Jump to content

Talk:Vani Hari

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Two kinds of pork (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 23 April 2015 (→‎Influence and awards: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Here's another source

http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit-1694902226?rev=1428349613882

Though I don't know why I bother, apparently the pro-wacko admins drove everyone off the page.

I'm not sure exactly what the problem is. Some pages on Wikipedia aren't exactly watched by too many people, it's apart of why Wikipedia is considered to be 'incomplete'. In any case, what would be your suggestion regarding this source? Add it in? How? Got a proposed sentence? Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read it. It provides a WP:RS for some claims that were deleted from the page, such as the claim that Vani Hari drives critics off her Facebook page, because some editors didn't think the source met WP:RS. It also provides another WP:RS for some of the claims that were challenged because only one WP:RS mentioned them and they weren't significant. --Nbauman (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

flu shots

I made this edit to remove the synthesis that was present. There's a legitimate source hidden in there but in its current (since reverted, @Andy Dingley:) form it synthesises "Here's what Hari said, here's what the CDC say", to put forward the sort-of unsourced implication that Hari is wrong. I reworded that to simply reflect what the reliable source in the paragraph said. I think this is the better way of reflecting this, to avoid original research, but happy to discuss. Sam Walton (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add a further secondary source to state explicitly that Hari is wrong. However what your edit actually did was to remove a statement of objective fact by the CDC as to flu causation (and per RS, we as an encyclopedia believe such statements) and then replace it with a direct quote diluting the stated efficacy of vaccination to a mere personal opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that's what I did, but per WP:SYNTH we're not supposed to include 'statements of objective fact' without them having been explicitly linked to the article subject. Following the reasoning that it's ok to include tangential sources because they're reliable, why don't we fill up the entire article with 'Reliable source X/Y/Z says something that contradicts Hari'? Sam Walton (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then add a source that also states clearly "Hari is wrong". A few have been removed from this very talk: page in just the last day, perhaps you could use one of those.
This is still not the same thing as removing a well-sourced statement of agreed scientific fact (vaccines are useful, air is mostly nitrogen, Hitler does not live in the microwave), because that then allows the pro-Hari whitewashing to remove the embarrassing Hari claim contradicting that on the basis that there is now no evidence to disagree with Hari. Look at the history of this article, and the talk archives. Some of the very simplest of her incorrect statements are regularly removed on just such a basis. That's simple and gross POV editing, backed up with blocks, and yet pro-science edits have to jump through the highest of hoops to even include simple statements from bodies such as the CDC. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm limited for time, so I can't look into these most recent happenings very in-depth, but we should be mindful that WP:PARITY applies here when discussing Hari's claims. That can make some sources acceptable here for calling out the fringe aspect of Hari's claims that wouldn't be considered as reliable if we were strictly writing a scientific statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the CDC isn't considered reliable, just that this article isn't the place for saying what is or isn't true outside of what reliable sources have said in the context of Hari. My main concern is setting a precedent whereby we as editors are free to debunk anything she writes by looking up the contradicting evidence. The article should only summarise what sources have written in the context her and what she's said and I think including anything extra leads us down the road of synthesis. Something else to mention about this particular section is that the vaccine controversies article is linked, where readers can find out all about how wrong she is on this topic. Sam Walton (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"this article isn't the place for saying what is or isn't true "
I think we have a fundamental difference in terms of the function of an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...outside of what reliable sources have said in the context of Hari". Sam Walton (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By all means add sources to discuss Hari herself – there are plenty to choose from. However if we remove a clear RS-sourced statement that "water is wet", or some other trivial truism, the pro-Hari editors here will then use that as an excuse to remove any claim of "Hari was wrong when she denied that water was wet", or something equally nonsensical. This has already happened repeatedly, which is why the article currently omits Hari's nonsense on air travel. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we need to include what is "true" in terms of scientific consensus per WP:NPOV and specifically WP:FRINGE. If someone says something that goes against the science, that needs to be specified, otherwise we are giving undue weight to the idea. Otherwise articles like this can become a WP:COATRACK for fringe content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we need a source commenting on the twitter post before we can talk about it? Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Because of WP:PRIMARY? It's a terrible source for equating flu vaccines with genocide, but it is a good source for answering the crucial, and otherwise difficult, question of whether she has ever come out as an overt anti-vaxxer. From pep rallies like the FoodBabeArmy it's clear that her supporters are full-blown crazy (chemtrails, anti-vax, the lot) but it wasn't previously clear whether she supported the anti-vax position too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was thinking of WP:PRIMARY and if the post itself is notable. I am not married to the position though. Let's see what others think. As an aside your evaluation of her 'army' is spot on.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:TWITTER we may be ok actually. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Elle magazine

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-vani-hart-the-food-babe-is-wrong-2015-4 might be useful Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another.....

http://news.health.com/2015/04/10/vani-hari-food-babe-myths-you-shouldnt-believe/ Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and more

Morgan Fisher (13 April 2015). "The Collapse of Food Babe: Or, How Not to Manage a Crisis". LinkedIn.

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used the linkedin article on the main page; it seems like a RS to me but please let me know and provide some constructive criticism if it's not up to snuff. YesPretense (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misbehavior

Why does this article not cover the fact that she tried to hide old articles with deletion, blocked archiving groups like archive.org from keeping past versions, and bans people from her social media pages for simple things like asking her credentials or correcting factual errors? It's all over the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.88.170 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward wording

"pseudoscientific claims and beliefs in her work[6][7] which, critics note, supports a commercial interest as well.[8]" can be parsed as "pseudoscientific claims and beliefs in her work" or as "pseudoscientific claims and beliefs in her work". I had to read it three times, and I am going guess which one and reword it. I don't understand what this means: "critics note, supports a commercial interest as well." Is it suggesting she is supporting the commercial interests of herself? or the commercial interests of the people she criticizes? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Influence and awards

Greatiest? That's a little thin, no? Perhaps we can remove this and merge the other part to a different section?Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 14:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vani_Hari&oldid=658846719"