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 Smidoid (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 5 August 2016 (→Gawker not a reliable source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gawker not a reliable source

I want to raise the issue that Gawker as not a reliable source on Wikipedia.
1. Gawker has been deemed an unreliable source several times in the past on the WP:IRS Noticeboard, and described as a tabloid, gossip site, and clickbait:

2. Gawker is a blog with questionable editorial oversight. They admit that they do not fact check their articles:

“Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.” WP:QUESTIONABLE “Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.” Omnipum (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Gawker is indeed dubious, it ought to be kept in mind D'Entremont is an analytical chemist with specialist knowledge and expertise. Furthermore her article and criticisms of Hari were covered by multiple other sources.[1][2] Therefore D'Entremont's criticisms should be kept in the article. Brustopher (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a source is not reliable how can it still be used? It appears to me that Gawker has never been considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Shouldn't then the other sources be used instead of Gawker? SMH seems to be a reliable source at first glance, but not sure about BostInno. Omnipum (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the archived discussions you linked rightly point out that whether a source is reliable depends on what it is being used for and who the author is. It's not a good idea to simply throw out everything that comes from one of the internet's largest blogs, which does have editorial oversight. In the case of d'Entremont, everything used is attributed directly to her. d'Entremont cites her sources, and has scientific training. We also have other RS's referencing the article, as the article is notable to the subject of criticism about Hari. If you have reason to suspect that the specific information provided in that article is unreliable or incorrect, I'd be willing to consider it, but eliminating all content simply because it originates at Gawker is neither reasonable nor Wikipedia's policy.  Adrian[232] 05:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What proof is there that Gawker has editorial oversight? I've read the opposite is true.
Omnipum (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.” WP:QUESTIONABLEOmnipum (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Adrian232. We have reliable sources supporting the d'Entremont reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then reliable sources should be used instead of Gawker, which is not reliable. Omnipum (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the source appears reliable and we're qualifying it to be safe. To throw out a source for such reasoning would be a POV violation. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would that be a POV violation? As you know, the WP:NPOV policy still requires reliable sources be used: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Furthermore: "The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality” Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources and “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources… Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well… Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
In other words - reliability doesn’t require neutrality, but neutrality requires reliability. This is why only reliable sources can be used, and Gawker is not one of them. Omnipum (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really haven't made your case to impeach this particular source - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that Gawker is a reliable source for wikipedia articles? Omnipum (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to impeach the source, arguing from someone's Wordpress-based blog and the Daily Caller (an actual unreliable source/ conservative propaganda site full of anti-science conspiracy theories) aren't the best way to go about it. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree with Adrian, the source is fine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it fine here when Gawker has been deemed an unreliable source multiple times? Omnipum (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am not saying Gawker has excellent editorial control. However, Gawker does have editors, and they do not allow just anybody to write whatever they want there. They also can, and have, pulled articles that didn't meet a certain standard. That makes them distinct from a WP:SPS, for example. What matters here is whether the source is reliable for what it's being used for in the article. For example, I wouldn't use a pop music review as a source for mitosis in single-celled organisms, nor a study about mitosis in a biology journal as a source for pop music criticism. I certainly don't believe Gawker is a great place for sourcing most facts to state in Wikipedia's voice, but this is the text we are using the source for: Yvette d'Entremont, science writer and former analytical chemist, writing for Gawker, criticized the lack of scientific support for Hari's claims, and described her writing as "the worst assault on science on the internet". Gawker is reliable for verifying an author's identity, so we can be sure d'Entremont wrote it and that her writing met their editorial standards. The rest of it are facts that are all verifiable using the source provided, as they are attributed directly to d'Entremont. You can feel free to ask the great people over at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but they will tell you essentially what we are telling you here.  Adrian[232] 21:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Gawker is a piss-poor site BUT I will add another voice to this. I know Yvette and she's done quite well from that post but her credentials are impeccable and her own book on this sort of assault against rational is out next year. The real advantage she got from Gawker is the exposure which almost put a complete stop to Vani's unstoppable anti-fact behemoth. That's why Vani put so much effort into the damage limitation exercise. Look at it this way, if a priceless diamond is transported in a plain package by a scruffy main in a raincoat, does that devalue the diamond? Smidoid (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoscience

I recently removed category:pseudoscience from this article, a change for which I gave a good and clear reason ("the category is for topics or theories that are pseudoscience; a person is not a pseudoscience theory"). My edit was reverted by David Gerard, without an edit summary or explanation. I do not find this acceptable. The category page states that, "This category comprises well-known topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)." A person is not a pseudoscientific topic. It should be obvious that while a different category might be appropriate, "category:pseudoscience" is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you notice #Category issue, again, just above? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I also looked through the talk page archives. There is nothing that answers the point that a category for pseudoscience topics such as astrology and creationism cannot be properly applied to articles about individual persons. So while I am not going to revert back, I still think this edit of yours was unreasonable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked editors to participate in the CfD discussion. But I haven't gotten any takers, and it looks like the category about Diet creators, which is certainly more appropriate as it applies to persons (and I agree with you that it would be better to have a person-based category, but it should be a sub-category of Advocates of pseudoscience), isn't going to be the kind of sub-category that it needs to be. So unless that discussion changes soon, I think the solution is going to have to be the creation of a new category. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hari certainly HAS promoted pseudo-science in the past: in particular vocal support for things like Gerson Therapy, a dangerous and ineffective treatment for cancer that's responsible for an unknown number of deaths since over the years. References to this claim are in her book (with further references in The Fear Babe book which exposed many of her most egregious failures and false claims). Smidoid (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further point I see from the pseudo-science section this note: "Hari responded by stating that the quote was taken out of its context of hormone-mimicking chemicals and growth stimulants, which can cause problems even in very small amounts" - Hari can respond and make (more fallacious) claims but I saw the quote *in context* and it most certainly wasn't referring to anything of the sort. I believe this has been discussed elsewhere - probably previously on the talk page. I absolutely agree that she should be able to explain her errors - but this is not a place where we should allow them to be brushed aside. She's as honest as a politician and just as devious. After all, her livelihood depends on it! Smidoid (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change of tactic - updates needed

I notice from recent email shots that Hari has been putting out that she has started to acknowledge (quietly) that organic produce DOES use pesticides. Further, she has said a number of times that "processed" sugar is bad for people. This is devious (not to mention lying by obfuscation or omission) by implying that what she's selling/promoting is OK. In regards to pesticides she has used the qualifier "synthetic" to imply that synthetic is automatically "bad" (the opposite is true in many, but not all cases) although synthetics are usually cheaper/more cost effective a cost which is passed to the consumer. Sugar (primarily sucrose but also as HFCS) is a serious issue for Americans in particular but also to many people in the developed world. Hari has repeatedly suggested that organic and alternative forms of (sucrose primarily) are somehow superior. This is completely bogus as the extra micro-nutrients while detectable, are in amounts too small to have any benefit. I think it's well known that I am pro-science and a vocal campaigner against Hari and her ilk, therefore, I wonder if someone else would make these notes as I might be seen as biased? The only citations I have are from her emails but I expect she has made similar claims on her website and other marketing materials. Smidoid (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vani_Hari&oldid=733157991"