Talk:Vani Hari

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015

A reference is missing from the wiki page: https://archive.is/SmN0x

It should be in the last paragraph of the section "Promotion of Pseudoscience"

Also a link to one of her blogs on air quality in airplanes: http://www.freezepage.com/1415667665TBMRBWICKU

Sierrafourteen (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Sierrafourteen (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Links to archive.is get systematically removed for some annoying reason, even when encyclopedically useful - David Gerard (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sierrafourteen: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 06:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

General Sense of Bias

This is the first time that i have come across this article, and i want to make the very basic observation that i see this article as a whole as bent on slamming Vani Hari. It appears to be weighted in an extremely lopsided way toward criticism of her, as if it is written by people who really have it out for her. It seems to be a collection of all the bad things one could allege about Food Babe, and seems to have been edited with this purpose in mind, which indicates editing with a point of view, or a biased agenda. This is a biography of a living person page, and in that light, editors are required to take special care to ensure that this page is edited with a neutral point of view, and i certainly do not see that care being taken here. This is my first viewing of this page, and this is my sincere observation. I am somewhat familiar with the whole to-do about Food Babe and the recent movement among the self-appointed "skeptic" movement to denounce and denigrate here, and i think that this movement has occupied this article about Food Babe, which is something that is in violation of Wikipedia goals and spirit. SageRad (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it needs more competent WP:RS congratulating her on the wisdom of her pronouncements.

Do you know of any? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and i posted one last night, from CBS news, in which a U.S. Representative praises her work, so that the lead in fact is not completely about people who are hating on her. Thanks for the invitation and the challenge, Andy. SageRad (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Not that it's that relevant - US Representatives have pushed through legislation favouring their financial interests using pseudoscientific arguments before now. Ryan is right, though: more science would be great. It would derail the anti-GMO bullshit machine, for a start, it would remove the ability of "organic" kooks to make spurious claims of nutritional superiority, and it would probably lead tot he end of the use of antibiotics as growth promoters, which is long overdue. Best result would be regulation of the supplement industry, which is exempt from the requirement to prove claims (thanks to two Senators funded by the industry) and which the FDA right now can't even take a peek at unless people are already being provably harmed. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok......... but i think it's relevant here. SageRad (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And, you seem to be on an ideological rant that's hardly related, so i think you're POV pushing here. SageRad (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to your reference tot he statement by the US Representative in the article. I strongly believe that neither you nor Vani Hari would like it if that representative's comment were taken to its logical conclusion (though it would make the reality-based community very happy indeed). I'm amused by the irony of you complaining about ideology. You live in a glass house on that one, so it's probably better to put the stones away before someone gets cut. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And, note that the CBS-sourced content that i added was promptly removed by the editor who delivered the ideological rant in this section. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So, um, i'm adding it back. There is not serious discussion here, several days have elapsed, and there is no dialogue with integrity that justifies the removal, and it appears to be an ideologically-motivated edit. SageRad (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been reverted as you have no consensus for the change, have objections to your change, and appear to be its only supporter. I endorse the reversion - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My several recent edits have been reverted by Dbrodbeck, and user David Gerard says he supports the reversion, but with no substantial discussion as to why. Now, you two, will you please have a substantial discussion about this issue? If we're going to be doing a BRD cycle, that requires the "D" part of it to happen, or the revert has been done spuriously.

So, i had added a single line to the lede that establishes that there are also people who praise Vani Hari for her work. That was reverted why? This is a true thing, and the lede is highly unbalanced as it was and as it is now. I sourced the content to CBS News, in which Hari is praised by a U.S. congressman for her work in raising awareness and putting pressure on companies to remove some chemicals from foods. On what basis do you think the lede is better without this comment?

I also removed a duplicated aspersion that quotes a newspaper columnist twice in the same section, to the same end. By what logic do you think the article should retain that twice quoted insulting opinion by Schwarcz in a BLP? Is the article better by retaining this? You must think so, since you reverted my edit. You must think the article is written in a neutral point of view, right? I find that to be a serious stretch, given how this article reads as a soapbox for Vani Hari's harshest critics, and makes so much space for them, and yet does not make space for a single short sentence sourced to CBS News that would show a U.S. congressman praising her. You claim this is a neutral point of view, really?

There is a claim that "Science Babe" received death threats after critiquing Hari, and i find this outlandish. Sure, someone on the Internetz made an empty death threat -- that happens all the time, to millions of people, and it's sad but come to be expected for anyone making any controversial statements. I would like to removed that last line in the article, as it's not really significiant in my estimation. However, instead, i added a well-sourced statement that Hari has also received death threats for her work, and that was also removed in your swoop-revert. So you must think it's relevant that Science Babe received threats, and yet you do not think it's relevant that Hari has received threats? That must be your opinion, or else you're just reverting in a knee-jerk agenda-motivated way. Seriously, let's hear your arguments, specifically and with sound reasoning, and responding to the things that i have written, without ideological loaded attacks upon me, and simply discussing how to make this article better and more neutral in point of view, or else explaining why you think it is just great how it stands now. Unfortunately, i seem to have to spell out that i would like to hear dialogue with integrity, and define what that means. I would like to hear the person who made the revert, and/or the supporter, to actually engage in good faith dialogue about the article itself, with sound reasoning that makes sense, and not just loosely citing some WP-CAPS. And yes, i have some attitude and it's well justified by the recent history here, so deal with it. SageRad (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please go read WP:CONSENSUS, you don't have it. Also, the overly dramatic bolding of text doesn't help. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to indicate that you are not interested in discussing the topic itself, with integrity of dialogue. What exactly do you mean to point me to in the guideline on consensus? Can you please stand up and say what you are saying, explicitly? Otherwise you haven't said anything, but you have cited WP-CAPS with no indication as to what you mean by doing so, and you have neglected to actually discuss the topic itself.... and i will write how i want to write even if that involves bold because it indicates the level of dysfunction present here in this dialogue more clearly, as i feel so ridiculously at pains to find any integrity here among people who are locking down this page as a soapbox for the enemies of Hari to smear her here. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia, you know, to be another blog for Gorski or Novella. This is a place where rational dialogue is supposed to result in good decisions and balance, and your lack of good dialogue is a symptom of the failure of that happening. SageRad (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to take a look at WP:SHOUT. There is no consensus, people seem to be done talking with you. I don't know what 'WP-CAPS' is, and I don't think I cited it. You don't have consensus for what you want to add. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

By WP-CAPS, what i mean is willy-nilly citing of Wikipedia guidelines as a shutdown of dialogue, without clear explanation as to what is meant. For example, what about my writing to you think constitutes "shouting"? Is your problem solely that i have bolded some words? Do you realize that i bolded words because of exasperation at nobody even partaking in a dialogue with anything close to good faith? There is no consensus for the article to remain as it is, clearly, as i oppose it strongly, and yet you are forcing an assessment of consensus. So, back to the discussion, can you please explain why you reverted my edits, all of them, with a comment to use the talk page, and now you refuse to talk about the issues at hand, and distract from it at every possible moment? SageRad (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You are basically refusing to discuss, and you're standing obstinately in locking down the article without discussing. I am not "shouting". I am writing. I am speaking strongly because it's demanded by the situation, which is extremely ridiculous and tries a person's patience. Do you have anything to offer regarding the article and why you think it deserves to be in the present state? Do you seriously think it reflects an NPOV? Do you seriously think my edits were bad?

Yes, you clearly think it is warranted, but, it is not. I can see that you are frustrated, but that does not move my opinion of what you have written. You don't have consensus. The problems you have with our article are simply not problems. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I clearly think it is warranted, and you clearly think it is not warranted. You do not have consensus, either. And the editors at this page are all of a feather who came here with a motivation of populating this page with critique of Hari as much as possible, so counting votes doesn't make it a neutral point of view nor does it establish what a genuine consensus would be here. You cannot define reality, sir. You can have your perspective on it. I have mine. Both are valid to the degree that they can be reasonably argued and then outside judgment might be needed to break a deadlock. You don't even seem to be willing to argue your point of view, as you're continuing to distract with various sideline comments. You don't even address the questions i have asked. You are not showing good faith here, and your refusal to engage in dialogue in good faith indicates to me that your edits are not justified. SageRad (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you know my motivations? Really, how? So, I am part of some sort of conspiracy or something then? Insinuating such a thing is a personal attack. (Here' another policy for you WP:NPA). Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You're still not discussing the article. I can only judge by your actions. I cannot know your motivations, but your actions appear to be to avoid talking about the article and simply asserting that you're right and i'm wrong. I asked many very specific questions. And accusing someone wrongly of personal attacks is in fact a personal attack in itself. SageRad (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

'And the editors at this page are all of a feather who came here with a motivation of populating this page with critique of Hari'. That seems pretty clear to me. Here is something else you ought to read WP:IDHT. Back away from the horse, take the WP:STICK and stop. It's dead. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• You're not the boss of me.
• Previously, people have expressed similar concerns and mostly the same group of editors shot them down and blocked any changes. Seems like a pattern by a group of editors to hold this page and tire out any dissenters by going in circles and distracting.
• You still have not addressed my actual concerns in regard to the article itself. It's still distraction and accusation. SageRad (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "There is just no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever."

I had edited the article to change the way the to-do around this quote is addressed. Another editor reverted it here with the reason being, as i understand it, that the new version has stated that the Atlantic use of the quote was out of context, and that this part stating that it was out of context is synthesis, if i read the edit reason correctly. But, instead of throwing out the whole baby with the bathwater, it seems more reasonable to simply remove the part that the editor deems to be synthesis, and keep the remainder. It surely seems more fair and balanced to me this way. I'd love to have discussion here about this, to propose changes and reasons why it ought to be changed. SageRad (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would add that, if "out of context" is deemed to be synthesis, then the phrase "and criticised at length" in the other editor's preferred version seems to also be synthesis of the same magnitude. My reading of the source in regard to that quote is that about the next four sentences relate directly to that quote, which is not really "at length", and it does indeed take the quote out of context and wrongly apply "the dose makes the poison" to it, whereas in its context, she's clearly speaking of a specific class of chemicals (hormone mimics and neurotransmitter mimics) which are in fact active at extremely low levels. The issue in question is not acute poisoning, which is the main application of "the dose makes the poison" but systemic changes that would be caused by low levels of those chemicals due to their mode of bioactivity. Yes, that is my synthesis, but no, i did not add this to the article. Hari's own quote in relation to this issue does make that point. SageRad (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what she says after the event, for sure, but she's not a dependable source and frankly I suspect that if she could have expunged this from the internet, as she did with her ludicrous comments on aircraft or microwave ovens, then that is precisely what she would have done. When you set yourself up as a communicator, it's worth making sure your communications are not risible. Perhaps she will one day learn this lesson. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see your point. You seem to want to punish her and to seriously dislike her. SageRad (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't dislike her at all. I dislike self-serving bullshit masquerading as health advice. This applies wherever it arises and whoever offers the bullshit. If I find any statement she has made which is correct and constitutes good advice, I will support it. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, you're saying that she is not a good source on the meaning of her own words in her own book. I hold that her explanation is useful and belongs in this article if there is to be a section on that particular quote. Secondly, it does seem to me that you have a chip on your shoulder about her. SageRad (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I am saying she is not a good source for how those words should be interpreted. If she makes careless statements that are misinterpreted by others, she does not then get to decide post-hoc that only her interpretation is valid. She should be more careful (and perhaps stick to things where she actually knows what she's talking about). Guy (Help!) 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Vani Hari is very fond of the memory hole for her mistakes. Now maybe she has changed this statement, after she made it, to "just a few chemicals (which mimic hormones) have no acceptable level, ever". But she didn't say that, she said "any chemicals". She was not mis-quoted on this. She was not taken out of context, she said, "any chemicals, ever."

If she had said the narrower form of this statement, that would be a position worth discussing. It might even be right: it's certainly harder to justify the presence of small quantities of biochemically active chemicals than it is for bulk chemicals of low activity

Famously she is not a chemist or dietician. She does however have a business degree that would imply she is capable of communicating in a literate, numerate, fashion. As a speaker with a large readership she has some responsibility for her statements. "Any chemicals, ever" is a strong statement and she can hardly claim to have made such by accident.

Once again, this is a significant statement of her position that she has made, even if she has now disowned it as embarrassing (like the airliner atmosphere, like the Nazi microwaves). We should record these: they are a key factor, and a repeated factor, that speak to her lack of credibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's quite a leap there, Andy. That statement was on a page in her book in a section about a specific class of chemicals which mimic hormones and neurotransmitters, and therefore relate to very sensitive modes of action, and not at all about acute toxicity. As she explains in the quote which was removed from the article. That is indeed taken out of context. There is a concerted effort to "take down" Vani Hari and it's extended now to Wikipedia. This is not the forum for that campaign. SageRad (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a huge and unsupportable leap. She was the one who made it. If (in a narrow context) why did she say "any chemicals, ever.", because that's the bold absolutist statement she did make. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

.... but... to beat a dead horse, she made it in a context that is very easily understood, and she has explained that this was important to the statement, and that she was referring to those specific chemicals that are highly potent in tiny amounts as they are mimics of somatic signalling chemicals, and this is very easily understood by anyone, and the quote was indeed used out of context to smear Hari by people who have an ideological axe to grind against her, and now people are saying that this should also extend to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Dr Gorski, Steven Novella, and the specific Skeptoid flavor of ideologue. Wikipedia is intended to speak in as neutral a voice as possible, and we must take care to do this especially in articles which are ideological lightning rods like this one. I am on this only because this page has clearly been captured by a specific group of people who have an agenda and they are using it to smear Hari using Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a good faith effort to represent reality from a neutral point of view. SageRad (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion that in an article about a person who takes extreme positions, we owe it to them to quote them accurately. Even if the claim is absurd. If the person backtracked later, then mention that too. If there was context then include that context. "any chemicals, ever" is pretty unambiguous. Chillum 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words

Per WP:WEASEL we do not say "some scientists" have criticised her work, those who have, are critical. I don't know of any scientist who has supported her. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and another editor changed it and i did not change it back, so that point is moot. And you just reverted multiple other changes, without discussing them, which is not cool, and didn't open any dialogue about them. SageRad (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You did say "though she has been praised by others" - and cited that to Parvati Shallow, who is not a scientist, and I don't see where in the article you cited, the writer makes the claim that any scientists support her. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Others" as in "other people"... and in that source article, Vani Hari was praised by a US representative pretty roundly. SageRad (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Other people with no expoertise in the field, offered as a counter to scientists who, unlike Hari, actually know what they are talking about. See false equivalence and WP:UNDUE. Also, your having made several sequential changes does not constitute a magic talisman against reversion. I have undone your change per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to now achieve consensus here for the changes you want to make. I note that you have been reverted in whole or in part by three users now, which does rather indicate that you are the one whose edits are problematic. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

People who are not formally scientists also know something about something, you know? A person like a US Rep understands a thing or two about how change is made in the world, and how Hari's political saavy has enabled some significant changes to be made, and he praises her for that. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As for your counting of edits, that is certainly not the only conclusion from this. Another likely alternative is that this page is watched by skeptoids who have it out for Hari because she goes against their religion, which is pretty much adherence to the chemical industry, like SciBabe for instance, who was commissioned to do a "takedown" of Hari for the chemical industry. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism is the default in the scientific method, it's a methodology for separating truth form fiction and not a POV (unlike, say, anti-GMO activism, which definitely is a POV). And if you want to know whether a skeptical view is in line with policy and ethos, all you need to do is read Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be on a skeptoid rant about the scientific method, which i do understand mind you, and i also understand plenty else about the world, sociologically, including how scientism becomes a semi-religious ideology too. You seem to have followed me here to revert all my edits, BTW, which is not cool. SageRad (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, the word "scientism" is used almost exclusively within the context of religious or quasi-religious belief systems whose beliefs are refuted by scientific knowledge. The leading one is creationists, but homeopaths, cold fusionists and sundry other cranks also use it. "Scientism" as in the belief that where a question is amenable to scientific inquiry, then science is the correct method for settling it, is essentially Wikipedia's core policy, hence WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and the policies around pseudoscience.

Second, I did not follow you anywhere. This article is on my watchlist and has been since before you even joined Wikipedia. If anything it rather looks as if you have come here to try to rewrite an article in support of an argument you are losing elsewhere. Bear in mind that I have been dealing with pseudoscientific and crank claims on Wikipedia for a decade. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have not ever edited the article in the past, and you have recently had a history of opposing my edits in a consistent way in many forums, and you're mentioned in an ArbCom case currently in regard to conflict of interest regarding Monsanto legal cases RfC closure, and such things like that, so the evidence seems to indicate that you're here because you saw my edits and saw another venue to engage with me. Anyway, on cannot know what's in another's mind. I came here serendipitously from the Kevin Folta page when i was actually investigating your recent edits to counter your claim that you're not involved in this controversy cluster, as you claimed when you closed my RfC on the aforementioned page, with bias. On the Kevin Folta page, someone mentioned Vani Hari in a derogatory way, inappropriate to Wikipedia, which showed their ideological agenda, and when i came here, i saw an article constructed to slam Vani Hari from a skeptoid ideology, pretty clearly. There is a creeping gang-based editing happening to change the whole landscape around every aspect of the agrochemical industry. It's ugly and not balanced. SageRad (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The article was on my watchlist when I made this revert in July. I have no COI in respect of Monsanto, I am not the one who's been on marches and boasted of being stopped by their security people - being accused of a COI by a small group of editors with an agenda, is not the same as having one. You come across as careless and blinded by zeal. That is not a good thing for you right now, and I suggest you calm down and stop imputing motives where none exist. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Now, user JzG is continuing to engage in an edit war. Latest diff. SageRad (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

In short, the editor made a comment about "Weasel words" which was already moot in that another editor had changed back that word and i let it stand. But, the editor JzG reverted all of my edits on this page to date, including those about the quote which i had explained above, and the addition of the CBS source. I reverted this back because it was a large edit beyond a reasonable scope, multiple changes at once, directed at me pretty clearly as this user has a history of acting oppositionally to me, which is even noted in an ArbCom case ongoing right now. And then he reverted that back again and accused me of edit warring. Edit war is happening but he is the one who is going whole hog on it, and not slowing down. SageRad (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, it was reverted by David Gerard, you made it again, it was reverted by me, you made it again, and I reverted it again. You don't seem to understand our policies that well. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If you revert one edit at a time, and then talk about it, the that would be fair and within BRD guidelines. If you revert multiple edits in one fell swoop, and don't discuss each one, that appears very strongly to be an editor-targeting-revert and it's not to BRD compliant. SageRad (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also that i do understand the BRD guideline, and i even know that it's an optional method that is not recommended when it's likely to cause conflict among editors, as clearly stated in BRD. So as for your condescending remark "You don't seem to understand our policies that well" do you still hold that to be true here, and do you think the tone is appropriate? Also, you seem to have followed me here to revert my edits specifically, which is not kosher. SageRad (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering. The onus is firmly on you to achjieve consensus for each change. Change X to Y based on Z source, be specific and abide by consensus. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, i am not Wikilawyering. I am demanding integrity in the editing of this article. SageRad (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are, and demanding stuff on Wikipedia - especially demanding that your interpretation is the only one that represents "integrity" - is a fast-track to trouble. Bear in mind that not only am I familiar with our policies on biographies, I am an admin because I defended biographies before the policy existed, and I wrote the standard advice to biography subjects who email the Wikimedia Foundation. This is not one of your marches. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Another slimy mischaracterization of me in "This is not one of your marches." I'm demanding integrity. What's wrong with that? Integrity is something that people understand and can recognize, and this is why i issued the RfC for general comment from outside, neutral parties. That is where we probably have to go, in order to get some broader perspective on this which appears to be an ideological battleground. I suggest that you are enmeshed in your ideological position here, and you're trying to characterize me as an ideological anti-GMO activist in kind, but i am not. I am seeking fairness and balance in this article -- to un-capture it from its present state of capture by your people. SageRad (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your lack of self-awareness is quite remarkable. By "demanding integrity" you are in fact stating the astonishingly arrogant claim that your view of how this article should be is the only acceptable one. For someone as new as you, and with such a strong thread of agenda editing, to make a claim like that, is hubris of a high order. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but i actually am demanding integrity. This certainly does not mean that my view is the only acceptable one. I have called an RfC for outside input on this topic, which clearly refutes that accusation of yours. SageRad (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's what to do: go to WP:ANI and tell my fellow-admins that you demand integrity and I am preventing you from doing so. I am sure you will be happy to defer to their independent judgement, and so will I.

Oh, and learnt he meaning of the word refute. Since nobody actually appears to agree with your "refutation", you may want to choose a more appropriate word. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is this article biased?

Is this article fair and balanced, or does it seem to have been made by people who have it out for Vani Hari and constructed an article to slam her and make her look bad? Does there seem to be a concerted effort in recent edit history here to block edits that might balance the article? SageRad (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The question is hopelessly vague and unspecific and not amenable to RfC. You have not yet even tried to propose specific changes, asking for an RfC on the basis of "I think this article sucks" is disruptive and a waste of time. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Alerted to RfC posting by bot. And I must say I agree with Guy on this one. This RfC is not specific in any way and even if it were true and even if enough people came and voted as such, there would be no way forward because the only thing those people would have agreed to is "this article sucks". Hopelessly vague and not constructive. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I continue to hold that this is a useful question for an RfC. Outside eyes are useful for a general assessment of this nature. Let's see what some other people may say. I participate in RfCs for others of this sort, and i do find it useful. Let's see what a few other people say. This one good use of the RfC mechanism -- to gain some outside perspective and escape the echo chamber. SageRad (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It would simply be useful to me to have neutral opinions on this article as a whole. SageRad (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed on this talk page at length already: if there are indeed notable and relevant sources that are strongly positive on Hari's work, they should go in. However, that does not mean pretending the balance of sources is something it isn't pending such sources being found - you need to find them first.

Note also that Hari makes specifically medical claims related to health, so your sources would almost certainly need to pass WP:MEDRS - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you point me to such discussions that you refer to? And as for sources passing MEDRS, what such claims are you referring to, and if it's that quote regarding "any chemicals" then do the other sources in that section meet MEDRS, and if not then can i remove them? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_3 for the most recent round. The other two archives (linked at the top of this talk page) will also be informative. This saves everyone having to have almost exactly the same discussion repeatedly.

Thank you for the link. I read the whole conversation, and i still see the same ideological towing of agenda as in the present conversation, and i see Dialectric and a couple other editors seeking balance and being overrun and not respected as equal participants by others there. That is what i see. And the currently resulting article remains problematic in the same ways outlined by the people in that dialogue who were saying basically the same things as i am saying here. There's an ideological war going on here and the "skeptoid" side has captured this page and it remains captured. SageRad (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your question is confused in its premises. WP:MEDRS applies to particular claims. On a topic which has some medical-related claims and some not, it applies to the medical-related ones. I urge you to read the guideline, it's pretty clear - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I know the guideline very well. I don't need your condescension on that. I ask you specifically what claims *you* are referring to that you think require MEDRS level sourcing? Does this refer to any changes i have made to date or is this a hypothetical warning? SageRad (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I doubt if you know the guideline anywhere near as well as David or I do, given that you've only been actively editing for under six months and you are essentially a single-purpose agenda editor, whereas David and I have both been here since before MEDRS even existed. Your attitude is extraordinarily aggressive - and given the rather obvious fact that you are a Warrior For Truth™ that is going to reduce your chances of getting what you want. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so you're the expert on wikipedia guidelines and i'm the poor editor who doesn't know what i'm talking about? I understand MEDRS very well, thank you. You may have been here for longer than i have been, but Wikipedia does not work by seniority or authority. It works by principles and guidelines. SageRad (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not the expert on anything, but since David and I have both been here for over a decade and both demonstrated sufficient understanding of policy to win community trust, I think it's fair to say that both of us probably understand it better than you do. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I've read the article in its entirety to try and give some of the perspective you seek. As an aside, I don't have a dog in this fight and don't have a strong opinion on GMOs (though I tend to accept the majority opinion of scientists on most topics). That being said, the career portion of this article certainly paints the subject favorably. And the criticism portion raises very fair concerns about the subject of the article from some VERY reputable sources. The only concern I'd have with the article is the comparable lengths of the criticism section and the entire rest of the article. If you want to change this article to make it more "balanced" (in your view) I would recommend not fighting tooth and nail to remove fair criticism, but instead insert well-sourced and researched rebuttals (if you can find them). Don't try to improve the article by slashing it, try to improve it by adding to it. Cheers and happy hunting! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 14:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and i certainly do appreciate your time and commenting. I hear you. The proportionality of the criticism section the main section is also my main issue with this article, as well as what i see as a very one-sided approach in the criticism section. If you do look at the recent edit history, you'll see that i attempted to balance one part of the criticism section (about the "any chemicals" quote) and then it was slashed away by another editor (JzG/Guy) and reverted to the initial state, and then he accused me of edit warring. That shows the sort of ideological capture that i am suggesting is present here. I have also added a single CBS news report on Vani Hari that put her in a generally favorable light (while also mentioning her critics like Dr Gorski for instance) and that was slashed away as well in the same stroke by JzG/Guy. This is the sort of thing that caused me to issue this RfC. Thank you for your comment, and be assured i hear your input loud and clear. SageRad (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in the previous talk page archive: "Indeed. If there are mainstream reliable sources praising her accuracy, they should be in the article. But we certainly don't remove the other mainstream reliable sources waiting on them." Bring the sources and in they'll go. For example, I found Hari's refutation on the "chemicals" quote, which I personally thought made her claim of being quoted out of context pretty strongly backed. But I also felt this didn't need to put things in a Wikipedia editorial voice - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

David, i am unclear about what you mean. I don't understand what you mean by "I also felt this didn't need to put things in a Wikipedia editorial voice" or what your final opinion on the inclusion of Hari's refutation about the "any chemicals" quote may be. Would you please clarify? Do you support including her refutation in the article or not? And if so, in what way, or how would you have Wikivoice speak to it? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

David Gerard I'd call it a rebuttal not a refutation, and I'm always wary of "balancing" a secondary source with a primary one. Are there secondary sources that discuss the entire thing and provide overall balanced coverage? Guy (Help!) 14:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For a BLP, the subject's statement on a notable matter seems a relevant source to use, even if it's a primary one, per WP:BLPSELFPUB - it's an official statement from Hari intended to address this specific matter - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and that is the principle by which i had edited the section to include Hari's statement on the issue, which was then removed by JzG/Guy in his single revert of my several different recent edits. SageRad (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You are being careless again. The version to which I reverted, includes this text, text added I believe by David:

Hari responded 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.[50]

You did not include her response, and I did not remove it. It was there before you touched the article. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed include her response, by which i mean the text of her response. This is the diff. I added the block quote with her rebuttal. A reference to a page containing the rebuttal was previously there. A added the rebuttal itself to the section. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, what you did was to highlight her spin on the situation. The previous version, which as I say I believe was added by David, included her response. All you did was to give it substantially greater weight. That's always a risk with cranks like Hari. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's acceptable, but a secondary source would be much better, wouldn't you say? Guy (Help!) 15:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's acceptable then why did you remove it? SageRad (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we're talking past each other. I added the text of the rebuttal and you did remove that. There was a reference to the page containing it previously and that still stands. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If you were a bit less shouty then maybe you would hear what's being said to you. See above. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. And it should be noted that claims of scientific fact should be ready to face extra scrutiny in the face of similarly reviewed and scrutinized criticism. Best of luck to you all. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 14:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

My response to this RfC. No. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As would be expected from you. Still looking for viewpoints outside of the ideological cluster. SageRad (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I urge you to review WP:NPA - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. I'm sorry if you or anyone took it as such. It's simply to note that the editor is not neutral in this topic area as they have been editing in this topic area for a while. That's all. No attack intended at all. SageRad (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to clarify? I have no idea at all what you mean above. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Simply that you have a history of editing within the whole controversy cluster around agrochemicals and food issues. SageRad (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen Special:Contributions/SageRad ? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps you could scroll back a screen or two and see my many contributions on other topics, before this snarl of a dicussion here. It's sooooo easy to misrepresent a person as being a single-issue editor. Try this link, for instance. The difference is that edits to other topics don't involve the ridiculous level of dialogue that edits to a page like this take, because there is not an army of people ready to fight every single attempt to make a good change. Therefore, if you are attempting to paint me as a single-issue POV pusher then that is really off the mark, though it makes for good rhetoric. On the other hand, if you're trying to say that i've been editing in this cluster of topics too, then you're clearly right. I never refuted that. However, i am looking for outside, neutral eyes, among people who don't edit much in this topic cluster, and that is why i noted that Roxy is not a neutral person by that description. SageRad (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Why scroll? Use the tool and get the whole history https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=SageRad&project=en.wikipedia.org

"Monsanto" would have to be the theme there.

So if you are going to raise the point that another editor is biased because of the claimed narrowness of their contributions (see https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Roxy+the+dog&project=en.wikipedia.org), then don't be surprised when your own contributions are examined too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Listen, i am not claiming to be uninvolved here. I admit that i've been editing in this area. The logic here is that i called the RfC to get input from others who are uninvolved and neutral on this, random editors who do not have the history of being in this topic area. Understand? SageRad (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a personal policy to ignore personal attacks of this type. They are normally quite meaningless, after all this is teh Internetz, and here on wikipedia you get what you sow. If anybody actually looks at the stats supplied by Andy, note that my pages created figure is astonishingly incorrect. It should read far far less!! It would be nicer if comments were based upon edits, rather than the editor though. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 17:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It counts pages, you're maybe thinking of articles. Redirects and the like will skew it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But, how do you consider this a personal attack, Roxy the dog? Sincerely, i did not mean that as a personal attack, but only a statement that you're not a neutral editor on this topic. And i also clarified that i did not intend it as a personal attack. I would like to hear you clear me on calling this a "personal attack". We can speak of the histories of other editors without it being construed an attack, can't we? The very fact of the RfC seeking outside eyes from uninvolved editors does make it relevant whether the editor who provides an opinion is uninvolved or not. I would like to know that you don't consider this a "personal attack". Or else justify why you consider it such. SageRad (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Could somebody hat this now totally off-topic thread, or at least this part of it, so that we can return to the real subject, Ms Hari's interesting views on reality, and her novel ideas on nutrition, and science? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so you reply, and yet you do NOT even mention whether or not you maintain your accusation that i have made a personal attack. I consider that to be a personal attack, in that i clarified my meaning and made it clear that i sincerely did not intend any personal attack, and i asked you to clarify after you continued to use the term personal attack and you blatantly ignored that request. I would say that is a cheap dialog move, and your persistence in calling my comment a personal attack is in fact the real personal attack in this subthread. As for hatting, this is an RfC and it would be very improper to hat this until it's closed. SageRad (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A Personal Attack! Shocking! So will it be ANI, pistols at dawn, or climbing the Reichstag? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a litigous person. It's just about the goose and the gander. SageRad (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it's about the highly experienced editors and the relative newcomer with a very obvious agenda who refuses to listen to advice that doesn't provide support for exactly what he wants to do. For a smart man you sure are dumb. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

On this 'RFC', No. Besides we don't do Fair and Balanced, we go with sources, so, I mean really the premise of this whole 'RFC' is incorrect. Full disclosure, I edit lots of different stuff, I hope my editing of hockey articles doesn't concern anyone.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I shall assume in good faith that YUO ARE NOT A SHILL FOR BIG HOCKEY here, indeed - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 :: As Guy notes, SageRad has not proposed specific changes, making this RfC relatively useless. As to SageRad's questioning whether the article is "fair and balanced", the article appears to be fair, in that the statements are supported by reliable sources. If that makes the article "imbalanced", that is irrelevant - the subject's claims should not be given equal weight with scientific consensus. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur. This is pointless. Glen 10:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This RfC has a clear point -- to gain an assessment from outside eyes about this article in regard to whether or not it is biased. I have indeed proposed specific changes to the article in the form of edits, which have been reverted by other editors. One edit added contextualization to the "any chemicals" quote, and another edit added a positive evaluation of Vani Hari from CBS News, which was also reverted by another editor. These actions in themselves are part of the history about which i am asking others to evaluate for potential bias in this RfC. SageRad (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

... and you have received a number of responses to your RfC here, and I cannot see one that agrees with you. That ought to tell you something. Unfortunately, it hasn't appeared to. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have received exactly one response from anyone who doesn't have a pre-existing horse in this race, and that one person had a middling opinion wished me luck and gave me advice about improving the article, which happens to be exactly what i had done which had been reverted by those enforcing ideological chokehold on this article currently. I resent your attempt to mischaracterize the RfC's results to date, and also quite amazed that you would even attempt to do so, given that you're referring to text that is right here in front of everyone's eyes. SageRad (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic. WP:FOC

I apologise Sage. You and I are obviously not reading the same talk page. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Obviously we are reading the same page but we are different people. Do you dispute my summary of the RfC results? SageRad (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC) "doesn't have a pre-existing horse in this race" If you are asserting a conflict of interest concerning any other editor, this is a claim you will need to substantiate. Note that spurious accusations of COI constitute personal attacks under Wikipedia rules. The place to do so is at WP:COIN - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) All it takes is a look at an editing history. I have previous experience with Roxy the Dog, as well. SageRad (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC) You're really not making your position any better here - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC) What does a comment like that last one of yours even mean? Do you realize that it has a trolling and threatening tone, as i hear it, and it places you in judgment about right and wrong, and it contains your condemnation of me for unspecified reasons, and it also ignores anything of substance and integrity, such as possibly reading what i wrote above concerning a mischaracterization of this RfC results to date by Roxy the Dog, and possibly having the integrity to look at that yourself, and offer anything of substance at all in regard to it? In other words, your comment is pure hostility and doesn't have a place on a Wikipedia talk page. What's your deal, sir? Why are you here? Why do you write things like that? SageRad (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I mean that you really have to stop the personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC) You really have to stop accusing me of making personal attacks without justification. That is the real personal attack here. SageRad (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Mate, if you carry on like this you are going to wind up banned. Seriously. You present this as if only your opinion represents integrity, and everybody who disagrees is attacking you and undermining the integrity of the project, but you're an activist with virtually no history and the people who are telling you that you're wrong have been here for a very long time - David much longer than me, and I've been here over a decade. Your response will, I guess, be WP:IDHT as usual, and if it is, then that will be another nail in your coffin. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC) More threats, swinging of supposed authority, claims to superior ability because of being around Wikipedia longer than i (who have been here for five months pretty regularly, and a few years as an IP address editor). "Nail in my coffin" .. "activist" .. "virtually no history" .. ??? I am most certainly not saying that only my opinion represents integrity. Integrity represents integrity. If someone has a different opinion and expresses it well, and in good faith, i am most happy to hear it and engage in dialog. That's what i am seeking. I'm seeking serious dialog on the topic of the article itself and what am i seeing? Constant diversionary tactics and things like this. This is an article on Vani Hari, and i see this article being seriously biased, and have made edits to amend the worst of that, and have been reverted, and then people are not even willing to discuss the issues. So it's a situation of lock-down of an article without good faith dialogue. All i hear is "Nobody agrees with you so shut up and sit down, young man, and kiss my ass while you're at it." SageRad (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I think the issues here have been summed up rather succinctly elsewhere today. I shall not comment here until after the dust has settled. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC) It's not a threat, it's an observation and a caution. If you carry on like this, you will end up banned. That's simply how it is. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You can either tone down your wrongteous indignation or prepare yourself for the inevitable, and frankly by now I don't much care which you choose. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Things like that sound like threats to me. Please think about the power dynamics that go on here on Wikipedia. I can speak. I have a right to speak. I speak respectfully with people who are respectful in return. I see a strong bias in this article, and i spoke that. I correct misrepresentations about myself, and engage in dialogue with integrity. Others who are oppositional constantly referring to nails in my coffin, and going off a cliff, and all these suggestions that bad things will happen are indeed quite reasonably felt as threats and intimidations, i believe, by many people. I report to you how i experience it, and therefore you know that it comes across as a threat to me. Others have said the same thing in response to such language. I have seen it repeatedly in time here to date. Many many times. Furthermore, i do not believe that i am "carrying on" and i do not understand what you mean by that. If you would clarify the exact behaviors that you have an issue with and why, then maybe i'd understand, but "carrying on" seems to mean that you want me to shut up. When there is contentious dialog and people misrepresenting things so regularly, then i feel compelled to respond. I do not single-handedly "carry on". You could equally say that to anyone else here, but you don't. This is dialog, and there ought not be pressure to stop engaging in dialog unless it is clear that someone is filibustering, which i am not doing. I am engaging genuinely in dialog here, and making points respectfully as much as possible, even in a toxic environment where i get called names left and right and accused of all sorts of crimes. I'm here because this is a BLP that i reckon is being abused by people who seem to have it out for Hari more than is warranted by representation of the reality of her place in the world and her story. There's a place for the critique, but it seems unduly out of proportion and there seems to be a contingent that is editing mostly in one direction, and this is what i wanted to address squarely. I also made a couple edits which got reverted promptly and then i discussed them. That's what i am doing here, not "carrying on". SageRad (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Frankly, I think they sound like threats to you because you appear to have a paranoid conspiracist mindset. You actually have no right to speak here, Wikipedia is a private property of the Wikimedia Foundation and we can ban you without in any way affecting your constitutional rights. XKCD sums it up perfectly. People like David and I are committed to Wikipedia and edit across a broad range of topics, you are committed to an agenda and have come to Wikipedia primarily as a way of advancing that agenda. Very little of your activity falls outside the area of articles relating to Monsanto. This article only attracted your attention due to links with a Monsanto-related article. As I said, I am pretty much at the point of not caring if you get yourself banned, but if - or, more likely, when - you end up banned, it will be through nobody's fault but your own. You do not seem to have any talent at all for self-criticism (e.g. accusing people of "filibustering" when you are in a minority of one). Of course you don't believe that your edits are a problem, most banned and restricted editors don't. That is kind of the point: if people have sufficient self-awareness to understand the problem, they tend not to need to be banned or restricted. Again, read Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Wikipedia is a reality-based project, we do not pretend that claptrap is legitimate. We do not give equal weight to science and chemophobic nonsense. We do not place one person's self-serving claims on a par with careful scientific analysis. We do not assert parity between someone who makes a career of pontificating in areas where she has absolutely no training or expertise, and scientists. That is by design. If you don't like it then Wikipedia is the wrong project for you, and Wikipedia will almost certainly never become the kind of project you appear to want. You have consistently failed to make any concrete proposal for actionable change to this article. You should propose edits along the lines of "change X to Y in paragraph Z based on this source", and the source has to be mainstream and it has to be competently written with a suitable evaluation of the objective merit of Hari's claims. Which, in every case I have seen so far, is low to nothing: everything she has said that has any kernel of truth has already been said more accurately by someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) I would like this conversation to cease. I will only correct these points mentioned in your comment: * By "right to speak" i mean in a moral sense and a functional sense in regard to the operation of Wikipedia, i have a right to speak as an editor participating in good faith, as much as any other editor. Not speaking about U.S. constitution here, but rather of human morality and common sense. * I'm committed to Wikipedia's ideals, and not to "an agenda" as you put it. * Plenty of my activity falls outside of agrochemicals. It's just that run-on conversations that go in circles with people like you cause a lot of edits to appear to look like most of the edits are in agrochemicals, but that's an artifact of the extremely difficult editing environment. * I have definitely made concrete proposals to this article, and they've been summarily reverted and denied by the group who has then avoided genuine discussion of the topic and basically said "shut up". I've outlined the concrete proposals that i did make, in painstaking detail, above, and asked others to discuss them, to no avail. That's plain to see. Just read the history here. * Threat-type language and behavior is still a threat, and it's not my "conspiracy mind" that makes it so. It's a pretty reasonable conclusion and i've seen several other people independently call such language "threat" or "intimidation" on various talk pages in the last several months. It's a real thing that when someone with connections to the mafia, for example, says "You better be careful or you'll end up with concrete feet under the East River" it's not just a "friendly warning" but more likely to be seen and felt as a threat. * I did not accuse anyone of filibustering -- please re-read my comment and note that i did not make that accusation. I used that word in another way. This is all beyond the ken of the talk page, and i don't want to continue this, but had to correct several points. Ceasing any new off-topic conversation here. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a whole load of changes to try and deal with perceptions of imbalance. Thoughts? Brustopher (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the "Conflicts of Interest" title for the section was changed with this edit earlier today from the previous title of "Promoting products with ingredients she warns against" Adrian (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the slightly inaccurate edit summary in that case. However, I stand by comments on the dubiousness of the linked consensus discussion. There seemed to be a lot more heat than light, as well as quite a few assertions of no consensus with little explanation of why the edit was bad. There also seemed to be more focus on whether Hari is wrong, instead of whether this is due weight. I brought the topic up for discussion in the WP:BLPN thread if you want to join in.Brustopher (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This rfc should be closed as overly broad. Thanks, Brustopher, for rising above the back-and-forth that typifies this rfc. I support the changes Brustopher has made, and commented in a discussion in the most recent archive on the overuse of the single skeptical inquirer source. The source is RS and its point is valid, but that does not justify referencing it alone to support multiple critical bullet points.Dialectric (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the RfC question is going to resolve anything, but the article is not obligated to give due weight, or equal time, or anything else, to views that are factually and objectively wrong. On a matter of opinion, neutrality means both views, but on objective matters neutrality means the one that's true. So I do not like the recent edits that try to make the article look more balanced.

The article must say in detail where she has endorsed a product containing a chemical she has denounced elsewhere. It shouldn't be a lecture on why the dose makes the poison and why correlation is not causation. It should discuss the contradictory advice and it should discuss Hari's sources of revenue. She says she's not in it for the money; that's the most absurd claim in the whole article.

I get the sense that Hari and her fans are being exploited and misled. The owners of small firms that market "organic" products are no less greedy and no less unscrupulous than their competitors. The article can better inform readers about the truth behind Hari's claims without specifically deriding her, because when you deride her you deride her fans, and they close their minds to objective thought. Roches (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right Roches that factually wrong information should not be in the article. My recent edits which you don't like removed factual inaccuracies from the article (such as the howler of a claim the Hari thinks baking soda is a dangerous chemical). In a BLP we are absolutely obligated to include the subject's responses to accusations against her, even if you personally think they are absurd and bullshit. My changes have not in any attempted to distort the scientific consensus on Hari's views and in some cases scientific consensus was being distorted to make Hari look worse than she actually is. My changes have removed some criticism, added some criticism and reorganised the criticism section so it's not needlessly bloated by unnecessary section headers, quote boxes and the like. Everything I have done is completely in line with policy. Brustopher (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think your changes are pretty much OK - David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert of removal of claim based on MEDRS sourcing requirements

An editor reverted my removal of very broad biomedical claims about human health in the article that absolutely does not meed MEDRS sourcing requirements. David Gerard, would you please explain your action beyond the edit reason given of "that's not what MEDRS says"?

Why i deleted that claim from the article: I removed the claim as it is a review-level claim (a review statement of the sort that would be sourced properly to a peer-reviewed review article in a medical journal) regarding human health, which would require MEDRS sourcing standard, and the source used is definitely not up to par in that regard. Also, the claim in the article is flawed anyway. It's based on this sentence in the source, which is an op-ed style essay: "It’s important to stress that experts in science and medicine have time and again debunked Hari’s claims that the ingredients discussed in this piece are as dangerous as she claims." Well, as i explain about Hari's claim regarding aluminum and disease in the next paragraph, the source distorted that claim's magnitude, and her claim does hold some truth. Aluminum has some link to breast cancer, and to Alzheimer's. Neither is definitive but assert potential links (read below the first para in the link regarding breast cancer), but Hari's claim is indeed nuanced in line with these reliable sources. (This double distortion of Hari's claims is emblematic of the nature of the bias that i see in the article, especially as it stood a couple days ago before some corrective edits were made.)

The claim in the article is "Hari claims that aluminum in deodorants leads to breast cancer" whereas the source reads "Hari links aluminum in modern deodorants to horrific diseases such as breast cancer and Alzheimer’s" and when i go to Hari's own writing on which this is based, i find she actually wrote this: "I researched the ingredient Aluminum, and found out it is linked to all sorts of diseases, including 2 that I sadly personally have witnessed in close friends and family members – Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. The link of aluminum to these diseases is hotly debated, some studies find a low risk factor (probably those funded by the chemical companies) and some find horrible results, like those studies that find aluminum accumulating in breast tissue or breaking the blood brain barrier leading to Alzheimer’s." So, there seems to be two levels of some distortion going on -- from Hari to the source, and then from the source to the Wikipedia article. Each distortion leans toward making Hari look bad. Hari does appear to have made a mistake there, and does recommend a deodorant that does contain alum, which does contain aluminum. That's her mistake. On the other hand, this article cannot use a blog to source a claim that aluminum is not linked to any disease, or any other claim involved. That's not ok, according to MEDRS, which is relevant here because this is a strong claim about human health.

Please take a deep breath and consider these things. SageRad (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Since this is discussion of WP:FRINGE claims, we utilize WP:PARITY to respond to Hari's claims here because by definition, mainstream sources described by MEDRS generally ignore fringe claims rather than spending time to debunk them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The claim in the Wikipedia article is that "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine." Among the chemicals in question is aluminum, perhaps the most prominent in the CSI source. Therefore by reasons of logic, this claim in the Wikipedia article is that experts in science and medicine refute that aluminum is dangerous... at all. And that is contradicted directly by a source that does meet MEDRS standards. Something is wrong here.

What qualifies the idea that aluminum is linked to Alzheimer's as "fringe"? On what basis are you citing fringe? What exactly are you calling fringe? Are you calling Hari as a person herself "fringe"? Or are you calling concern for exposure to some chemicals "fringe"? What exactly? Thanks in advance for clarifying. SageRad (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If I take forty-five seconds to look at Aluminium#Alzheimer.27s_disease, I see that "According to the Alzheimer's Society, the medical and scientific opinion is that studies have not convincingly demonstrated a causal relationship between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease." There are a number of single-study refutations tacked on after that, although single studies don't actually meet MEDRS - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It takes 30 seconds to click the link to the review-level article in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease that i provided above. Who are you or i to make the call on a complex topic on which we are not experts? SageRad (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a valid revert for the most part, as the article in questions cites a lot of articles and research by scientists. My one concern is regarding the 4-mel aspect. Technically Hari is right about 4-mel being a carcinogen, but as the article notes, so is pretty much everything else. Would this count as a valid claim of danger? Should this somehow be reworded to note that her claims of danger are "wrong or exaggerated?" Brustopher (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Technically, she's also right about there being "links" between aluminum exposure in bioavailable forms and Alzheimer's and breast cancer, as well. Who are we, or anyone except a MEDRS compliant source to make that judgment call? We're not known to be experts on the subject matter, as a matter of principle, in the editing process here.

I don't actually see any peer-reviewed articles cited by the CSI source. There are only links to two other blogs in terms of supporting documents: those of Mark Crislip and David Gorski, both seemingly polemics at another "skeptic" site. There seems to be no serious research done by the blog author, and even if there were, it still would not pass MEDRS. SageRad (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The article cites "Wang, S., S. Dusza, and H. Lim. 2010. Safety of retinyl palmitate in sunscreens: A critical analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 63(5): 903–906." Brustopher (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it does. I missed that one. Thank you for correcting me. That is a 2010 review, while Hari in her cautions about sunscreens cites the EWG report on sunscreens, which cites this study from 2012 by the National Toxicology Program which contains a study on mice exposed to solar sunlight that concludes that "Inclusion of retinoic acid or retinyl palmitate in the cream increased the number of tumors and decreased the time to appearance of tumors compared to animals given just the carrier cream." In the case of this chemical, the CSI source is using a 2010 review article, but Hari is using a source that listed a 2012 clinical study on mice that did show a correlation between retinyl palmitate and increased levels of skin cancer as well as the 2009 NTP data that showed the same. I'd say this is evidence that Hari was accurate when she wrote in 2013 that "A 2009 study by U.S. government scientists released by the National Toxicology Program found when this is applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, it may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions." The 2012 NTP paper did get poor peer review, to be fair, but i think Hari's quote is fairly correct in reporting the results of the NTP study. She could have but did not report the review article's conclusions. So the CSI source reports on one ingredient in its list of issues with Hari's cautionary warnings, and it's even one ingredient in her article on sunscreens that was cherry-picked to make a point, and Hari does cite later research than the 2010 review article in her warning on retinyl palmitate. I still have issues with the claim that is in the Wikipedia article currently. The CSI source does not show using MEDRS sourcing that Hari's warnings "have been strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine". It shows that for one ingredient of many mentioned, there is one review article that says RP is not an issue, and Hari uses later data than that review article. SageRad (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for answers from Kingofaces43 regarding what is "fringe" in this case? What domain is being called "fringe"? Still waiting for an answer from David Gerard to expand on the edit reason given in the revert: would you please explain your action beyond the edit reason given of "that's not what MEDRS says"? SageRad (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear why we should take this guy's opinion about a whole list of chemicals and their effects on human health to make a sweeping biomedical statement in Wikivoice:

Mark Aaron Alsip writes the skeptical science blog Bad Science Debunked (badscidebunked.wordpress.com). He has a bachelor’s degree in computer science with concentrations in math, life sciences, and electronics. His past work includes programming for the IDEX II project currently on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.

SageRad (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to realise that nobody is required to respond to your querulous demands to justify everything according to your own idiosyncratic reading of policy. Still waiting for you to understand the implications of your being in a minority of one.

Hari's claims are not made in the scientific literature. A few are directly contradicted by the scientific literature, but for the most part it is sciencey-sounding bullshit, and the expected venue for criticism and correction is the science advocacy community, and that includes people like Gorski and Novella. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring all of your derogatory adjectives and tone, i will answer you:

Yes, i expect Wikipedia editors to source claims properly, especially wide-reaching extraordinary claims about human health, which are subject to MEDRS.

Why would that be surprising? By the way, Gorski and Novella are nothing special. They're guys who blog. We are talking about real sources and about evidence here. That's the essence of skepticism. Skepticism is an attitude, not a lemming-like movement. The latter is ironically opposed to true skepticism. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You really do lack any talent for self-criticism, don't you? Aping the style of your querulous demands should have caused you to pause and consider the tone you are using. Instead, as always with you, the problem is everybody else.

Gorski and Novella are specialists in investigating questionable and fringe claims. It is what they are known for. Both are qualified academic physicians, Gorski in particular has a lot of research work to his name, they are scientists more than doctors, and critiquing pseudoscientific and pseudomedical bullshit is what they do. Hari's claims fall squarely within their remit, as far as I can see none of her work has been published in orthodox peer-reviewed journals so the most likely source of reality-based criticism will be precisely what we see here: professional scientists investigating bullshit in their spare time.

Skepticism puts the burden of proof for any claim on the person making it. That is a burden Hari fails to carry, and when she's busted, as for example on aircraft anf microwave ovens, she uses the one area in which she is qualified, SEO, to disappear the evidence to the best of her ability. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is clear. You are wrong. I do not engage with you. You are hounding me and you have outed me.

MEDRS is clear about what constitutes adequate sourcing for a medical claim about human health.

Thoughts on "skepticism movement" related but not about article content directly

Gorski and Novella are activists pushing a very strong POV and masquerading as "skeptics" when they are actually averse to skepticism that challenges their own agenda. I could pick my own "bullshit detection expert" and cite them, and yet it would not satisfy MEDRS. Guidelines on sourcing exist for a reason, and that is to prevent POV pushing as you are attempting to do here. "Skepticism" in the vein of Gorski and the source discussed in this section is not a coherent body and it is also not the dictum to which Wikipedia operates. It is a harmful ideology that is infecting Wikipedia at the moment, and it is very far from invoking the ideals implied by the word "skepticism", and seems more focused on vengeful takedowns of people who cross its own agenda which seems closely allied to the chemical industry. That's what i see, sociologically speaking. Skepticism is great, but the "skeptic movement" is anything but, and thankfully it is not the creator of Wikipedia nor is it in control of Wikipedia according to guidelines. Actual skepticism is in control of Wikipedia and that is how it must remain. True skepticism underlies science, and in questions regarding medical claims, Wikipedia is even more committed to following this true skepticism as embodied by the best scientific practice, to source all statements regarding medicine. There is no room for sourcing to ideologically biased people who pose as "skeptics" and yet do not practice actual skepticism.

Please drop all the personal insults and toxicity. It's not alright. SageRad (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The National Toxicology Program paper about vitamin A and similar compounds in creams uses a control cream that does not contain any UV-blocking agents. It's not sunscreen, it's skin cream with vitamin A. There's nothing wrong with the source, but it can't be used to make any conclusion at all about sunscreens, because vitamin A in the presence of sunscreens may cause a completely different effect. So, was there a specific issue with that paper? Also, how do you know it got poor peer review? Normally the actual review isn't published; the reception of a paper by the scientific community is a different thing than peer review in the sense of "peer reviewed journal." Roches (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I could comment on the content of your comment, but my main point here is that neither you nor i nor the computer programmer who wrote the CSI source piece are qualified to make such a judgment as you're making in your comment above about the relevance or the lack thereof of the NTP studies in regard to human use of sunscreen. (As an aside, though, the NTP paper published a peer-review session within the document itself, in lieu of peer-reviewed publishing.) As Wikipedia editors, we are tasked with assembling good and reliable sources for every claim if it is challenged by other editors, and in the case of claims about human health, these must meet MEDRS standards. What does a computer scientist with a bone to pick with Vani Hari know about assessing medical claims in specialized fields? SageRad (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is irrelevant because, as Guy said, Hari's claims are not made in the scientific/medical literature. WP:PARITY allows us to use sources that would normally not satisfy MEDRS for challenging her claims. Given your statements in this talk page section, Sage, you seem to have some very deep personal feelings about Gorski, Novella and the like. This may not be the best topic area for you to be involved in. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

yup, exactly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Editors may have opinions and expecting them not to is foolish. Editors may edit in areas about which they have opinions. NPOV does not mean that an editor must be a zombie. It means that the resulting article strives for an ideal of NPOV. Your recommendation for me to go away because i see Gorski and Novella as towing ideological agendas is unfounded and i reject it. I even think it's rather unfriendly here.

Secondly, there is a very strong claim about human health and medicine being made in the Wikivoice in this article. I have yet to hear why Hari's cautioning about presence of aluminum in deodorant, for instance, is a fringe theory on par with moon landing conspiracy theories or creationism, for instance, which are examples used in the WP:PARITY guideline. I have asked Kingofaces43 to explain why they make this classification, and i ask the same question to anyone who has used this reasoning to say that Alsip's piece should be considered a reliable source in this instance about claims about human health.

What we have here is a man who hates Hari with a vitriol, who is a computer scientist and an adherent of pseudoskepticism and who has smelled blood in the water and written a "takedown" piece by his estimation, and currently the Wikipedia article is echoing his voice. We are currently granting this guy the Wikivoice, to speak against a person, in a BLP. We have given the Wikivoice to a living person's ideological enemy, in a biography of a living person. How is this okay?

This article is speaking through the voice of the pseudoskepticism that has been attacking Hari recently in a concerted effort to "take her down" and that is not the role of Wikipedia according to its ideals. It ought to see this situation from a bird's eye view and report on the players in this human drama as such. It is not supposed to ally with one side of this conflict and speak in its voice. SageRad (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In support of the above, i offer this from Wikipedia guidelines: "It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate." Please take this to heart. Please do not recommend me to go away just because i dislike the pseudoskepticism and vile meanness of Gorski and Novella and Alsip. Please recognize that the goal is to make an article that is unbiased, and in fact other editors here are seriously standing in the way of this goal. SageRad (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In terms of completeness of dialog, and integrity of dialog, i am still waiting for answers from Kingofaces43 regarding what is "fringe" in this case? What domain is being called "fringe"?

Still waiting for an answer from David Gerard to expand on the edit reason given in the revert: would you please explain your action beyond the edit reason given of "that's not what MEDRS says"?

This is the second time in several days that i have pinged these two to request clarification on their edits and reasoning. When people object to something and then are asked a question to clarify, and notified, and then don't respond, it appears to indicate that they're not in dialog on the subject. SageRad (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would first like evidence that you will take in responses at all, since on this talk page you have singularly failed to do so when I've responded to you previously. But fundamentally you don't appear to understand MEDRS at all, and attempt to misapply it as a bludgeon.

In addition, your continued habit of personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with you on any point on this page makes interacting with you a burden at best. You've been asked by multiple people not to do this, and yet you persist. This is not the behaviour of someone it would be useful to the article to interact with.

Fundamentally, you need to understand and acknowledge that these two problems are problems, and correct your behaviour; then interaction will have a chance to be productive. If you don't, then it won't - David Gerard (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is clear evidence that i take in responses. I do. That's your assessment. I may hear you and not agree with you, and that still constitutes hearing your response. Secondly, you are here accusing me of personal attacks upon others? What's the specific? What's the personal attack you're alleging? Please, because that allegation in itself is a personal attack if not justified. You have to learn that i do not have to agree with you. I do not need to agree with your assertions about my behavior being wrong, and to modify it accordingly. You might be wrong, you know? You're not the boss here.

Lastly, how about commenting on the content not the contributor, which is what i was asking you to do. To explain your comment a bit more about why MEDRS does not apply. You still haven't replied to this. SageRad (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You might have a point if it weren't for the painfully obvious fact that you are a minority of one. David's not the boss, but you aren't either, not least because you lack any trace of self-analysis. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What I think is most important to note here is that WP:CONSENSUS is one of the primary bases of wikipedia. We don't all have to agree, admittedly, but, if one editor is consistently engaging in tendentious or disruptive editing because, apparently, that individual is unwilling to accept consensus, then there can be and sometimes are thought to be sufficient bases for possible attention from administrators regarding the behavior in question. WP:DROPTHESTICK might be another useful page to read in this situation. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, please read WP:VOLUNTEER. If I didn't have a chance to be online yet to respond to your first ping, three pings are not going speed that up. Folks like Guy, Someguy1221, and Dbrodbeck have commented on how parity applies here, so since your question has been answered, there's no need for me to reply to that at this point anyways. As John Carter mentioned above, the community here has decided it's time to move on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not time to move on until the dialogue is complete. I am insisting that guidelines be followed. A computer dude writing a blog is not sufficient sourcing for claims about human health, and that is what is currently embedded in the article, in Wikivoice. There is gang rule happening here and that's not ok. SageRad (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

" A computer dude writing a blog"

That sort of deliberate misrepresentation is why you've worn out everyone's patience (mine at least) and why there is increasingly less attention paid to anything you write. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you represent the author of the article? SageRad (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't represent anyone here, other than myself.

I am wondering though if you're another one of our Facebook visitors from the "Food Babe Army"? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that did not go well. You said that "a computer dude writing a blog" is not a good representation of the source's author, and you seem to be against changing the article according to my arguments, but you will not say how you'd represent the source's author, and then you go on yet another ad hominem in the long string of ad hom BS in this so-called "dialog". So... where does that leave me, a person who is honestly attempting to get clarity on the issues here? Basically obstruction and derailment by ad hom... I am not buying it. Back to the question. How do you represent the author of the source then? He does not have qualifications that i can find in his bio to ascertain these health claims that he is being cited as source for, i think. You think differently? Please support. SageRad (talk)

And i repeat for the Nth time, my question as to what exactly is being called "fringe" here? It matters. Is Hari as a person a "fringe person" -- or is her body of work "fringe work" and by what standard? She's often citing scientific research and cautioning against using ingesting or using certain chemicals. How is this fringe? Fringe, i thought, is stuff like moon landing conspiracies, lizard illumanati, flat earth, etc. How i cautioning against using aluminum containing deodorant while citing research that shows links between aluminum and Alzheimer's a fringe position? Sounds like a rational and cautionary position to me. SageRad (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I know, like that time she said that airlines are putting nitrogen in plane atmospheres! Now that is some solid science. <--- this is sarcasm. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Um... that's not an answer. SageRad (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Um... 'SageRad, please read WP:VOLUNTEER. If I didn't have a chance to be online yet to respond to your first ping, three pings are not going speed that up. Folks like Guy, Someguy1221, and Dbrodbeck have commented on how parity applies here, so since your question has been answered, there's no need for me to reply to that at this point anyways. As John Carter mentioned above, the community here has decided it's time to move on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)'. There's your answer. You might consider reading WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to your very recent comment, so i don't see the point of raising WP:VOLUNTEER. You nitrogen comment seemed like a flip non-answer. If you don't have time to answer then don't. SageRad (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I as part of the community have not moved on. There are serious unresolved issued here. SageRad (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"what exactly is being called "fringe" here?"

In this specific issue, nothing.

" cautioning against using aluminum containing deodorant"

That's not the issue here. It doesn't matter whether aluminium is good or bad for you: Hari is saying "Someone else's aluminium is bad for you. My product though is good for you." Yet she's selling aluminium too. This is an issue of hypocrisy, and some basic chemistry, not MEDRS. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. Kingofaces43 did write "Since this is discussion of WP:FRINGE claims, we utilize WP:PARITY to respond to Hari's claims here because by definition, mainstream sources described by MEDRS generally ignore fringe claims rather than spending time to debunk them." Therefore something was being called "fringe" and that was the rationale used to excuse the claim from needing MEDRS quality sources. As you say nothing is being called fringe, then i think MEDRS quality sources are needed for claims about human health.

If someone claimed that red LEDs can program human brains, then we wouldn't need a review paper saying that red LEDs cannot program the human brain. However, Hari has cited some research that does suggest a link between Alzheimer's and aluminum, among several other claims that Alsip writes about. And, it is clearly an issue that is still current in scientific debate, and has not definitively been crystallized into a consensus. Therefore, that claim in itself is not fringe, when it's properly represented (as Hari said science suggests a link, and not that it's absolutely causal). Therefore i'd think MEDRS i needed if we wish the article to say it's been refuted speaking in Wikivoice -- or else attribute to the particular source explicitly as i tried to do (and was reverted).

As for her then recommending a deodorant that contains aluminum, that is of course her mistake. We can point that out. However, the claim currently in the article really does assert that experts in science and medicine have refuted her claims (implying all her claims, and therefore including the one about aluminum, and every other one that Alsip mentions, by common interpretation). SageRad (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a point of fact, Sage, where you are incorrect. Science may suggest a link between Aluminium and Alzheimers, but it isn't the same as what Hari says. She doesn't understand the science. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 21:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Here exact words were, " I researched the ingredient Aluminum, and found out it is linked to all sorts of diseases, including 2 that I sadly personally have witnessed in close friends and family members – Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. The link of aluminum to these diseases is hotly debated, some studies find a low risk factor (probably those funded by the chemical companies) and some find horrible results, like those studies that find aluminum accumulating in breast tissue or breaking the blood brain barrier leading to Alzheimer’s." She in fact says that some studies find a low risk factor and some find "horrible results" but then defines that phrase as aluminum's presence in the breast tissue or the brain. She does in fact say that science says there is a link and outlines that there is a range of risk assessment and two specific vectors. SageRad (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No-one understands Alzheimers. The jury is still out on aluminium. There is no simple answer, either way, as to whether it is safe or not. It is not unreasonable for anyone to decide, "I shall avoid aluminium, as I do not trust it."

This is still not the problem with Hari, as the marketing organisation (rather than the dietician). She instead is saying "Your aluminium is bad, but my product is good" when at the same time, her product contains just as much alum as the other product does. That is a much simpler issue, and does not depend definitively on the health risks of aluminium. Why is it OK for Hari to sell people alum-based anti-perspirants, when she is so set against it from others? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

True, though there is also the issue of turning a grey area into black and white, which is also a recurrent theme in Hari's writing (e.g. "no acceptable level of any chemical to ingest, ever"). I think the scientific community's biggest issue with Hari is precisely that tendency to make simplistic (and often completely wrong) absolute statements on complex issues. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that's one of three separate issues: her dietary judgements and their competence, her absolutist positions and (in this particular case, and source) the use of ingredients that she decries from others. We should keep them separate, as making a clearer article.

I don't even think that "Vani Hari thinks aluminium is harmful" is a significant point or worth stating here for anything more than backstory. It really is an unclear issue, it's not an unreasonable position for her to take. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple points of clarification regarding the preceding comments:

• Hari isn't saying "Your aluminium is bad, but my product is good." She says that aluminum is likely to be bad and that science on it shows a link to harms. The fact that she recommends a product that also contains aluminum is her mistake. Her explicit position is that aluminum is worth avoiding.
• Regarding the "scientific community's biggest issue with Hari", it strikes me that there is a certain contingent of people who have mined her body of work to find quotable quotes like "any chemical, ever" and the contradictions between her recommendations and what happens to be in a few products that she recommends, and then to frame her as an idiot and a scheming profiteer. That is promoted actively by a small group of people whom i would describe as pseudoskeptics, like Gorski (who was on the NBC segment about her) and this person Alsip, who are part of a certain sort of "skepticism" community. SageRad (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

So she makes mistakes, by recommending products that contain the same ingredients that she says are likely to be bad. I'm glad you agree. That is what this section should state, and what the source for it claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Give Dingley a lever and a fulcrum and he can move the Earth. Maybe. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i do agree that she's made mistakes of that kind, of course. I am committed to Wikipedia reflecting reality. That claim in the article is perfectly fine. The issue is that there is still a standing claim that is very different, specifically "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been dismissed by experts in science and medicine as incorrect or exaggerated." This is simply not correct and not supportable with that source, and it remains a claim that is subject to MEDRS requirements as well, for good reason.

If we are to parse out the language of that claim, "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous" is a general sweeping statement that would apply to all chemicals that she has said are risky and yet happen to be in some product that she's recommended, which is a small subset of all chemicals that she has talked about, and is still incorrect as we've agreed regarding aluminum, for one. It is not true that her claim that aluminum presents risks for human exposure has "been dismissed by experts in science and medicine as incorrect or exaggerated." So, if we can amend the article to point out that she has recommended some products that contains some chemicals which she has recommended avoiding, then we're fine. But if we leave that statement in the article, it is not sufficiently sourced, and it's also incorrect. SageRad (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am glad you are committed to Wikipedia reflecting reality. The reality is that she gives ideologically-driven advice, couches it in overly simplistic terms often to the point of being dead wrong, frequently pontificates from a basis of almost comical ignorance, sells products that contain the very things against which she fulminates (whether through ignorance or cynical profiteering is moot) and is actually expert only in SEO and brand monetization.

And of all these things the funniest is her crusade against brewers. There are many ways in which you can attack Annheuser-Busch, starting with the fact that their beer sucks, but pretending that isinglass is a secret toxic ingredient, when it's been used in brewing by craft and industrial brewers alike since forever, and avoiding the fact that alcohol is a genuinely potent toxin, is pure comedy gold. She wants her boyfriend to suffer all the harm that alcohol can provide, free from the taint of those darned fish bladders. OK, that's not quite funniest, the aircraft bollocks was genuis, but she sent that to the memory hole, because the one thing she really is good at, is SEO.

The thing about people like Hari (and Mike "Health Danger" Adams and Joe Mercola and the rest) is that they abuse science. They go on a dumpster dive looking for scary factoids and they present them out of context for maximum personal aggrandisement. It's like antivaxers who point to the VAERS database and claim that some children might suffer febrile convulsions, how awful, but ignore the fact that over a quarter of a billion people did not die in the 20th Century because of just one vaccine, smallpox. This approach - sciencey-sounding ideological bullshit - is profoundly dangerous. And Hari is ground zero for some of it. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you admit that for you, Hari is "ground zero" in an ideological war. That about sums it up. SageRad (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that this article, a BLP, still contains this claim: "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been dismissed by experts in science and medicine as incorrect or exaggerated," which is unclear in scope, is verifiably false, and is sourced to a cranky piece in an ideologically motivated publication, written by a computer science person who has a huge chip on his shoulder against Hari. In other words, Wikipedia is still being used as a mouthpiece of an ideological agenda-driven person with no credentials to evaluate the claim that is sourced to him. If you all are okay with that, then... that speaks to something. SageRad (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me Sage, but your worldview is showing. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain your comment? Other people's agenda-driven worldview is showing, was my point here. It's pretty clear from above comments. I hope that my worldview showing means that you see that i can take a long view and see this conflict from a bird's-eye-view and try to correct the ideological bias of this article accordingly. I'd appreciate if you'd explain yourself instead of making remarks that seem to be insinuating and yet retain plausible deniability of having said anything. Clarity is useful in discussions of this nature, and remarks without clarity can be derailing and constitute noise. SageRad (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. You are an "ideological agenda-driven person with no credentials." Wikipedia is an ideological agenda-driven project, with policy and guideline, resulting in the online encyclopaedia we all know and love. Your agenda comes from a passionate belief and heartfelt desire to improve the world (by among other things such as Marching Against Monsanto and improving this encyclopaedia.) Our difficulties with your editing here comes from the passion you have for what you believe. It doesn't fit with what we do here. We follow our community rules, and you cant because it doesn't fit with your passion to improve things, hence this. um. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Vaccines

I noticed a bit of edit warring over this edit where Brustopher has tried to remove content that's been in the article for a while, but multiple editors have opposed that removal through edits. Now's the time to talk rather than edit war, so what exactly is the concern here in terms of reliable sourcing or weight? Personally, this seems fine to me under WP:PARITY and fits within discussion from other sources in the surrounding text. WP:FRINGEBLP also gives guidance on some of the things I've seen mentioned in edit summaries. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear, you were part of the edit war. This is negative BLP info that is very poorly sourced in only one publication - not necessarily reliable. Keeping this info in the article violates BLP policy. And it was disingenuous to template Brustopher for edit warring when he has only 2 reverts and is in good faith trying to uphold BLP policy. Minor4th 22:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the off topic comments not related to content, I do suggest reading WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:PARITY. Content like this is very much in line with BLPs in cases like this. If the concern here is just because it's negative, the removal isn't justified by policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I read them and understand them. Neither applies in this context. The source and material were not removed just because it might be negative info - it was removed because it's negative or controversial material AND it is poorly sourced. Minor4th 23:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly Andy Dingley's "restore the anti-vaxxing" revert was as good as an unexplained revert (basically the same as "restored content"). The responsible thing to do when someone restores negative information about a BLP to an article without explanation is to revert them. Secondly as far as I can see WP:PARITY has nothing to do with this situation. WP:PARITY refers to the pushing of fringe theories, which isn't what's going on here at all. I am in no way adding any information that makes anti-vaxxing seem legimate, or removing information that refutes anti-vaxxing. In fact personally I think Hari's "genocide" claims are absurd. What we are discussing here is not whether flu vaccines are a tool for mass genocide (they obviously aren't), but whether it's appropriate to highlight a deleted tweet by Hari claiming so based on what is just a passing mention in a trade magazine. The fact that Hari deleted it, shows that she no longer endorses that statement. The fact that we've only got a passing mention in a cow magazine, shows that nobody in the press particularly cared and it's WP:UNDUE to include it. The fact that we are using archive.org to dig up people's deleted tweets and using them as sources in their BLPs is a whole different and inappropriate kettle of fish in itself.Brustopher (talk)

"personally I think Hari's "genocide" claims are absurd."

Of course they are. But she made them. This content is significant because it demonstrates, with sources, that Hari is not merely a food content campaigner, but is also an anti-vaxxer. That point is highly relevant to any coverage of Hari and it belongs here.

From Minor4th's repetition, " negative BLP info with extremely poor sourcing " – is there any credible challenge to the truth of Hari having stated this? Brustopher seems to be claiming that she said it, but it's unimportant, Minor4th that she didn't (despite her own tweet) say this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing whether she said it or not - it has only been reported in one source that is not necessarily reliable on this type of information. That's the point. When multiple reliable secondary sources report on her anti vaccine position, then it should be included in the article. Short of that, I do not believe it is significant or "highly relevant." Minor4th 23:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Here you go, this should help you out: [1] Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I claim that she said it, retracted it through deletion (this is the important part) and that nobody particularly cared (this part is also important). We shouldn't be covering a tweet someone made, regretted and then deleted if only one reliable source (and a trade magazine about cows at that) cares. Also the article still mentions that she is an anti-vaxxer. I didn't remove all information about anti-vaxxing from the article, so the highly relevant point you are referring to is still present.Brustopher (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"retracted it" Source for that? Has she stated anywhere "flu shots have never been used for genocide" or even "I was wrong"? Or did she instead delete it, which is quite a different thing. It's just one of her many humiliatingly incorrect public statements which she then tries to deny afterwards and pretend never happened. Yet they did happen: as did the "Nazi microwaves", as did the "added nitrogen in airliners" comments. We live in a world that now has an audit trail, even when she wishes it didn't. As to "nobody cared" then there were at least 20 comments within minutes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

By "nobody cared" I mean nobody who writes for the press or other reputable sources. Articles should not be flooded with every minor internet drama that has received barely any coverage. Someone said something stupid on twitter, got a load of replies calling them out, and deleted it. Meanwhile close to no reliable sources cared. In other words, it was just another day on twitter. Brustopher (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please give WP:PARITY a read. In fringe topics, sources that normally wouldn't establish weight on their own are instead used to address comments made by a fringe group or BLP. At this point all relevant policies and guidelines indicate reliability, so the only thing left is weight. This fits exactly in the paragraph and is currently the status quo version, so I'm still not seeing any reason that justifies removal.Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If this is merely "someone who says stupid stuff on Twitter", why is there a WP:NOTABLE article on her? The difference with Hari is that she is a (self-appointed) expert on diet, lecturing others on their health. Her position on vaccines is extremely relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To King:I read WP:PARITY the last time you linked it and I still stand by it being irrelevant in this situation. PARITY refers to peer reviewed sources not being necessary to rebutt fringe claims. This is not what is happening here. Here we are using a single source to discuss a fringe claim that is not considered by any other RS to be an important facet of Hari's views and opinions worth criticising. Completely different situation. Nobody is trying to argue that Hari is right about flu shots being a genocide tool because the cow magazine doesn't have peer review. Brustopher (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To Andy: First of all that's not how quoting people works, Wikipedia has a pretty informative article on the topic if you'd like to brush up. I did not describe Hari as "someone who says stupid stuff on Twitter," I described her tweet as something stupid. Saying something stupid on twitter is not a phenomenon limited to Hari, and has probably been done by every single person with a frequently used twitter account. Your opinion on whether her opinion on vaccines is relevant is ultimately irrelevant (I apologise for the terrible sentence). What matters is the opinions and coverage of the reliable sources. The reliable sources comment on Hari's anti-vaxxing and condemn it. But bar one obscure source they don't give a damn about a stupid thing she said on twitter one day and then deleted.Brustopher (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, WP:PARITY talks mainly about allowing criticism of fringe theories without requiring that the criticism be peer reviewed. What we have here is a claim of fact that Hari said something about a fringe theory. The article isn't making a refutation of her theory, simply pointing out the fact that she said it. So while Hari definitely said this thing and it's relevant to her stance and beliefs on flu vaccines, it may not necessarily be relevant to her BLP if sources don't seem to agree that this particular tweet is a notable aspect about her. I've searched around a bit trying to find other sources criticizing this tweet, and in the short bit of time I spent on it came up pretty much dry as far as experts or RS's criticizing it. It may, however, be relevant to a larger piece about her tendency to delete previous writings rather than actually retracting them, which is touched on partly in this section of the article already.

I am inclined to mostly agree with Brustopher here. Fringe theories that are poorly sourced, not notable, and not paired with a refutation should not even be mentioned in WP at all. We have a RS criticizing her stance against the flu vaccine already, and this seems to be sufficient to cover that topic without the info on her tweet. If someone can find a source making criticism of her anti-vaccine stance that includes this tweet, that should justify it being re-added. Adrian (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have readded the flu vaccine tweet, as Vox led its article about her (which is a sufficiently RS to link in the lede) with the tweet in question - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)