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 Omnipum (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 22 March 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

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]
It is cited. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is in the news doesn't mean it is encyclopedic in any way. No one has answered my questions above. --Omnipum (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically in Vani Hari's case, her affiliate marketing is an issue because she evangelises a lifestyle that promotes these products. And has been called out for it. Its one thing to utilise affliate marketing, its another to say 'You should eat/drink this! Its good for you!' without disclosing you are getting a kickback. So generally yes, its not an issue for most bloggers (although with recent high profile court cases regarding promoting products this may be changing) in Hari's it is a significant issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs because, as the sources make perfectly clear, that is how she makes the money to support her rather agreeable lifestyle. She pimps products, and makes money when people buy them. That is not only an important fact biographically, it also bears directly on much of the criticism of her work. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we link affiliate marketer somewhere in order to give a clear definition of what we're meaning the term to mean, then check whether she meets that or not. I would agree with Guy's description here, but it's not clear that this is how "affiliate marketer" is generally interpreted or not. Is she paid to advertise products, then maybe products sell? Or is she part of the selling process more directly herself, such as FudBabe-branded tasty yoga mats? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per the second ref she is a fairly standard affiliate marketer, rather than a directly paid-for-promotion like some of the recent bloggers caught out. Its not a case of Organic company says 'Promote this and we will give you a chunk of cash'. She recommends brands and gets a cut/share from those brands for her referrals - which is how affiliate marketing generally works. As far as I know there isnt any allegation that states she directly does paid advertising on behalf of companies which actually puts her on the more ethical end of the blog-advertising range. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you understand how affiliate marketing works here. Almost every blog on the planet, including Scibabe, makes some revenue from affiliate marketing. That does not make them an "afflilate marketer" by trade - they are a "blogger" by trade. Let's get back to the point here that Hari is a blogger - and it is not appropriate to give her a title of "affiliate marketer". Can you show me examples of other wikipedia profiles that use "affiliate marketer" as a title for someone? I do not believe they exist.Omnipum (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a winning argument at Wikipedia. The point is that this is significant to Hari's income and to the public critique of her, and that both the fact and its significance are well-cited and relevant - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say this is "significant" to Hari's income? This is not what she "does", so it is not an appropriate title. Again... every other blogger on the planet does affiliate marketing and they are not called "affiliate marketers" by trade. This does not belong in this sentence, it is already discussed a couple sentences below where it says "Hari left her management consulting job in 2012 to devote her time to activism and blogging, as well as marketing dietary and other products." There is not reason to duplicate this and give her this title.--Omnipum (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very few bloggers have an article about their affiliate marketing published by AdvertisingAge. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Many articles have been written about bloggers and vloggers and how they make money, and they are not given the title of "affiliate marketer" although this is a primary vehicle that they use to earn a living from their blogs and videos. --Omnipum (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? Please provide reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hari response to criticisms

Can anyone explain why this quote from Hari keeps getting removed? We have already established that responses to criticisms are allowed in a BLP. “Under their criticisms, that would mean that no journalist working in this world without a scientific degree would be able to report on science. That is unacceptable." Source --Omnipum (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's nonsense, over-the-top, self-serving, has no encyclopedic value that I can see, and in context looks like an attempt to undercut the valid criticisms of her lack of expertise. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is it nonsense and over the top? I disagree. It is her direct response to criticisms, whether you like it or not. --Omnipum (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree and apparently feel this is just a matter of personal preference. Now please make a policy-based case for inclusion per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This quote from Hari is appropriate under WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT and "Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires exercising special care in presenting negative viewpoints about living persons."Omnipum (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clearly the reverse, but thanks for offering an explanation. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There have been so many recent reversions that it's difficult for those of us who didn't see it in real time to be sure which "response" this is. I think it might be where she said "Under their criticisms, that would mean that no journalist working in this world without a scientific degree would be able to report on science. That is unacceptable." If that's the case, then it came right after her quote about not being a nutritionist, and I don't think that it really adds that much to what the page already says, so I don't think that we need to add it back. I think the nutritionist quote covers it adequately. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. This quote specifically talks about journalism and writing about science. It is a completely different quote and should be added to counter criticisms that she isn't a scientist and shouldn't write about scientific issues. --Omnipum (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vani_Hari&oldid=711437487"