does not appear to be WP:RS. Dr Drew is also not a WP:RS for this information, especially due to the fact that the site has a conflict of interest due to his appearance on the list.

It should be important that reliable secondary sources generally agree that these lists are significant, particularly when the sources are regarded as authorities on the subject matter. It does not appear that any of those lists are particularly notable. At least it is not well supported by your links. Hari's appearances on the lists definitely have not been shown to be notable, in any event, which is arguably more important.  Adrian^[232] 04:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through all the links.

We need to remember that the press often acts as an echo chamber, especially for promotion and advocacy (see WP:SOAP). Just because something is in the news doesn't mean it is encyclopedic in any way (see WP:NOTNEWS). --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an investigator quote

What encyclopedic value does this have: "In response to these criticisms, Hari has stated, "I never claimed to be a nutritionist. I'm an investigator." [1]. It looks like false balancing, but could read as an attempt to shame Hari. Either way, I don't see why it belongs. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems like false balancing to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is her response. That's why it is included. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vani Hari has repeatedly been criticised for her incompetence as a nutritionist. Her response to this was this claim, that she was an investigator instead. On that basis it belongs here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support including the quote. It reflects what she thinks, and the fact that we quote it does not mean that Wikipedia endorses or agrees with what she said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliate marketer

I'd prefer a label that's clearer, but it seems due and the source is used extensively. Given how prominent it is in the source, to not mention it in the lede seems problematic. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reason it was deleted. That's what she does to make money. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. It's well-cited and it's literally how she makes her living - David Gerard (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnipum: appears to be edit-warring to keep it out - David Gerard (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs there, it is cited. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it belong there? Can you show me examples of how this title is used on other pages? Is typically how bloggers are described who have used affiliate marketing on their websites? I don't believe this is the case. Do you realize that almost all websites - including mainstream news websites - utilize affiliate marketing? Yet, they are not described as "affiliate marketers". I don't see how this is an accurate description of what she does.--Omnipum (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 ::{{ping|Omnipum}} appears to be edit-warring to keep it out - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 01:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 :::It belongs there, it is cited.  [[User:Dbrodbeck|Dbrodbeck]] ([[User talk:Dbrodbeck|talk]]) 01:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-::::Why does it belong there? Can you show me examples of how this title is used on other pages? Is typically how bloggers are described who have used affiliate marketing on their websites? I don't believe this is the case. --[[User:Omnipum|Omnipum]] ([[User talk:Omnipum|talk]]) 01:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
+::::Why does it belong there? Can you show me examples of how this title is used on other pages? Is typically how bloggers are described who have used affiliate marketing on their websites? I don't believe this is the case. Do you realize that almost all websites - including mainstream news websites - utilize affiliate marketing? Yet, they are not described as "affiliate marketers". I don't see how this is an accurate description of what she does.--[[User:Omnipum|Omnipum]] ([[User talk:Omnipum|talk]]) 01:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)