Misplaced Pages

Talk:Vani Hari

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.87.121.63 (talk) at 15:41, 9 December 2014 (Undid revision 637330387 by Jytdog (talk) revert incivil threat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:41, 9 December 2014 by 66.87.121.63 (talk) (Undid revision 637330387 by Jytdog (talk) revert incivil threat)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vani Hari article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFood and drink Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWomen writers
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conspiracy Theorist

Given that Hari is making unfounded anti-vaccine claims, along with bizarre assertions regarding microwave ovens, I've labelled her also a conspiracy theorist. Happy to discuss. Mongoletsi (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Needs better sourcing. It's good to debunk non-scientific ideas, but you need better sourcing to label someone a career conspiracy theorist. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal life section

I have removed duplicate content, the section called "Personal life". Identical material appears at the top of the Career section. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so; I hadn't noticed the change. Apologies Mongoletsi (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Air Travel

I've posted on Elaqueate's talk page about why I think this should be re-instated.

Further discussion welcome here Mongoletsi (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's clear the blog post existed at some point. But that's not enough reason by itself to put it in a Misplaced Pages article. She has lots of blog posts; we're currently mentioning some that are covered by other, and reliable, sources. Reading a random blog post of hers, deciding it's wrong in some way, and adding it to a wikipedia page with your own argument about how it's wrong is what's WP:OR, even when your reasoning may be correct. You haven't shown that any reliable source cares about this blog post and what it said. Somebody talking about it on Pinterest and Facebook doesn't count as significant secondary coverage. Your airline sources don't count because they aren't talking about Vani Hari or the blog post at all; you added them because they support your own argument. (I've copied this response from my talk page, so other editors have a chance to contribute if they want.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an article on a pseudoscientist. She presents herself as a figure of authority. Yet she makes statements of farcical inaccuracy and ignorance. If we are to cover such people at all, it is a fundamental part of an encyclopedic goal to highlight such contradictions. Anything less is to become an uncritical mouthpiece for them and to amplify their publishing of clearly incorrect and inept science. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
That section contains both deadlinks and links to articles that don't mention Vani Hari at all. They would be appropriate for citing material on general air travel pages, but not to build up a controversy if it's not actually a notable controversy, noted by multiple independent secondary sources. This page can't become an open-ended place to dump material when editors spot mistakes on a blog. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a pretty clear case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. A couple of editors want to give this material greater visibility on Misplaced Pages than found in reliable sources. I don't think her ideas (or the arguments of individual editors) should be given prominence not found in actual sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, I agree. I clearly have a bias against conspiracy nuts (and those who profit from it). But Wiki is not for combatting such idiocy. Rational Wiki is for that purpose. That said, the latest revisions do show her own site still references the (removed) article. So it's a bit of a thorny subject. Mongoletsi (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Her site references a removed article? How is that worth encyclopedic notice? We could have sections for every blog post she's ever made if that is the standard for inclusion. Cataloguing her every word and misstep just to spend time de-constructing it, whether it's covered by reliable sources or not, is going to end up promoting her in the end. This seems like anti-fancruft. BLPs need solid sourcing from multiple unarguably reliable sources for controversies and whether a controversy is considered significant enough to be included. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Her site is slick and commercially produced. It is hardly credible that articles "fall off" it. Nor is there evidence that most articles do so.
However when she publishes something particularly inept (the "50% added nitrogen" or the "Hitler in your microwave" articles), and those articles attract independent attention, then they are promptly deleted. The site has also recently switched to deliberately excluding archiving bots from the entire site – an unusual behaviour for someone interested in the altruistic dissemination of knowledge.
Vani Hari presents herself as an authority figure in food science. She has no external credentials as such, her displayed knowledge is grossly inept. Recording and presenting such is an essential part of balanced encyclopedic coverage of such a person – otherwise we're just an uncritical mouthpiece adding our own credibility to her views. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Great. You have a very strong idea of a great wrong that you want Misplaced Pages to right. You want to expose her for noble reasons. The sources have to do it first, and they have to be good sources, not opinion blogs. Otherwise we shouldn't mention the whole thing, including spreading her mistaken views.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You are very quick to attach motives to other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Good faith motives, sure. I'm certain you're trying to improve the encyclopedia, but it has to be more within policies. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Once again you've blanked sourced content as Removing material that makes no mention of Vani Hari at all. Removing citations that don't directly back up the material.
The sources that don't mention her are necessary to support the claim that the atmosphere is already mostly nitrogen: As Hari contradicts this herself, it's necessary to source it. You also silently removed a Professor Steven Novella, MD that is a direct, 3rd party comment on this specific posting, exactly as you're calling for. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I did no such thing. Redact that please. I only removed material that did not mention Vani Hari, and that sentence that states she removed material from her website, supported by no independent sourcing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake - I'd not noticed it still alongside the Denning ref. The 3rd party comment on Hari's post that you removed was the John Blanton piece.
The Blanton piece is necessary because it is (AFAIK) the first outside commentator to note that Hari was deleting her embarassing posts, and it also gives enough of a quote of her post for readers to be able to see it for themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The material sourced to "skeptic78240.wordpress.com" is not likely to be considered a reliable source in Misplaced Pages terms, with no prejudice to the blogger. It's the same policy that keeps random opinions from random Christian bloggers off articles about sceptics.

This is an article about a person. It's not our article about air travel. The sources have to directly support the article material. Adding extra material about the composition of air may be completely factual, but it's not about Vani Hari. The stuff I removed is out-of-scope for this article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I also removed the student newspaper source. I still think the whole section has not proved any amount of due weight, and as Dwpaul indicated earlier, I think the article does a better job if it's not a chronology of no-account blog wars that actual reliable sources ignore.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You also removed the Professor Steven Novella ref, with an "inaccurate" edit summary to hide what you're up to. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not hiding anything. Cut that out. I was in the middle of fixing it. It used the same "ref name" as an earlier citation which merged it to the earlier citation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The whole "scandal" is still only found in personal blogs, one student newspaper opinion piece, and a Reddit conversation someone tried to include. This is incredibly weak sourcing that this deserves to be mentioned at length. This article isn't supposed to be a blog itself. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You removed the Steven Novella ref. Now whether you then intended that cite to point to a different ref to his writings, or not, you removed the reference and you did it under an edit summary about a different matter (which you were also removing at the time). You then edited a second time to "fix" this (again having removed it). This is what you did, there's the edit history of it.
After I called you on this, you then re-inserted the ref. Although this time losing his professional postnomial, conveniently discrediting him as "just another blogger".
I've been looking at your past edits here. Removing Forbes.com as "not RS" and the IWF.org You seem to see "not RS" as meaning anything that dares to challenge Vani Hari's pontificating, rather than judging their own credibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, stop with the WP:ABF. After I took out the school newspaper ref it gave an error. It was my error. I sat down and re-wrote the ref to fix it. I used the earlier reference as a template. I didn't see your talk page notice till I was finished sorting it out. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
And it doesn't matter that this is a person that's frequently wrong, this is still a WP:BLP and must meet some basic policy. We can't have poor sourcing that calls her crazy. This is basic stuff.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This is getting rather silly now. But anyway, Randi clearly critiques the piece here (scroll down to footnote 3). I think Randi qualifies as a reliable source. NOTE: it's not by Randi himelf, it's a contributor. Apologies. Mongoletsi (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow! This is impressive. The article has now been removed from Google's Cache too. I didn't know that was possible. How the **** did she/whoever manage that? Mongoletsi (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It stills seems like a non-notable blog post. User:Ohnoitsjamie could you take a look at my work here and see if it's BLP-compliant. I can't find any solid sources, and removed clearly non-compliant ones, but I think the one I left in is might still have an issue with WP:BLPSPS. The writer is a medical expert, but which of his claims are about the person and which are about the science?__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And given the lack of sourcing, I still don't see how it meets WP:BLPSTYLE to include it at all. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
With the exception of Novella's post, this hasn't gotten much attention on any other reliable source, most likely because it was deleted by Hari before it attracted much attention. Given that we only have one reliable source regarding a now-deleted (arguably, retracted) post, my gut reaction is this runs afoul of WP:UNDUE weight. I think there is more room for well-sourced criticism for Hari's made-up facts, but this particular issue is probably not the best area to focus on. OhNoitsJamie 23:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't claim to be entirely impartial, I'm not pleased I've allowed bias creep in here. James Randi (footnote/section 3) does discuss the piece. I'm actually of a mind to add this to the article. Thoughts? Mongoletsi (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are you back to saying it was written by Randi? It looks like it was actually written by a Misplaced Pages admin.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is all very exciting. Some of you all are adding criticism based on a blog post by a famous person. Even if the original posting could be found, there is no indication that this should be included at all: please see WP:FART. OhNoitsJamie's note on UNDUE is well taken--besides, the comment that "her post was quickly removed" is basically OR, and thus this whole bit wasn't just undue, it was also a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You have repeatedly blanked the entire section. If you think this is all just "a blog post by a famous person", then you know where AfD is. There are two sets of statements here: Vani Hari's own which are the work of an unqualified self-appointed blogger, no more, with technical accuracy below that of an attentive high school pupil. The second set are comments upon this, by a range of people, including (merely on those cited today) a professor of medicine. Vani Hari is a charlatan for pretending to be a technical authority on diet (and indeed, atmospheric chemistry), yet having neither qualifications nor rudimentary competence in the subject.
Yet you have blanked all criticism of this infamous posting, on the basis of a point so trivial that it's hard to even see what you mean amongst your "all very exciting" sarcasm at other editors. This is unwarranted, as is your immediate edit-warring to repeat your deletion.
If you believe this subject to be unimportant, then there is AfD. If you believe the criticism of Hari to be inaccurate, then please address the specifics. Do you believe her blog pronouncement to be accurate? (You have I hope, at least bothered to read it?) Otherwise it appears that you are discarding WP:NPOV to the detriment of WP's credibility by whitewashing her errors to become invisible. That is no part of our encyclopedic remit here. We are not (or at last, I hope not) Hari's paid publicists, whether she is right or wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Holy moly Dingley, you're pulling out all the stops. Paid publicists? That's funny. "Repeatedly blanked" means twice, yes--once with arguments relevant to a BLP (and with discussion of the sourcing on this here talk page), and once after you reverted, blindly, with the comment "rv sourced content" or something like that. Your "source" doesn't really exist, though--the original post is gone, and the comment that the original post is gone is original research based at best (!) on a now-lost archived copy of the original post. Your "AfD is thataway" comment is pretty ignorant as well: the "blog post" in question is your source. AfD is for articles, not for references.

I got nothing for this Vani person, on whom I have an opinion which I will keep to myself, but you seem to be going out of your way to find and insert criticism. Maybe the pro-woo party (anti-woo party? who was woo again?) is paying you, in barnstars.

But if you insist, here we go. The "blog" I referred to was of course this one, the source for the criticism. It's a blog. A blog by a famous person who probably knows what he's talking about, but hardly enough to warrant inclusion in the article for the offending passage. In addition, "a piece about travelling by commercial airliner, which was removed from foodbabe.com as well as Internet archives and web caches" is obviously original research, a BLP violation. Then, "Novella stated her claims lacked 'basic scientific literacy', including a statement that pressurized air in the cabin compressed passengers' bodies" is ungrammatical, since the "including" phrase is in the wrong place. Then, the Smithsonian sentence and reference is complete bullshit and has no place in here--rather, it suggests that the passage's author was trying their hardest to yank as many sources as possible into this little paragraph. Finally, the last sentence of the paragraph is an attempt to render as hyper-official what in the blog post is (correct) righteous ridicule of a bizarre statement, and it's laughable--really poor writing. So, what was the argument for inclusion? The person said something and it was wrong? I think the article is clear enough on the scientific level of the subject's contributions to mankind. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I now see that immediately after blanking this section your next act was to close an ANI thread on Hari alleging, "two abusie admins locked this page to only allow editing by admins in order to push a pro-woo agenda on the page." I have no knowledge of such, but it's strange that you (an admin) have so promptly used this page to push a pro-woo agenda by blanking sourced criticism of Hari, and simultaneously closed the ANI thread discussing it! Andy Dingley (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That's why God and Jimbo gave us AGF, Andy. I'll just tell you that it was related to a longterm abuser, and that's all I got to say on the matter. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate's a sockpuppet of either Chillum or Dreadstar, used so that they can violate policy without getting their "admin" hands dirty. They've been trying to pro-woo this page for months and abused their powers to lock even the talk page until just last week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.188.62 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Some new sources

  • Be careful. Rogue abusive admins with WP:OWN issues like Drmies, Chillum and Dreadstar are known to troll this page and ban people for providing links to sources that aren't pro-woo.

Articles disappearing

The issue just got a bit more prominence for me with Drmies recent edit pointing it out to me, but since it seems like articles from the FoodBabe website tend to disappear for whatever reason somewhat often, should we maybe list those ghost articles here on the talk page just for future reference? One could make the argument there's damage control going on, much less nefarious reasons, or whatever, but this seems like a topic where me might need to be wary about the potential of sources being scrubbed (regardless of the actual reason) given the controversial nature of this topic. At least this way we have a record of sources that "disappeared" so folks can attempt to find them back again if there's anything of use in them. Feel free to edit below my signature or add comments below the reference(s) on what's best to do in these instances. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. Hari, Vani (July 30, 2012). "Why It's Time To Throw Out Your Microwave". FoodBabe.com. Retrieved April 29, 2014.
  • Yeah, but the problem is that we can't say in our article what we can say on Facebook or speculate about on the talk page. In this case it wasn't so problematic since one of the references discussed the post and cited from it--but I urge editors to be very wary of how they phrase things in the article. Even "since removed" is OR (if not verified by other, reliable sources), since, you know, the website owner could have moved it or whatever. We can think what we like but we can't make our article say all that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I was mainly trying to stress the same that regardless of whatever the reason actually is (folks probably have plenty of their own ideas that we don't include in the article per OR), our goal should be to focus on how we're documenting things, and if that documentation disappears one way or another, we should try to have a record here of that if a broken reference is removed. This is all just for within the talk page to potentially make things a little easier for us if one of those sources come up again in some fashion. I'm not sure if we really have anything one way or another to actually talk about disappearing sources in the article itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen it yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if the increased scrutiny (because of the upcoming book publication, maybe) leads to some discussion of that as well. I tell you what, I'm getting kind of tired of looking at that smile on every page, every cover, in every article. I wonder if the Gender Gap Task Force has anything to say regarding the "babe" appellation. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The purpose of removing these most embarrassing articles from her blog is obviously to remove anything that reflects obviously badly upon her. WP should not play along with such post facto editorialising.
At one time, the article here included links to both Hari's original post (now a deadlink) and also to a 3rd party copy of the post, with critical commentary. A third piece by Prof. Steven Novella MD was referenced as being commentary from a substantial RS. All have since been removed, by salami-slicing them one by one. This is a piece of gross technical ineptitude on her part, and it's a piece that is easily comprehended as such by the majority of readers. GMO issues are indeed complicated, but anyone with a decent secondary school education should know that the atmosphere is already more than half nitrogen, even if Hari doesn't. We've even seen the claim that the atmosphere does contain 80% N2 removed as unsourced, then when sources were added to support every last fact they were complained of as "unrelated to Vani Hari".
Why is this article even here? A blogger is not notable. A blogger only becomes notable, per WP:N, according to the attention paid to them by independent WP:RS. Have any such RS paid such attention? Have any pro-Vari sources paid such attention, and do they meet RS? Have any skeptic RS against Vari's position given such comment? – yes they have (Novella for one), yet they've been blanked. If this article is to refuse to include anti-Hari RS, then is there anything left to even demonstrate WP:N?
We have a similar deadlinking problem when Flickr images are uploaded to Commons. We check that they have an acceptable licence at the time they are uploaded, then we allow the original Flickr author to change or delete the licence, even to something not-Commons acceptable. Yet because we recognise the irrevocability of CC licences, and presumably the veracity of self-appointed authorities, we recognise that if WMF has read one source at one time, we regard it as immutable beyond that, even if the current copy of the web resource changes or disappears.
Blanking Hari putting her elegant foot in it because she now wishes she hadn't said something that blows holes in her facade of credibility is no reason at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "WP should not play along" is nonsense. No one is playing along with anything. The archived link was dead, at least the one that I looked at (and removed). "A blogger is not notable" is likewise silly: NPR has at least three articles on her, and the reflist is full of reliable sources so of course she's notable. I'm sure you are familiar with the GNG; likewise, you should be familiar with the BLP. Finally, "if this article is to refuse to include anti-Hari RS"--I don't know where this comes from, since this morning I added a clearly critical piece. Your commentary here is about as one-sided as the subject's contributions to food science are alleged to be. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Her tendency to try to "wipe" her history of idiocy is known and documented by reliable sources. See http://www.science20.com/cool-links/the_food_babe_took_down_her_goofy_microwave_oven_post_science_win-140892. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

chipotle

I just cut the following and am pasting it here:

Hari began investigating what food ingredients were used at Chipotle Mexican Grill starting in 2012. Her investigation revealed the company was using genetically modified ingredients (GMOs) in their cooking oil and trans fats in their tortillas, and that their black beans contained genetically modified soybean oil. One week after posting her investigation to Foodbabe.com, Chipotle communications director Chris Arnold requested a meeting with Hari to discuss the public disclosure of its ingredients. In March 2013, as a result of Hari's efforts, Chipotle published its full ingredients list on all menu items, including where Chipotle uses GMOs.

  1. Fuss, Sarah (March 27, 2013). "Activist Blogger 'Foodbabe' Scores Big Win With Chipotle". Participant Media TakePart. Los Angeles, California. Retrieved May 6, 2014.
  2. ^ Wooley, Nate (March 29, 2013). "'Foodbabe' Blogger Gets Wish: Chipotle Discloses What's In Its Burritos". InvestorPlace. Retrieved February 12, 2014.

Here are my issues with this:

  • 1) there is nothing outside of Hari's assertion that her blog posting and the pressure from her readers actually a) caused Chipotle any embarassment or b) caused Chipotle to disclose their ingredients, but that is what this content says - "as a result of Hari's efforts"
  • 2) there is no contradiction of the pseudoscience claim that genetically modified ingredients in Chipotle's food is in any way harmful.
  • 3) Not one of the sources used here is solid and that is a flimsy way to build a section.
  • 4) so overall, this comes across to me as just WP:PROMO for Hari and her views - scraping the bottom of the sourcing barrel to find a "win" for her.

Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems accurate but good luck getting it past the NPOV-violating pro-woo cabal that infests this page. With three abusive admins to their name they're basically running a WP:OWN scam and have for months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.188.62 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Food Babe Conspiracy Theories

There should probably be a section here for all her conspiracy theory stuff, such as her claims that "organized industry" are trying to pay people to give negative reviews to her books or post against her on outlets like Facebook and Twitter. In fact, she should be listed as a conspiracy theorist, much like Alex Jones (radio host). Let's Have Some Science (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Got any sources? Tutelary (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see http://foodbabe.com/2014/12/06/food-babe-critics/ (and numerous other articles on her site). She claims that any criticism of her, or debunking of her work, or negative reviews of her poorly written books/site, are "tobacco industry playbook." Let's Have Some Science (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Similarly, her claims that airplane travel involves a conspiracy, as covered by Steven Novella here http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/food-babe-misinformation-on-travel/. Dr. Novella also states "The Food Babe is shockingly scientifically illiterate and should not be giving advice to anyone", which I encourage be added to the article. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I should've said reliable sources. First one is a WP:PRIMARY source which can be used for simple facts and the like, not for criticizing the same source. The 2nd is a blog and is not a reliable source. Tutelary (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You're wrong. "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" - from WP:RS. Dr. Steven Novella, per his Misplaced Pages page linked previously, is such an expert. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Since this is a Biography, there's a special case to never use self published sources unless written by the subject. WP:BLPSPS. I'm not trying to trick you up, and fully want if there are reliable sources for this stuff for it to be put in, but a blog by someone doesn't cut it. Tutelary (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Commentary by a published scientist in the field is RS per the policy. Let's Have Some Science (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
"Dr. Novella is an academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine. He is the president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society. He is the host and producer of the popular weekly science podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. He is also a senior fellow and Director of Science-Based Medicine at the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and a founding fellow of the Institute for Science in Medicine." http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/about/ Let's Have Some Science (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the URL to that page matches the regex /blog/, which means that any WP editor looking for an excuse (not a reason, they've already pre-judged their reason) can easily remove it and cry "OMG SPS BLOG!!" Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Which is why the policy says the opposite! Let's Have Some Science (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Policies are to be quoted as links in SCARE CAPITALS, not actually read. The more time I spend at WP, the more respect I have for the policies, if only some editors would bother to read them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, WP:BLPSPS is unambiguous. No self published sources, even if the person is an expert, unless it comes from the subject themselves. Tutelary (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Your views on avoiding bias would carry more weight if your short editing history had been less eventful for its topic bans. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
More coverage: http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/11/food-babe-clueless-about-food-science-and-apparently-air/ Let's Have Some Science (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass blanking of talk page

I note that Jytdog has been participating in the mass blanking of this article and now added a "bot" to blank this talk page as well. What's with that??? Let's Have Some Science (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What you call "blanking" this page is actually archiving - see Help:Archiving_a_talk_page and the link and search box in the yellow box at the top of the page. I did also make a sweep through the article and improve it based on WP:Policies and guidelines - there is an edit note for each change I made. I took out a section and pasted it above - please feel free to comment on that, above. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuses by Guerillero and Elaqueate

It appears Guerillero and Elaqueate are now conspiring to ban anyone who disagrees with Elaquate on this page once again. This is unsurprising since Food Babe announced her "secret Food Babe Army" organizing group on Facebook (www.facebook.com/groups/foodbabearmy) of which both are members.

Expect more of her followers to spam this page soon, as they have posted several "organize for wikipedia" threads in the past few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To Jytdog: this needs to remain as it involves a violation of Misplaced Pages policy by the users involved. The abuse of admin powers instead of having respectful discussions or, if necessary, following dispute resolution procedures is an egregious offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Categories: