Talk:Vani Hari

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.

Criticism section should be expanded

Hari's outlandish scientific claims--which are arguably the most notable thing about her--are not adequately addressed in the article. There is no mention, for example, of her bizarre warning that the air on airplanes is not pure oxygen but is mixed with "as much as 50% nitrogen" (see http://www.freezepage.com/1415667665TBMRBWICKU). Merely listing her critics without noting more of the specific statements being criticized does not seem sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.245.32 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added a new section. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2015

Please correct a typo in the "Criticism" section of this page.

It is on the second paragraph, third sentence: "That she does so, they believe, is due to her attractive physical appeance and despite her lack of knowledge and credentials in the field of food science and nutrition."

The word "appeance" should be "appearance" instead. Tjk911 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Deli nk (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add non-neutral banner, this article is a hate fest against Hari

{{POV|date=June 2015}}

It is not necessary for Wikipedia editors to write an article in such a non-neutral tone when the subject practices pseudoscience. This tends to make an article look like a smear campaign, which this article is. Wikipedia BLP's are not the place for smear campaigns. A factual tone cuts down a pseudoscientist much better. "She claims..." "They believe...." What nonsense, just report the information as found in sources. Hating pseudoscientists by attacking them in Wikipedia articles shows you play the same game. A BLP is not the right venue.

Please add the non-neutrality template. --2600:380:9921:BA66:AD45:60A0:6D14:52A5 (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. You don't give specific examples of how this article in against her in a biased way. The phrasing "She claims..." is there because there are RS that she did claim some particular viewpoint, but there is no RS that such a viewpoint has any accuracy. Without specific detail of how this article is alleged to be biased, adding a template improves nothing. Is the article excessively anti-Hari? Or excessively pro-Hari? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose as well. The stuff is cited. She has said some, oh let's go with questionable, things. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Also oppose, but questionable is a long way from accurate. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edit requests are meant for non-controversial edits. This is already opposed by three editors. Cannolis (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

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:

1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
3. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)