Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Overhaul
This page needs a massive overhaul. As it is, it is horribly one-sided and reads like a press release. There is plenty of noted criticism to Hari and her efforts. Some notable criticism: http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2014/02/06/plastic-chemical-in-our-bread/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eating-yoga-mats/ I would edit this article, but I do not really feel qualified to do so. 96.248.6.39 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Cute Yoga Mats Video
So biased and full of pseudoscience
Firstly the repeated use of the adjective "Harmful" is scientifically inaccurate. All the chemicals listed have been found safe for human consumption. Second, without getting into a long discussion about GMO's it should be noted that there is not a single source here referencing scientific proof that they are harmful. This basically reads like a "Hooray for me" promo piece written by the subject of the article. Here's a good source with her getting debunked on her criticism of the brewery industry: http://blog.timesunion.com/beer/debunking-8-beers-that-you-should-stop-drinking-immediately/2425/ Also the RationalWiki page on her is very informative. But seriously, I see scientific claims in this article and no scientific references.98.119.9.60 (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel the exact opposite. The article is written like it originated with a food corporation executive, with use of words like "sensationalist," "allegedly harmful" and "forced" food companies to change. The article has a slant which degrades and demeans the work of Hari. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.35.97 (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
New speaker: I want to second what is written above. I co-run a science and scepticism page on Facebook and she is a regular feature. This article makes her sound like a conscientious researcher who is just trying to get companies to be honest. In fact, her entire approach is dishonest. She begins with ridiculous claims built on false information, then hounds companies using these claims as PR threats, until they respond with something she can chalk up as a victory. She also deletes dissenting opinion from actual scientists from her FB page. This Wiki article needs to be deleted and written up again in a way that doesn't make Vani Hari look like a valiant crusader against corporate immorality. Because...well, she isn't! I would recommend this article as the best I have read on her yet: http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/new-yellow-journalism/ -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.212.96 (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
POV tag
I removed the POV tag. The preponderance of sources are either critical of her work or are simply stating the reactions of corporations. This is how the article currently reads, in my opinion. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The lead
The lead to this BLP article has suddenly changed, calling her a "hoax artist" and not a "blogger." That's a major change, a serious accusation not supported by the article, and I think this needs to be reverted, asap. Anyone disagree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Those are some good references, though you've bungled the formatting. Still, the Forbes piece alone is a strong critique. But you can't just call her a "hoax artist" become she's attracted criticism: the lead of this encyclopedia article - and that's what it is -- must then summarize any controversy about Hari in a WP:NEUTRAL way. It's absolutely essential, especially for a WP:BLP article. I've tried to address that. It's unnecessary to "gild the lily" with attack terms like "hoax artist." God knows, the experts cited who condemn her work are damning enough. I've also added some pseudoscience categories, and found a working cached link to that astonishing piece on microwave ovens, that does indeed get into the negative thought crystal stuff. The references still need to be fixed, though. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The gestapo have spoken and abused their buttons it looks like. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
BLP vios
I will remove any BLP violations from this page, please keep comments and content restricted to WP:RS and WP:BLP, talk pages are not a forum Dreadstar ? 07:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of Vani's blog article on flu vaccines
An editor made an edit [2] today, 7/12/2014, regarding Vani's blog article [http://foodbabe.com/2011/10/04/should-i-get-the-flu-shot] on flu vaccines in the "Other Campaigns" section. While it is correct that Vani did not specifically state that one should not receive the flu vaccine, she heavily weighed against them and stated that she personally will not be getting one in addition to making several factually dubious claims about efficacy, side-effects, and alternatives. The editor also added unwarranted comments about the safety of vaccine ingredients without noting that adverse reactions are rare and noting that the number of people who potentially avoid illness by being vaccinated far exceeds the number of people who become ill due to a rare adverse reaction. I do not want to get into an edit war here, so I am bringing this to public attention first to see how others feel this should be worded to be more balanced and appropriate rather than just flip-flopping between the two extremes of the argument. 72.64.114.87 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
An additional note: this editor added the scare word "injections" to make vaccines sound scary and unsafe. It is colloquial to refer to them as vaccines, not injections. 72.64.114.87 (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue of her claims about flu vaccinations is being discussed below, along with microwave ovens. - S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Microwaves and flu vaccinations
Given that some of Ms Hari's statements about microwave ovens are food-related, would it be acceptable to include those statements (as well as specific rebuttals from reliable sources)? DS (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ This issue (and my commentary) applies to her flu shot blog entry. She is not an expect on vaccinations. She might say she would not get a flu shot, but when she starts talking about why she would not, she goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF and into exceptional claims. If the article to limit the statement to "I would not get a flu shot", thereby removing the exceptional claims, then the statement becomes a non-WP:NOTEWORTHY item. The fact that people do not get flu shots is a WP:NOTTRIVIA item. - S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ As the flu shot material has been restored to the article, I've posted a thread on the issue at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SPS material for Vani Hari. - S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Gorski comments
David Gorski is an oncologist, not an expert on finances, financial motivation, or the like. Wikipedia cannot be used to restate his personal opinions as to Hari. He is an expert as to the science involving her claims, and nothing more. Adding his comments violated biography of living persons policy. - S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok I have another source for examination. http://www.alternet.org/food/food-babe-bloggers-attack-against-beer-gains-national-attention-experts-call-it-quackmail The author is a Senior Editor, http://www.alternet.org/authors/cliff-weathers. His writing focus is "covering environmental and consumer issues." According to the Wikipedia entry, Alternet ought to meet all the criteria as a Reliable Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNet. AlterNet has won multiple awards for journalism and recognitions for journalism including Webby awards (2005 winner for Magazine, 2004 Print nominee, 2003 Print nominee) and Independent Press Awards. Are there objections to this source and if so, on what basis? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Edit: Gorski has specifically attacked Hari's tactics as appeals to scientific illiteracy and fearmongering, and equating her tactics against companies to blackmail while simultaneously criticizing the companies that give in to Hari's tactics:
-- Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk o contribs)
- 1 - Elaqueate, Srich32977's tone and refusal to provide specific details were very rude and themselves disruptive. This all could be dealt with much easier if, when ASKED for specifics, he would PROVIDE specifics.
- 2 - Srich32977, here is where I think you are wrong.
First, Vani Hari is an expert on nothing. Repeat, she is NOT an expert; her field, as noted in the article, is "activist." Her activism is not limited to food, though that is her primary focus; she has also extended her activism to vaccines, echoing other members of the anti-vaccination movement, and since she as an activist has taken that cause up, it can in no way be a violation of policy to note that she has done so and that others have specifically spoken against her article.
Second, even if I were to take the idea that the article is limited to food because Vani Hari is "an expert in food", which I do not, her commentary on microwave ovens specifically concerns claims that it alters the chemical composition and nutritional character of food. Her commentary about microwave ovens is therefore about food.
For Elaqueate, I would be happy to discuss merging the commentary or finding the most appropriate wording, whether quotes or otherwise, to best represent Gorski's criticisms. Do you have any suggestions on wording, or are you simply operating as a naysayer?
As a final thought experiment, what "experts" WOULD you accept giving their educated descriptions of Hari's motivations and tactics? Because I can happily go back through Gorski's work and show where he has repeatedly worked to deal directly with scientific frauds and their motivations and tactics, and as far as I am aware there is no program on the planet that grants doctorates in that field.
Why do I think Gorski IS an expert enough to make his statement? Because he is (A) a well regarded credentialed scientist, (B) a well regarded, credentialed individual who carries multiple writing positions in the field of scientific advocacy, skepticism and even has a current fellowship position with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and (C) because he is a recognized expert to speak on the infiltration of pseudoscience into health, medicine and nutrition and has been recognized as such in numerous mainstream media appearances. Thus he is eminently qualified to speak on the tactics and motivations of those who are attempting to infiltrate pseudoscience into health, medicine and nutrition such as Vani Hari.
Your response? 98.196.234.202 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Butterworth comments
One other question for you, Srich32977 and Eleaqueate: the Alternet article also covers the commentary by Trevor Butterworth that you discounted because he is a "contributor" to Forbes. However, Butterworth is a credentialed journalist who writes not just for Forbes but also as a credentialed journalist for Newsweek [4] and the editor and senior fellow at STATS.org Statistical Assessment Service, therefore more than expert enough to comment on the media's failures to properly vet and report on Hari's claims. What wording would satisfy you for Butterworth's commentary that the media has failed to properly report on her, to wit, ""So, when are journalists going to hold truth up to this new self-promoting juggernaut? Why have so many news stories avoided questioning her claims as they would question her targets in the food industry. Surely, someone who believes that saying "Satan," repeatedly to a glass of water will alter the water's physical properties needs to be treated with a dash of skepticism--no?""? 98.196.234.202 (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
To both of you, Please comment on Butterworth's commentary, an experienced journalist is just the sort of expert who should be able to comment on media failures to cover her accurately. This question was not about Gorski and Butterworth has not used the term "blackmail." 98.196.234.202 (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Massive commentary removal
Srich32977, please explain your commentary removal; you removed a significant number of sources and commentary by scientists and reputed, published authors that seems wholly in line with the RS and BLP policies. Also, you left a comment stating " Not improvements (discussed)" when I cannot find any discussion you make of these quotes or sources anywhere. Thanks. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.193.8 (talk o contribs)
Srich32977, your link to "MOS:QUOTE" redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style and after manually searching for the section and reviewing it I believe the quotes are displaying correctly. If you believe they are incorrectly formatted, please explain how. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.202 (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Social Media Expert Commentary
A lot of the commentary on here says that scientific experts aren't "experts" to comment on Hari's tactics.
How about a social media expert instead? http://zachbussey.com/is-the-food-babe-more-dangerous-than-pumpkin-spice-lattes/ -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.188.114 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC) |}
Commentary removal
In this diff [5] we have two references removed. One is by a contributor to the Forbes newsblog and the other is a piece published by the Independent Women's Forum. I submit these are not SPS and are therefor reliable sources. - S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon