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)

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)

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)