Talk:Britt Marie Hermes

Re-submission

Since the article was declined previously for not meeting GNG by SwisterTwister, several sources have been published covering Hermes. I have included these. There is an in-depth one in Forbes, and a couple others in StatNews and TheDailyBeast that mention Hermes, her advocacy, etc. I am under the impression that given all of the sources, this article now passes WP:BASIC and should be moved to article space.

I would love help to reduce the promotional tone of the article as addressed by DGG. I tried to keep the facts neutral while writing, but since this is my first time, I suppose I am missing some nuance. Thank you for your time and help improving the article. Medicalreporter (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with a problem sentence

This sentence can probably be disintegrated and worked into the text in a more elegant way. The high number of citations at each clause is unsightly:

Her criticism of naturopathy has gained attention from the skeptic movement,[8][9][10][11][12] policy makers,[13][14] and the media.[1][2][15][15][16][17][18][19][20]

Delta13C (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and took care of this. More editing is needed from other points of view. Delta13C (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Does this person meet the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia? Based on my reading of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown, she has only done one thing, criticize naturopathic medicine, and in a fairly narrow circle of people and organizations who are already critics of natural/alternative medicine.Eric Yarnell (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I refer you to this recent articles for deletion discussion, which ended in an overwhelming consensus that the subject passes notability guidelines: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Britt_Marie_Hermes. In fact, she has done three major things: 1) Achieve doctor status in your field of naturopathic medicine; 2) Reject that field due to its pseudoscientific/quackery issues; 3) Vocally speak out against it, and in doing so, earning a reputation and coverage in reliable sources. Delta13C (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

POV

I have concerns that the information in "Naturopathic Diaries" is made up. Check the following source:

• http://brittmariehermesfactcheck.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SliverWind (talk • contribs) 07:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@SliverWind: That site is far from being a reliable source on anything. The author is anonymous, there is no indication of editorial control or history. It claims to be a "fact check" but does nothing of the sort - it mostly seems to hurl insults like accusing sciencebasedmedicine.org authors of being "shills". (And then, hilariously, gets angry when those authors refer to ND's as "witch doctors"). Britt Marie Hermes expresses her opinion in public, under her own name, and in person sometimes when she speaks at conferences. Who is the author of that site and why won't they admit who they are? Finally - are you connected with that site? If so, posting links to it in articles here might be a violation of WP:COI and/or WP:SPAM rules. Please take note. --14:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

bachelor's degree?

Does Britt Hermes have a bachelor's degree from any college? Can't find any sources for that. 107.77.223.78 (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

She says in an interview with Cara Santa Maria that she did her undergraduate degree in psychology at San Diego State University, which can be found between 20:15 and 20:30. Also in the interview, she says she graduated from her MSc program and is now in a PhD program in evolutionary genomics. However, I am not sure this interview counts as a RS. Medicalreporter (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Found this archive of another local paper and will add now. Medicalreporter (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad you found that citation Medicalreporter. Generally if you hear an interview with someone either on YouTube or a podcast and they say something that isn't something out of the normal, then you can quote it. It is out of their mouth, and if it is false then it reflects on their character and reputation. Like if someone claimed to be a war veteran, generally you can accept that claim. BUT the problem is when they say something that is odd or unlikely, or they have been known to make false statements before like in the case of psychic Sylvia Browne who said she had a Master's degree in English, but nothing to back it up. She has been known to lie, and her just looking at her writing style made people suspicious. Finally someone tried to check up on it and it was found to be just another fake claim of hers. Well its possible that the records were completely lost by the school, and her name accidentally was left off the list of graduates published in the newspaper. ;-) Anyway, so it is okay to take a reputable person's word for something that is reasonable. BTW Medicalreporter looking over your work, good job, enjoy your time here at Wikipedia.Sgerbic (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sgerbic, I think the phrasing about her education is kind of funny, since there are not sources that say she finished her masters degree, but there is a source, which I added, that says she is now a PhD candidate, so she must have finished her masters, no? Perhaps you can take a crack at it. I also saw that Bastyr U is threatening her with a lawsuit for defamation, but there is little third-party coverage of this. Medicalreporter (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)