This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Goop Lab 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 |
![]() | 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 |
@ Vistadan: The reference style I changed the article to use when it only had 4 refs before I added more is appropriate and preferred to reduce clutter and aid reuse. Leave it be. RobP ( talk) 19:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you really think that his paragraph is easier to read when editing the source
In the field of organic chemistry, a homologous series is a series of compounds with the same functional group and similar chemical properties in which the members of the series can be branched or unbranched. ref name="Ref1"> {Cite book|url= https://archive.org/details/chemistrycentral00brow/page/940%7Ctitle=Chemistry : the central science|last=1928-|first=Brown, (Theodore L. (Theodore Lawrence)|date=1991|publisher=Prentice Hall|others=LeMay, H. Eugene (Harold Eugene), 1940-, Bursten, Bruce Edward.|isbn=978-0-13-126202-7|edition=5th|location=Englewood Cliffs, NJ|pages= 940|oclc=21973767|url-access=registration}}</ref> This can be the length of a carbon chain, ref name="Ref1" /> for example in the straight-chained alkanes (paraffins), or it could be the number of monomers in a homopolymer such as amylose. ref name=Ref2> {Cite book|url= https://books.google.de/books?id=ZDkXBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA88%7Ctitle=Macromolecular Chemistry—8: Plenary and Main Lectures Presented at the International Symposium on Macromolecules Held in Helsinki, Finland, 2–7 July 1972|last=Saarela|first=K.|date=2013-10-22|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=978-1-4832-8025-7|location=|pages=88|language=en}}</ref>
versus this one?
In the field of organic chemistry, a homologous series is a series of compounds with the same functional group and similar chemical properties in which the members of the series can be branched or unbranched. {R|Ref1}} This can be the length of a carbon chain, {R|Ref1}} for example in the straight-chained alkanes (paraffins), or it could be the number of monomers in a homopolymer such as amylose {R|Ref2}} Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 19:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Vistadan: @ Rp2006: Glad we could come to a consensus. That's what the talk pages are for. Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 19:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Goop’s pseudoscience is a big problem. I’m worried though that this page is preaching to the choir. People who like Goop will read this and become more entrenched in their nonsense - this after all, confirms how much the mainstream isn’t open and receptive. So I think the whole thing needs to be less partisan. What if the reception section were reorganized by topic (instead of by source)? So instead of having half a dozen quotes randomly scattered throughout the page quipping that energy healing is crap, we could just have one clear statement, something like “Episode whatever features an energy healer. Numerous critics noted that energy healing has never been scientifically validated” and then footnote the reviews that make that criticism and also any relevant scientific sources. That’d be more in line with the neutral tone of Wikipedia, and it would be more useful for anyone who wants to understand what the specific problems in the series are, and it would be more likely to speak to people who think there could be validity in alternative quackery. What do you think? BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk) 13:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The pic we use to illustrate the article is hilarious. well done. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
As the realm of white males, it is no surprise that Wikipedia is pushing back on the alternative perspective Gwyneth Paltrow takes when it comes to understanding the more holistic and feminine approach to healing, health, and spiritual and physical well-being. A respected source like the New York Times needs to be considered, and included in this article. Perhaps Wikipedia should try a little harder to defy false consciousness and promote a broader and more expansive, feminine consciousness. 67.55.149.51 ( talk) 12:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought the long cast list was a welcome addition. Wikipedia isn't paper, and as we could see from the job titles, none of the participants who appeared in the series were experts qualified to properly assess their personal experiences and the inner truths they discovered in the goopy experiments. Roxy_the_dog said the list should include notable people only, which makes sense to me, but I'm not sure that's actually the standard. Maybe I'm cherry-picking, but when I searched for cast lists, I came up with this /info/en/?search=American_Vandal#Cast_and_characters, where many of the people listed don't have Wikipedia pages. So, I'd revert to the long cast list, and send my well-wishes to whoever wants to make public the full names and job titles of these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
In controversial situations like this, WP:LISTBIO is our guide. In general, it's not a good idea to start listing living people just because we can verify that they are members of a list when they are not otherwise notable. jps ( talk) 15:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Some weird promotional bios were put into the entry. User:McSly quickly got rid of them - thank you. But what if we had short, factual bios that gave readers some sense of the content in series? Maybe that would be redundant because there are already episode summaries. But personally, I'd be happy to have all of the "experts" in one neat list with their credentials (which look good in the case of Longo) or lack thereof (idk what kind of qualifications the "energy healer" could possibly have). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Vistadan: @ Wyatt Tyrone Smith: Alright, so since User:Rp2006 seems to want to engage in an edit war over it ( again), I'll start a proper discussion and try to form a consensus for his stance. He supports an editor notice to feature prominently at the top of the page for anyone trying to edit the article. Because it's almost impossible to link it here in its entirety, see the top of this edit or simply try to edit the article to view it.
Now, my problem with it is that he was the one who unilaterally changed the citation style and that this specific part was never discussed. He shouldn't have done this the first place per WP:CITEVAR, and the counter-arguments "Why don't you like my citation style" and "I spent a lot of time making this" are not very strong. Like I said in one of the edits, this citation style seems to have been accepted by other editors (after his edit war, note) so I'm not arguing against that change, but that doesn't mean there was ever a consensus for this editor notice. You'll note that virtually none of the bigger articles have these editor notices for a number of reasons. At most, I've seen single line comments like "Please establish consensus before changing this", not prominent top-of-the-page ASCII art notices.
For this reason, I'd like to get a consensus going here after all. I'm quite obviously personally against it myself because it falsely presents itself as an established consensus and/or 'official' policy and feels unnecessarily commanding to newcomers over what basically amounts to personal preference. What are your thoughts? Prinsgezinde ( talk) 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
In the lead it is called a documentary series. It is about a company and the CEO of that company is the executive producer. Can we call that just a film, then? I'd expect some independence for a documentary. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 07:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Goop Lab 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 |
![]() | 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 |
@ Vistadan: The reference style I changed the article to use when it only had 4 refs before I added more is appropriate and preferred to reduce clutter and aid reuse. Leave it be. RobP ( talk) 19:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you really think that his paragraph is easier to read when editing the source
In the field of organic chemistry, a homologous series is a series of compounds with the same functional group and similar chemical properties in which the members of the series can be branched or unbranched. ref name="Ref1"> {Cite book|url= https://archive.org/details/chemistrycentral00brow/page/940%7Ctitle=Chemistry : the central science|last=1928-|first=Brown, (Theodore L. (Theodore Lawrence)|date=1991|publisher=Prentice Hall|others=LeMay, H. Eugene (Harold Eugene), 1940-, Bursten, Bruce Edward.|isbn=978-0-13-126202-7|edition=5th|location=Englewood Cliffs, NJ|pages= 940|oclc=21973767|url-access=registration}}</ref> This can be the length of a carbon chain, ref name="Ref1" /> for example in the straight-chained alkanes (paraffins), or it could be the number of monomers in a homopolymer such as amylose. ref name=Ref2> {Cite book|url= https://books.google.de/books?id=ZDkXBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA88%7Ctitle=Macromolecular Chemistry—8: Plenary and Main Lectures Presented at the International Symposium on Macromolecules Held in Helsinki, Finland, 2–7 July 1972|last=Saarela|first=K.|date=2013-10-22|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=978-1-4832-8025-7|location=|pages=88|language=en}}</ref>
versus this one?
In the field of organic chemistry, a homologous series is a series of compounds with the same functional group and similar chemical properties in which the members of the series can be branched or unbranched. {R|Ref1}} This can be the length of a carbon chain, {R|Ref1}} for example in the straight-chained alkanes (paraffins), or it could be the number of monomers in a homopolymer such as amylose {R|Ref2}} Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 19:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Vistadan: @ Rp2006: Glad we could come to a consensus. That's what the talk pages are for. Wyatt Tyrone Smith ( talk) 19:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Goop’s pseudoscience is a big problem. I’m worried though that this page is preaching to the choir. People who like Goop will read this and become more entrenched in their nonsense - this after all, confirms how much the mainstream isn’t open and receptive. So I think the whole thing needs to be less partisan. What if the reception section were reorganized by topic (instead of by source)? So instead of having half a dozen quotes randomly scattered throughout the page quipping that energy healing is crap, we could just have one clear statement, something like “Episode whatever features an energy healer. Numerous critics noted that energy healing has never been scientifically validated” and then footnote the reviews that make that criticism and also any relevant scientific sources. That’d be more in line with the neutral tone of Wikipedia, and it would be more useful for anyone who wants to understand what the specific problems in the series are, and it would be more likely to speak to people who think there could be validity in alternative quackery. What do you think? BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk) 13:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The pic we use to illustrate the article is hilarious. well done. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
As the realm of white males, it is no surprise that Wikipedia is pushing back on the alternative perspective Gwyneth Paltrow takes when it comes to understanding the more holistic and feminine approach to healing, health, and spiritual and physical well-being. A respected source like the New York Times needs to be considered, and included in this article. Perhaps Wikipedia should try a little harder to defy false consciousness and promote a broader and more expansive, feminine consciousness. 67.55.149.51 ( talk) 12:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought the long cast list was a welcome addition. Wikipedia isn't paper, and as we could see from the job titles, none of the participants who appeared in the series were experts qualified to properly assess their personal experiences and the inner truths they discovered in the goopy experiments. Roxy_the_dog said the list should include notable people only, which makes sense to me, but I'm not sure that's actually the standard. Maybe I'm cherry-picking, but when I searched for cast lists, I came up with this /info/en/?search=American_Vandal#Cast_and_characters, where many of the people listed don't have Wikipedia pages. So, I'd revert to the long cast list, and send my well-wishes to whoever wants to make public the full names and job titles of these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
In controversial situations like this, WP:LISTBIO is our guide. In general, it's not a good idea to start listing living people just because we can verify that they are members of a list when they are not otherwise notable. jps ( talk) 15:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Some weird promotional bios were put into the entry. User:McSly quickly got rid of them - thank you. But what if we had short, factual bios that gave readers some sense of the content in series? Maybe that would be redundant because there are already episode summaries. But personally, I'd be happy to have all of the "experts" in one neat list with their credentials (which look good in the case of Longo) or lack thereof (idk what kind of qualifications the "energy healer" could possibly have). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyGoatsGruff2020 ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Vistadan: @ Wyatt Tyrone Smith: Alright, so since User:Rp2006 seems to want to engage in an edit war over it ( again), I'll start a proper discussion and try to form a consensus for his stance. He supports an editor notice to feature prominently at the top of the page for anyone trying to edit the article. Because it's almost impossible to link it here in its entirety, see the top of this edit or simply try to edit the article to view it.
Now, my problem with it is that he was the one who unilaterally changed the citation style and that this specific part was never discussed. He shouldn't have done this the first place per WP:CITEVAR, and the counter-arguments "Why don't you like my citation style" and "I spent a lot of time making this" are not very strong. Like I said in one of the edits, this citation style seems to have been accepted by other editors (after his edit war, note) so I'm not arguing against that change, but that doesn't mean there was ever a consensus for this editor notice. You'll note that virtually none of the bigger articles have these editor notices for a number of reasons. At most, I've seen single line comments like "Please establish consensus before changing this", not prominent top-of-the-page ASCII art notices.
For this reason, I'd like to get a consensus going here after all. I'm quite obviously personally against it myself because it falsely presents itself as an established consensus and/or 'official' policy and feels unnecessarily commanding to newcomers over what basically amounts to personal preference. What are your thoughts? Prinsgezinde ( talk) 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
In the lead it is called a documentary series. It is about a company and the CEO of that company is the executive producer. Can we call that just a film, then? I'd expect some independence for a documentary. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 07:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)