Talk:Gwyneth Paltrow

Goop considered harmful?

I requested a citation for the claim "Paltrow has recieved severe criticism from the scientific community and medical professionals for promoting harmful treatments based on pseudoscience through her company Goop."

I am not sure whether this adheres to rules about the biographies of living people. It seems to me tantamount to accusing her of causing medical harm without any proof. It also isn't clear to me that the criticism has come from the "scientific community" rather than a fairly limited set of people. I'm not convinced the criticism is notable enough to belong in this summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewhepp (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

After reading more BLP rules, I feel pretty confident deleting the line in question. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewhepp (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right; I think it can be rewritten to reflect the gravity of their claims. Will be updating to make this more direct. Dmarquard (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it fair to label Gwyneth Paltrow as a pseudoscience purveyor?

I have received a great deal of opposition from editors here regarding attempted updates to this person's article. I have been accused of being unconstructive, defamatory, and engaging in vandalism, all for editing the article's intro sentence to include mention of her (highly lucrative and well documented) career as a pseudoscience purveyor. I find this troubling given the widespread awareness of her activities by those familiar with the subject who lack personal conflicts of interest. Because the activities in question are directly related to health and wellbeing, it is of importance that the general public is made aware of the dubious nature of her claims. Failure to properly describe her for what she is therefore poses a real threat to public wellbeing. While it may not be the best sounding title, especially next to "actor, businesswomen, and author", it nonetheless is accurate and necessary. This edit would in no way detract from the immense body of legitimate, laudable work that comprises the rest of her career(s). It does, however, offer a more well rounded and correct view of this individual, while also serving to protect uninformed members of the public who might otherwise be liable to fall victim to her pseudoscientific claims, and who might spend money on her extensive line of snake oil products.

I welcome any conflicting points of view, and am open to changes in stance if presented with substantial contradictory evidence. In the absence of such contradictions, however, I insist on the edit remaining. As stated earlier, it's a public service.

Respectfully, Stardig (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

See Goop. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Might be appropriate in the body, but probably not in the lead the way it is written now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

First, you inserted "pseudoscientist". Although she sells pseudoscientific crap, supported by pseudoscientists, she does not herself claim to be a scientist, so that is the wrong word. Also, you checked "This is a minor edit", which is reserved for typos, punctuation, linkfixes, and other tiny improvements that do not really change the article. That was wrong.

Then you tried to force your edit into the article by edit-warring. That was really, really wrong. You should have come here instead. See WP:BRD. You should not be surprised that you encounter opposition.

At least, now you are here. You will find that many editors here are sympathetic to your cause - some of those who reverted your edits, as well as me - but the way you are implementing it needs improvement.

The last insertion, as it is, is a bad idea since the lede already mentions the pseudoscience part further down. The lede is supposed to summarize the article and does not need to be sourced. (The part part further down in the lede also contains sources, but it should not.)

Yes, the article and the lede should contain that sort of criticism, but... both already do. Why do you think it is not enough? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling has said it better than I ever could. Also, Stardig, you're new here and you should avoid reverting an experienced editor; you should never, for any reason accuse experienced editors of wrong-doing. Your ineptitude blinds you and we shall not long tolerate this sort of behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I will readily admit that the procedures and customs of editing Wikipedia articles are entirely alien to me, as today is my first day attempting to do so. Thank you for providing informative resources and thank you for your patience. I had no intention of subverting your customs. I’m a little offput, however, by your decision to list my grievances here and speak in the condescending manner you chose to. I understand that you feel like you have quite a bit of authority here, but talking down to newcomers doesn’t reflect well on you or on this community.

Anyways, I agree that "pseudoscientist" was a suboptimal term, as Materialscientist pointed out, which is why I updated it. Additionally, the only reason my more recent submission was sourced was because a previous edit had been removed due to being "unreferenced".

I feel that it is just as appropriate to include "pseudoscience purveyor" as a title of hers as it is "actor, businesswomen, and writer”. This is because of the significant scale and impact of her activities as a pseudoscience purveyor, and because I feel the first sentence should offer the reader a more fully encompassing glimpse into who she is. It is, after all, an intrinsic part of her identity at this point. She founded the Goop company, stands by its claims, and continues to profit immensely from it. This is no small thing, and deserves a greater degree of attention than is currently afforded.

The latter portion of the lede which mentions her involvement with pseudoscience could reinforce the first sentence’s mention, just as the other portions of the lede reinforce the other titles mentioned in the intro sentence without being redundant.

To Chris Troutman, to what accusations do you refer? Please be specific, because all I did was point out that my edits were removed for being unconstructive, defamatory, or constituting vandalism – and the fact that such accusations are very plainly false. And for the record, you, too, reek of condescension. Look at the way you're attempting to intimidate me into "staying in my place" in your silly little editor club hierarchy. Your childish threats amuse me. Wikipedia editors have quite the reputation on the internet, and you seem to absolutely live up to many of the worst stereotypes. Don't be a power tripping weirdo.

Stardig (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Science Moms

I do not think this deletion is justified. "industry-backed advocacy group" is just self-serving bullshit, and "condescend to women" is nonsense, as they are actual women. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)