Talk:Goop (company)

Collaboration with Covetton House

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)

Merge with Gwyneth Paltrow?

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)

I disagree. The company is getting substantial coverage in reliable sources, and meets WP:GNG. true, because of Paltrow's status with the company, she's constantly mentioned in conjunction with it, but the founder and the company are distinct entities. TJRC (talk) 00:15, 19 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)

Goop WP:RSs

Here's a link to the archive of the discussion we had on Talk:Gwyneth Paltrow about Goop and its critics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Agreed! It is already on my long list of things to do. RobP (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Done. Check it out. RobP (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

SYNTH problems

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)

"PR" material

@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)

yes this is PR stuff, sourced to the primary source of the award. Not particularly encyclopedic. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought appropriate sources are third-party articles? Does this refer only to articles in the press, and not primary sources? Thanks for your response! 169.45.136.212 (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources were not third party - they were both from the awarding organization. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. So if the awards had been reported by an unrelated third party- that would be the correct type of source? Good info. Thanks for clarifying.169.45.136.213 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Timothy Caulfield Criticism

@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)

Ah, now I get it what your problem is. Well, Caulfield is not the subject, Goop is the subject and Caulfield is the source. I guess we should replace the "published a book" part by "wrote". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean? In the section above, "PR" material, Jytdog explained that a source is not considered third party if they are in any way involved- the awards were awarded to goop, but the awarding party is close enough to the subject that the sources were questionable. This seems like a similar case? As for the possible COI, the editor's other edits were pretty focused on that Timothy guy. 69.147.228.4 (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

"The editor"? Who is that? How is one case, whatever it is, similar to another case, whatever that is? Why do you give the other users here the job of finding out what you could mean, instead of just saying what you mean? Why should everybody repeat the research work you did? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Now I had more time to look into the matter. The COI accusation seems to refer to User:Robincantin. But I can see no sign of any COI. Robincantin edited one article, then other articles connected to the first one. This is business as usual. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Working to figure out how NPOV works and why some pages seem to be so susceptible to what appear to be biased or particularly critical edits. My earlier question was as follows: the addition of 2 awards won by goop's products was reverted, because the source cited was from the awarding organization itself (in this case, Allure). @Jytdog: explained that a source is not 3rd party if any of the discussed subjects are directly related to it. In this case, Timothy Caulfield is mentioned in the edit, and is the author of the source as well, which would mean that the source is not 3rd party, is that not correct? Obviously, there will be other sources online that support the addition to the criticism section, but my question is about the specific one that was used. Thanks for your time, and I hope this was more clear.69.147.228.3 (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

He is mentioned in the edit because he is the source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, you will notice that the other things listed there do the same. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: @Hob Gadling: Hello! Not sure how primary source concerns apply here - the references are used to established that Caulfield wrote a book about Goop (in part); if Caulfield himself said he wrote such a book but we couldn't find an independent source to confirm he did, that would certainly be problematic. Thus I supported the statement with two sources - one from The Telegraph's Celia Walden, the other from an op-ed in the Globe and Mail from Caulfield himself. The concern the reference is to a self-promotion piece (by Caulfield, published by the Globe and Mail) bothers me a little more. Although I think it's okay, I can certainly substitute it for a second news report. The book has been widely reviewed and discussed in the media. Robincantin (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, @Hob Gadling:, @Robincantin: Got it, thanks! And thanks for the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV reference, it was very helpful. Since this page seems to get a lot of attention, I'm going to continue to follow it to gain a greater understanding of these issues. I'm sure we'll meet here again. :) 69.147.228.2 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Kelly Brogan Criticism

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: Thanks for working on this!

History Rework

@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)

Puffery

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)

I don't think the references used were reliable, and the inclusion of the doctors read like promotional material and namedropping. In contrast, we describe Jen Gunter's expertise when we mention her, cited to reliable, third-party sources. Please read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy for further guidance. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Relevant

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)

It has a section directly on coffee enemas, which the bullet is about. This supports the content "despite a lack of scientific evidence to their efficacy and in spite of evidence of coffee enemas' potential danger". It directly supports that. We do not describe pseudoscience without describing reality next to it. Wikipedia is indeed biased... toward reality. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The potential danger is adequately discussed in the Ars Technica article. It is overkill and a coatrack to insist on using the 1997 paper as well. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ars is not a medical journal; this is much stronger. Let's see what others say but you are very unlikely to find support in Wikipedia; this is a health and pseudoscience matter. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ars faithfully repeats the journal article, and directly relates the coffee enema to Goop - the safety of the coffee enema is not the main topic of this article. I do not appreciate your suggestion that I am trying to violate PSCI, nor your comment that "Wikipedia is indeed biased... toward reality." You have been confusing me with the other IP hopping editor who has been editing this page. The Gwyneth Paltrow page has had issues before as it was overstuffed with citations that didn't actually support the arguments in the Wikipedia article. The inclusion of a journal article that predates Goop by a decade repeats this error. I have restored the discussion link to facilitate the discussion.--122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:12, 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)

Yes I know you don't understand.

I am waiting for others to weigh in. Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I would consider it a sign of good faith if you were to restore the relevance tag to the citation, as a compromise. This could attract more eyeballs and facilitate the discussion. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

A source is relevant to a subject despite its age if it still describes reality to the best of scientific knowledge. Assuming the Ernst source does so, it can certainly be included in most articles about "detoxifying enemas" regardless of whether it mentions a specific method or instrument. However, the sentence in question is not about enemas, but about "Goop" promoting questionable products. The sources should first and foremost address that fact, rather than ancillary questions like "why is the product questionable". The Ernst source doesn't address the former, suggesting it is out of place. Furthermore, as the Ars source (which adequately addresses both questions) already mentions the Ernst article, attaching it on its own is redundant, and gives undue weight to a single source. The Ernst source should be removed. Worries about sourcing can be resolved by quoting any of a number of reliable sources on the matter.[1][2][3][4] François Robere (talk) 17:12, 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)

Tnanks Fracois. I do not accept your judgement but thanks for your time. As far as I can see you have no experience dealing with PSCI/fringe issues. The fact that you are citing popular media for health claims also shows that you do not understand how we edit about health in Wikipedia about health. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

So now what, @Jytdog:? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's ask for input at WP:FRINGEN, shall we? That is where people hang out who are experienced in dealing with these issues. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I may become time-limited towards the end of the week due to a personal commitment and I will be afk for a few days. I was not expecting this, viewing it as a simple edit because the 1997 paper is irrelevant to the article on Goop and makes the Wikipedia article look biased (by using irrelevant sources to drill it in that Goop is wrong). Nonetheless, if FRINGEN is the place to go, then let's do so. Please frame the dispute in a neutral manner. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

But this article isn't about health, it's about commerce: "Unhealthy product X" is about health; "company selling unhealthy product X" is about commerce, marketing and corporate practice. François Robere (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly my point - having to add medical-quality sources to debunk all of Goop's criticised "wellness" advice could create a very long WP:COATRACK. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, while I appreciate a good ad hominem as much as anyone (well, not really), it doesn't actually address the issue. François Robere (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Commenting on the quality of the opinion offered, is not ad hominem. I didn't call you "ugly" or the like which would be. Your opinion displays no awareness of MEDRS, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, or WP:PARITY which are the relevant policies/guidleines. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 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 did. The sources you brought are popular media and not what we need and you didn't mention or employ any of the relevant policies and guidelines. People's handwaving opinions have no value anywhere in WP. I will not be replying further to you here. Again thanks for wanting to be helpful. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't. I argued the source is both irrelevant and redundant; you contradicted neither claim, instead focusing on ad hominems and tangents. On another page you went so far as to state that WP:MEDRS has nothing to do with the medical practice. This, indeed, is one of the stupidest things I have seen anywhere on Wikipedia, and that includes articles like University of Metaphysics and synthol - both of which I've edited. That's some feat! François Robere (talk) 01:17, 9 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)

Focusing on content is how to resolve content disputes.

Myself, I see the additional ref as a supporting footnote, emphasizing the most important aspect. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

NFRINGE input

• input requested at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Goop_(company) Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ernst is perfectly acceptable to use to debunk the wellness crap that Gwyn pushes. She is making health claims so MEDRS applies there. The claims are wildly FRINGE and PSCI applies. What is the problem? She isn't special and we shouldn't make any exception because we like her thespian ability, which incidentally does not make her a "wellness expert." We should treat Goop like all the other quackery that we cover. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Roxy, why does the Goop article need to debunk Goop's claims with unrelated sources, rather than addressing them in full in the articles devoted to these fringe practices? I am concerned that debunking each of Goop's claims with unrelated MEDRS sources will turn the article into a COATRACK.--122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

We are required by policy already noted here to provide the mainstream scientific view to notable nonsense claims that Goop/Gwyn makes. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to remove the mainstream scientific view, just the source which predates Goop by a decade. The mainstream scientific view is repeated faithfully in the Ars Technica article. Where has this policy and WP:COATRACK interacted before? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ernst is a perfectly acceptable source for dealing with the bollocks that is coffee enemas. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:58, 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)

That would be daft. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have occasionally used primary sources in this article, but that has seemed to be wanted at times (see the August conversation on Talk:Gwyneth Paltrow, and "G.P." being the origin of "Goop"). I have added "company-ish" kinds of information to balance and provide context to the extensive criticism section in August, but also later criticisms as well (the invitation to Kelly Brogan, recently). When an IP editor from America recently rewrote the history section to be excessively promotional, Jytdog reverted it to a version that is still very similar to what I wrote. I have also reduced the promotional language in the "Brands and products" section. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Goop has a strong marketing campaign, and a strong client base with plenty of cash that will buy snakeoil (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/defense-of-gwyneth-paltrows-goop-offers-case-study-on-how-to-sell-snake-oil/). Let's not fall for their marketing, nor ignore the fact that Goop's client base is extremely sought after by the media. This makes it all the more important to remember that primary sources should be used with care, especially if not providing additional information already brought up in clearly independent, reliable sources. Emphasis should be on areas of notability that are clearly encyclopedic in nature, as well as historical context. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's been difficult. There's just been such an industry around 'responding to Goop', since the start if you deep-dive into older news articles, when the stories were 'eat like Gwyneth for a week' type articles, and 'Goop is such a silly name!' and 'gold-plated vibrators???'. The criticism section largely focuses on the more recent wellness criticisms. I think that if the article had been created in 2010, it would have a fuller discussion of these earlier 'lol, Goop' criticisms.

This article points out that Goop-debunking has become a sport as Goop has gone into 'wellness', and the other Vox article I've been citing points out that the more you knock Goop down, the stronger they seem to become. When I found Paltrow's article, it had gone too far, because it attributed to Paltrow and Goop what had been said about one of her guests, making the article inaccurate and like it belonged on the Criticisms of Wikipedia page. The whole Goop article could definitely use more work, in addition to the 1997 Ernst paper being removed as it is irrelevant. I'm happy with my recent introduction of analysis of Goop's response to criticism - it's relevant, encyclopedic and reliably-sourced. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The "two-sides" perspective that you seem to work from is for slow news cycles and sloppy news reporting, not an encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You pointed out the sloppy news reporting, and I was continuing on your theme. So how could the article be improved to become more encyclopedic, then? Using a source from 1997 with no relevance to Goop makes the entire article look unreliable. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• If we need to mention coffee enemas, we need to mention that they're ineffective quackery. Pretty much any source would do for this necessary mainstream context, and since this rational view is obvious and long-settled, it wouldn't surprise me if sources are older since there's no need for sensible people to keep restating the obvious! Alexbrn (talk) 07:30, 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)

Despite posting many words (approuching WP:BLUDGEONing IMO), 122.108.141.214 has convinced exactly zero editors. I move that we collapse and archive this section with an appropriate closing summary. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the main reason I've been trying to convince people is that Jytdog made several personal attacks and presumptions about my motives. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope, i described behavior, not motives. am very careful about that actually. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism Section

@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)

@69.147.228.12: We should remove the criticism section according to WP:POV and WP:NOCRIT.  Anchorvale ^T@lk  07:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly in favor of integrating as much as possible of the information from the criticism ghetto to where it would appropriately belong in the article. It's quite an undertaking, though, and not easy to do properly, retaining references and flow. I'm simply not up for doing it myself because I don't have the time. That's the reason I've only moved up the mention of Kelly Brogan, after an IP had updated the info about the January 2018 "Goop Health Summit", which created a suitable place for Brogan to go.[5] Also I've added a long overdue brief paragraph about criticism to the lead section. Anybody who wants to have a shot at upmerging more of the criticism section is most welcome to do it AFAIC. As for consistency of placement, I don't see that as a major concern. Anchorvale, I don't think it works to ping IPs; they just have to keep a lookout. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC).

Thanks Anchorvale ^T@lk  09:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I misremembered about the lead section, there already was a criticism paragraph. I merely fattened it up a little, for better balance with the first paragraph, which is detailed with quotes/slogans to the point of promotion (as is so much of this article).[6] Bishonen | talk 09:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC).

I totally disagree with what you have started. As it says, WP:NOCRIT "is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Even that being said, that essay itself says in its "Criticism" section: "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location."

Personally, when I read such an article, it is helpful to see this type of material in one place rather than have to hunt for it among other general, historical, positive information. A section detailing the consensus of the scientific and medical community regarding this company selling (sometimes dangerous) snake oil as a trend seems appropriate and the better way to go, rather than effectively burring that information. RobP (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Not an improvement"

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)

I think you made too many changes all together in one edit, and it was difficult for me to work out what had changed from the side-by-side comparison. Additionally, the lead section should summarise the body rather than having commentary moved to the lead from the body. I'd rather have the original research commentary on 'why the disclaimer' sourced, ideally to something Goop-specific - perhaps Jytdog or someone could help with this. I know you were trying to do this as part of the push above to put more in the history section, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to put the big ticket criticisms of Goop (like vaginal steaming) as part of the history section. With the new "Goop science team" coming, it's probably useful to keep information on the disclaimers as part of Goop's continuing wellness business, particularly as they've just labelled some things as "For Your Enjoyment". --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I will look into it a bit more, and may attempt some smaller edits if I can figure out a way to better organize my thoughts. Commentary in general usually doesn't have a place on a wiki page though- I think the neutral, factual criticisms are prevalent and clear, is there a need for additional implications? At the same time, this page still seems a bit piecemeal... I think it could be better. Just not quite sure how yet.69.147.228.3 (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)