This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goop (company) 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 |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I am confused by her playing the game with Colbert and basically making fun of herself and all that pseudo science stuff, so I was wondering if that is all for real or if she is just playing a big prank or just milking people or I dont know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.8.68.100 ( talk) 08:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Various gossip-columns talking about Goop's controversies aside, I don't see any case for independent notability. The article feels partially promotional, and partially a hit-list of media attacks; neither is the basis of an encyclopedia article. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Sources include Fortune, The Guardian, The New York TImes, and The Washington Post. The company has received millions in venture funding, has a board, and a previous chief executive independent of Paltrow who departed and then returned to the company. Apple isn't any more a sub-section of Steve Jobs' page than Goop is a sub-section of Gwyneth Paltrow's page. A more appropriate analog, though, would be Martha Stewart (the person) and Martha Stewart Omnimedia (the lifestyle company).
The fact that the sources are largely negative is, I suppose, the nature of the company. It is a controversial company that advocates for things that are defined in Wikipedia as being controversial. In writing the article, I looked long and hard for sources and this is what I found. The only things I found that were not critical of the company had to do with the previous CEO, a new round of venture funding, and the moving of the company from New York to Los Angeles. If you have any additional material, I welcome it.
In citing the sources, I was very careful and very selective. Too many articles simply refer to other articles, rehashes that say the same thing. I found original sources and noted, in almost every case, that it was reported by multiple media outlets, making it not only newsworthy but worthy enough to note in Wikipedia. Rburriel ( talk) 04:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's a link to the archive of the discussion we had on Talk:Gwyneth Paltrow about Goop and its critics. /info/en/?search=Talk:Gwyneth_Paltrow/Archive_1#Is_Gwyneth_Paltrow_Wrong_About_Everything.3F
I thought that a discussion of Goop and its critics met all the WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT requirements to belong on the Gwyneth Paltrow page, but 2 editors (who outnumbered me) kept deleting it. I'm glad to see a separate page about Goop with the controversy, but I think that WP:NPOV requires at least a paragraph of criticism on the Gwyneth Paltrow page. Separate pages on controversies usually get a hundredth of the views that the original page gets, and they arguably violate WP:POVFORK.
I think we should keep the Goop (company) page, but add a summary of criticism to the Gwyneth Paltrow page. I would do it myself, but not if the Gwyneth Paltrow editors keep owning the page and deleting all criticism. -- Nbauman ( talk) 17:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
One of the sources has been formatted as if it was from Goop in the article (using the cite web parameter website=Goop), but instead was from cancer.org and didn't mention Goop or Paltrow at all. In addition to this, a source used to cite "Some have characterized Goop's claims as "ludicrous and tantamount to fraud"." only discusses an expert invited onto Goop, not Goop itself. I have removed these from this article because I think this use does not meet WP:SYNTH. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 04:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: Hi. I recently added some information about awards, and the edit was reverted as "PR stuff". The statement was properly sourced, to the best of my knowledge, so I don't quite understand the issue here. Please correct me if I am wrong with my approach? Thank you. 50.97.66.163 ( talk) 07:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: @ Hob Gadling:Thanks for your help with this. Trying to understand why a source written by the subject himself is considered valid? Also, his statements focus on celebrities like Paltrow and their ridiculous claims, but don't directly involve goop. Choosing a title after the founder makes it relevant, but still a stretch, I think. 169.54.92.150 ( talk) 07:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ 122.108.141.214:. Your addition to the criticism section is simply stating a fact, and written as is is probably more relevant (if anywhere) in the history section. You did not state who criticized goop for inviting her- but are criticizing them yourself. 69.147.228.98 ( talk) 06:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: Sorry to bother you. The changes I made were in the general structure alone, and I didn't remove any material or citations, unless I missed one? Did this somehow damage the page, as I see that you reverted. Thanks! 69.147.228.3 ( talk) 06:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ 122.108.141.214:. Thanks for helping me out with the new section! Just wanted to ask about the latest edit, where you removed the Dr.s from the goop wellness piece. Were the references problematic? Seeing as the criticism section often cites doctors and other experts who have an issue with the company or its products, I would assume that a mention of those who helped develop said products would be relevant to the page as well? Thanks again! 192.119.165.188 ( talk) 09:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The 1997 paper by Ernst is not relevant to this article because this article is about Goop, not 'all the safety concerns to do with everything-wellness-related that has been criticised on Goop'. The Ernst paper predates Goop by a decade and discusses the safety of colonic irrigation (broadly construed) without reference to Paltrow or Goop, and the Ars Technica article adequately discusses the claims, with a link to the 1997 paper. Additionally, there is a wikilink to coffee enemas in the article, and the 1997 paper has been added to the coffee enema article. Retaining the paper in the article in addition to the Ars Technica link makes the article look biased and like a WP:COATRACK. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 01:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand why it is vital that an article that does not mention Goop at all be included in this article to support the medical claims. The article could be several times its present length if MEDRS-compliant sources were required to debunk each of the criticised claims or items sold by Goop. I do not appreciate the accusation that I am "attempting to suppress sourcing", particularly as I have actually added the 1997 source to the coffee enema article, where it belongs, and improved it to link to its doi, the author's biography, etc. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 06:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Thank you, @ François Robere:. @ Jytdog:, I propose to remove the 1997 Ernst source from this article, as it solely describes whether coffee enemas are safe rather than Goop being criticised for endorsing the practice. Please let me know if you intend to seek out further dispute resolution. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can see you have no experience dealing with...is an appeal to ethos, which is by definition ad hominem (and an ignorant one at that). You did not comment on the substance of my opinion, nor did you contradict any of my claims. François Robere ( talk) 23:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad it's not just me copping the personal attacks from Jytdog. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 01:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
And Ernst is used on the coffee enemas page, as a historical note, because I added him. Ernst is not relevant here on the article for Goop, the business which has promoted coffee enemas. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 01:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that some editors want this article to echo the marketing from Goop, in violation of WP:SOAP, and WP:POV. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
There was never any suggestion of removing the caveats against coffee enemas, only removing the irrelevant source from 1997. The ars technica source uses the 1997 source to faithfully describe the dangers of the practice and directly discusses Goops promotion of the practice. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 11:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
...makes the entire article look unreliable.Comments like that strongly suggest that there are outside factors driving this and it's long past time to move on. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Bishonen: Hi, I am wondering what the status is with the criticism section. Should other editors begin unraveling it as well, or is it going to stay as-is? You cited WP:NOCRIT and began moving information upwards on the page, but stopped. For consistency's sake, should all criticisms not be incorporated into the main article, or all be listed in the designated section? Thanks. 69.147.228.12 ( talk) 07:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi 122.108.141.214. You just reverted an edit saying "not an improvement." For educational purposes, do you mind elaborating? I was merely continuing a process which had been started previously, and also removed a quote from Goop that did not fit the general flow of the article. Perhaps it should be relocated instead of removed, then? Would be glad to hear your thoughts about this. Thanks. 69.147.228.66 ( talk) 09:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Irregardless of whether the criticised health claims are still up, the fact that goop is seeking to hire lawyers and science people to vet the claims is still important. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 21:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon:, please stop edit warring and removing reliably-sourced information about Goop's hiring decisions. It's unreasonable of you to say that because Goop has not retracted all the articles on the site that it is irrelevant that Goop has hired a lawyer. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 23:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Added California case settlement for unsubstantiated health claims. David notMD ( talk) 16:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Elise Loehnen's influence on Goop becoming "weirder" is discussed at length in https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/magazine/big-business-gwyneth-paltrow-wellness.html , and is not discussed at all in http://www.latimes.com/fashion/la-ig-wwd-goop-expansion-20180207-story.html. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 10:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 10:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I see that the short description has been changed a number of times recently and I wanted to open up a discussion to see if we could come to some consensus. The description has been written as "Lifestyle brand owned by Gwyneth Paltrow" and "Lifestyle brand which promotes untested "alternative health" products". The short description is a relatively new and exciting addition to Wikipedia and there are explicit guidelines which include (among many other things) that the content should
I've brought the issue to the talk page because I believe the short description on the page currently is controversial and judgemental and we need to come to consensus on this issue. Thank you 154.84.136.170 ( talk) 07:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is that the short description for Goob be "lifestyle brand".
What should the short description for Goop be? I think it should say "Lifestyle brand" but Roxy, the dog. disagrees. I'd appreciate more input! Thanks! Beachlifedreamin ( talk) 08:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC) 08:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
As has been established in the section above, there are good reasons for "Lifestyle brand which promotes untested "alternative health" products" (but, as Roxy said, Beachlifedreamin didn't hear them). The dubiousness of some products is an important part of what reliable sources say about Goop. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Avoid anything that is, or could reasonably be construed as, controversial or judgemental. Use universally accepted facts wherever possible.I think that proposed description would be very readily construed as judgemental by most readers. Colin M ( talk) 21:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
“Lifestyle brand” seems the NPOV way to go. It is after all a short description. The lead covers the controversial aspects pretty quickly, so I doubt anyone will feel we let them down by not having a more robust description. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 03:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Beachlifedreamin removed the RfC template today saying "consensus reached for Lifestyle brand".
User:Roxy the dog has been reverting attempts to change the shortdesc to "Lifestyle brand", saying the RfC hasn't been closed. Roxy, I think Beachlifedreamin's actions amount to an informal close (per
WP:RFCEND: If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable
). If you disagree with their close, I think the appropriate action would be, per
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, to first discuss the close with them on their talk page. If you still can't reach consensus, you can request review from an admin. FWIW, I agree with Beachlife's reading of consensus here. 100% of uninvolved editors who expressed an opinion supported "Lifestyle brand". DGG was even prepared to close in favour of "Lifestyle brand" a week ago - since then, there's only been more support for that option. The RfC has been allowed to run for well over a month. I think the close was appropriate (even though Beachlife is involved) given the obviousness of consensus.
Colin M (
talk) 17:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering why we are describing Goop as a natural health company in the first sentence? The company is most frequently referred to as some combination of: wellness, lifestyle, health and brand.
I haven't seen it described as a natural health company anywhere, and perhaps more importantly I haven't seen any reliable third party sources associate the company with naturopathy, which is linked here in the first sentence.
Would it make sense instead to follow the external sources and go with "Goop is a wellness and lifestyle company founded by actress Gwyneth Paltrow" ?
Here are the first reliable sources I found quickly:
Forbes [1] - "Over the years, Goop transformed into a lifestyle wellness brand whose products (...)"
CNBC [2] - "Gwyneth Paltrow’s famous lifestyle brand Goop is about to hit Sephora stores (...)"
CNN [3] - "Goop, for the uninitiated, is actress Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle content and retail brand which was valued at an estimated $250 million in 2018."
BBC [4] - "The controversial lifestyle brand founded by Oscar-winning actress Gwyneth Paltrow has opened its first UK store." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSLEEVEmonkey ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Most of this article reads like either an advertisement, or as paid propaganda for this convicted corporation infamous for medical fraud and fraudulent medical claims. [1] [2] Is it really appropriate to have it written like this? Enginstudent24 ( talk) 22:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Please 103.166.150.50 ( talk) 02:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goop (company) 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 |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I am confused by her playing the game with Colbert and basically making fun of herself and all that pseudo science stuff, so I was wondering if that is all for real or if she is just playing a big prank or just milking people or I dont know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.8.68.100 ( talk) 08:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Various gossip-columns talking about Goop's controversies aside, I don't see any case for independent notability. The article feels partially promotional, and partially a hit-list of media attacks; neither is the basis of an encyclopedia article. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Sources include Fortune, The Guardian, The New York TImes, and The Washington Post. The company has received millions in venture funding, has a board, and a previous chief executive independent of Paltrow who departed and then returned to the company. Apple isn't any more a sub-section of Steve Jobs' page than Goop is a sub-section of Gwyneth Paltrow's page. A more appropriate analog, though, would be Martha Stewart (the person) and Martha Stewart Omnimedia (the lifestyle company).
The fact that the sources are largely negative is, I suppose, the nature of the company. It is a controversial company that advocates for things that are defined in Wikipedia as being controversial. In writing the article, I looked long and hard for sources and this is what I found. The only things I found that were not critical of the company had to do with the previous CEO, a new round of venture funding, and the moving of the company from New York to Los Angeles. If you have any additional material, I welcome it.
In citing the sources, I was very careful and very selective. Too many articles simply refer to other articles, rehashes that say the same thing. I found original sources and noted, in almost every case, that it was reported by multiple media outlets, making it not only newsworthy but worthy enough to note in Wikipedia. Rburriel ( talk) 04:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's a link to the archive of the discussion we had on Talk:Gwyneth Paltrow about Goop and its critics. /info/en/?search=Talk:Gwyneth_Paltrow/Archive_1#Is_Gwyneth_Paltrow_Wrong_About_Everything.3F
I thought that a discussion of Goop and its critics met all the WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT requirements to belong on the Gwyneth Paltrow page, but 2 editors (who outnumbered me) kept deleting it. I'm glad to see a separate page about Goop with the controversy, but I think that WP:NPOV requires at least a paragraph of criticism on the Gwyneth Paltrow page. Separate pages on controversies usually get a hundredth of the views that the original page gets, and they arguably violate WP:POVFORK.
I think we should keep the Goop (company) page, but add a summary of criticism to the Gwyneth Paltrow page. I would do it myself, but not if the Gwyneth Paltrow editors keep owning the page and deleting all criticism. -- Nbauman ( talk) 17:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
One of the sources has been formatted as if it was from Goop in the article (using the cite web parameter website=Goop), but instead was from cancer.org and didn't mention Goop or Paltrow at all. In addition to this, a source used to cite "Some have characterized Goop's claims as "ludicrous and tantamount to fraud"." only discusses an expert invited onto Goop, not Goop itself. I have removed these from this article because I think this use does not meet WP:SYNTH. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 04:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: Hi. I recently added some information about awards, and the edit was reverted as "PR stuff". The statement was properly sourced, to the best of my knowledge, so I don't quite understand the issue here. Please correct me if I am wrong with my approach? Thank you. 50.97.66.163 ( talk) 07:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: @ Hob Gadling:Thanks for your help with this. Trying to understand why a source written by the subject himself is considered valid? Also, his statements focus on celebrities like Paltrow and their ridiculous claims, but don't directly involve goop. Choosing a title after the founder makes it relevant, but still a stretch, I think. 169.54.92.150 ( talk) 07:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ 122.108.141.214:. Your addition to the criticism section is simply stating a fact, and written as is is probably more relevant (if anywhere) in the history section. You did not state who criticized goop for inviting her- but are criticizing them yourself. 69.147.228.98 ( talk) 06:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: Sorry to bother you. The changes I made were in the general structure alone, and I didn't remove any material or citations, unless I missed one? Did this somehow damage the page, as I see that you reverted. Thanks! 69.147.228.3 ( talk) 06:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ 122.108.141.214:. Thanks for helping me out with the new section! Just wanted to ask about the latest edit, where you removed the Dr.s from the goop wellness piece. Were the references problematic? Seeing as the criticism section often cites doctors and other experts who have an issue with the company or its products, I would assume that a mention of those who helped develop said products would be relevant to the page as well? Thanks again! 192.119.165.188 ( talk) 09:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The 1997 paper by Ernst is not relevant to this article because this article is about Goop, not 'all the safety concerns to do with everything-wellness-related that has been criticised on Goop'. The Ernst paper predates Goop by a decade and discusses the safety of colonic irrigation (broadly construed) without reference to Paltrow or Goop, and the Ars Technica article adequately discusses the claims, with a link to the 1997 paper. Additionally, there is a wikilink to coffee enemas in the article, and the 1997 paper has been added to the coffee enema article. Retaining the paper in the article in addition to the Ars Technica link makes the article look biased and like a WP:COATRACK. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 01:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand why it is vital that an article that does not mention Goop at all be included in this article to support the medical claims. The article could be several times its present length if MEDRS-compliant sources were required to debunk each of the criticised claims or items sold by Goop. I do not appreciate the accusation that I am "attempting to suppress sourcing", particularly as I have actually added the 1997 source to the coffee enema article, where it belongs, and improved it to link to its doi, the author's biography, etc. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 06:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Thank you, @ François Robere:. @ Jytdog:, I propose to remove the 1997 Ernst source from this article, as it solely describes whether coffee enemas are safe rather than Goop being criticised for endorsing the practice. Please let me know if you intend to seek out further dispute resolution. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can see you have no experience dealing with...is an appeal to ethos, which is by definition ad hominem (and an ignorant one at that). You did not comment on the substance of my opinion, nor did you contradict any of my claims. François Robere ( talk) 23:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad it's not just me copping the personal attacks from Jytdog. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 01:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
And Ernst is used on the coffee enemas page, as a historical note, because I added him. Ernst is not relevant here on the article for Goop, the business which has promoted coffee enemas. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 01:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that some editors want this article to echo the marketing from Goop, in violation of WP:SOAP, and WP:POV. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
There was never any suggestion of removing the caveats against coffee enemas, only removing the irrelevant source from 1997. The ars technica source uses the 1997 source to faithfully describe the dangers of the practice and directly discusses Goops promotion of the practice. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 11:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
...makes the entire article look unreliable.Comments like that strongly suggest that there are outside factors driving this and it's long past time to move on. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Bishonen: Hi, I am wondering what the status is with the criticism section. Should other editors begin unraveling it as well, or is it going to stay as-is? You cited WP:NOCRIT and began moving information upwards on the page, but stopped. For consistency's sake, should all criticisms not be incorporated into the main article, or all be listed in the designated section? Thanks. 69.147.228.12 ( talk) 07:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi 122.108.141.214. You just reverted an edit saying "not an improvement." For educational purposes, do you mind elaborating? I was merely continuing a process which had been started previously, and also removed a quote from Goop that did not fit the general flow of the article. Perhaps it should be relocated instead of removed, then? Would be glad to hear your thoughts about this. Thanks. 69.147.228.66 ( talk) 09:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Irregardless of whether the criticised health claims are still up, the fact that goop is seeking to hire lawyers and science people to vet the claims is still important. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 21:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon:, please stop edit warring and removing reliably-sourced information about Goop's hiring decisions. It's unreasonable of you to say that because Goop has not retracted all the articles on the site that it is irrelevant that Goop has hired a lawyer. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 23:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Added California case settlement for unsubstantiated health claims. David notMD ( talk) 16:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Elise Loehnen's influence on Goop becoming "weirder" is discussed at length in https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/magazine/big-business-gwyneth-paltrow-wellness.html , and is not discussed at all in http://www.latimes.com/fashion/la-ig-wwd-goop-expansion-20180207-story.html. -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 10:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 10:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I see that the short description has been changed a number of times recently and I wanted to open up a discussion to see if we could come to some consensus. The description has been written as "Lifestyle brand owned by Gwyneth Paltrow" and "Lifestyle brand which promotes untested "alternative health" products". The short description is a relatively new and exciting addition to Wikipedia and there are explicit guidelines which include (among many other things) that the content should
I've brought the issue to the talk page because I believe the short description on the page currently is controversial and judgemental and we need to come to consensus on this issue. Thank you 154.84.136.170 ( talk) 07:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is that the short description for Goob be "lifestyle brand".
What should the short description for Goop be? I think it should say "Lifestyle brand" but Roxy, the dog. disagrees. I'd appreciate more input! Thanks! Beachlifedreamin ( talk) 08:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC) 08:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
As has been established in the section above, there are good reasons for "Lifestyle brand which promotes untested "alternative health" products" (but, as Roxy said, Beachlifedreamin didn't hear them). The dubiousness of some products is an important part of what reliable sources say about Goop. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Avoid anything that is, or could reasonably be construed as, controversial or judgemental. Use universally accepted facts wherever possible.I think that proposed description would be very readily construed as judgemental by most readers. Colin M ( talk) 21:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
“Lifestyle brand” seems the NPOV way to go. It is after all a short description. The lead covers the controversial aspects pretty quickly, so I doubt anyone will feel we let them down by not having a more robust description. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 03:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Beachlifedreamin removed the RfC template today saying "consensus reached for Lifestyle brand".
User:Roxy the dog has been reverting attempts to change the shortdesc to "Lifestyle brand", saying the RfC hasn't been closed. Roxy, I think Beachlifedreamin's actions amount to an informal close (per
WP:RFCEND: If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable
). If you disagree with their close, I think the appropriate action would be, per
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, to first discuss the close with them on their talk page. If you still can't reach consensus, you can request review from an admin. FWIW, I agree with Beachlife's reading of consensus here. 100% of uninvolved editors who expressed an opinion supported "Lifestyle brand". DGG was even prepared to close in favour of "Lifestyle brand" a week ago - since then, there's only been more support for that option. The RfC has been allowed to run for well over a month. I think the close was appropriate (even though Beachlife is involved) given the obviousness of consensus.
Colin M (
talk) 17:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering why we are describing Goop as a natural health company in the first sentence? The company is most frequently referred to as some combination of: wellness, lifestyle, health and brand.
I haven't seen it described as a natural health company anywhere, and perhaps more importantly I haven't seen any reliable third party sources associate the company with naturopathy, which is linked here in the first sentence.
Would it make sense instead to follow the external sources and go with "Goop is a wellness and lifestyle company founded by actress Gwyneth Paltrow" ?
Here are the first reliable sources I found quickly:
Forbes [1] - "Over the years, Goop transformed into a lifestyle wellness brand whose products (...)"
CNBC [2] - "Gwyneth Paltrow’s famous lifestyle brand Goop is about to hit Sephora stores (...)"
CNN [3] - "Goop, for the uninitiated, is actress Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle content and retail brand which was valued at an estimated $250 million in 2018."
BBC [4] - "The controversial lifestyle brand founded by Oscar-winning actress Gwyneth Paltrow has opened its first UK store." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSLEEVEmonkey ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Most of this article reads like either an advertisement, or as paid propaganda for this convicted corporation infamous for medical fraud and fraudulent medical claims. [1] [2] Is it really appropriate to have it written like this? Enginstudent24 ( talk) 22:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
References
Please 103.166.150.50 ( talk) 02:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)