Talk:The Goop Lab

References

@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)

@Vistadan: @Rp2006: How about you discuss these formatting changes before either of you gets into a edit war? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course. I spent a lot of time improving the article with a better ref style and Vistadan changes it back without a season. Let's talk. RobP (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There will be no edit war from me. I made the changes necessary, Rp2006 undone those changes without a reason, I undone their revert with a reason for my changes in the summery. Vistadan 19:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vistadan: @Rp2006: I don't see any reason to make changes to what Rp2006 did. The R|ref system is valid and easier to read.Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vistadan:Your edit "reason" was: "The references are now next to the text they are a source for" That is not a reason. It is the result of your edit. It does not explain WHY you felt a need to put the references back to their original form when the format I spent the time to change it to is an approved form, and makes the article's code easier to read. Which is why it exists. I made the change while their were few refs before I added more. Explain why the way you like it is BETTER. RobP (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What other articles use the {{R|}} ref system?, because this is the first time i've seen it in use. You keep saying the {{R|}} ref system is also easier to read, but I disagree. It would make more sense to put the reference at the end of the referenced text then how it is now. Vistadan 19:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC) @Rp2006: The {{R|}} ref system is fine, I apologize for removing it, my mistake. Vistadan 19:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vistadan: @Rp2006:

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)

(Cleaned the previous up a bit so you don't have to edit it to see what I meant) Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 04:12, 13 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)

Agreed. Glad we could work that out! RobP (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Reorganize reception section

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)

That’s an interesting idea. I for one don’t think any true believers will be swayed by any contrary info, whatever the format. People on the fence are the most likely to be influenced one way or another by material in any WP article, so I’m not sure the format matters. So, my suggestion is to point to this section on the WikiProject Skepticism page (make a new section there) and ask for input from others. You could also copy the page to your sandbox, make the changes there, and THEN put the notice on WP Skepticism so a direct comparison can be made. RobP (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on the reception section in my sandbox. Does this make sense? Maybe User:Vistadan I could get your input too? Since my draft would rearrange stuff significantly, I just want to check in first. If there are no big objections, then I'd like to start putting it up. BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@BillyGoatsGruff2020: I don't see anything wrong with your reworked reception, it reads well and the different viewpoints don't seem so one-sided. Vistadan 16:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I added some sources and - I'm sorry - used the older referencing style. I couldn't figure out how to do the short style when the short citation didn't point to anything. Am I supposed to type {{R|<source name>}} in the text and then add the reference separately in the References section? Sorry! Thanks in advance for your patience and help! BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@BillyGoatsGruff2020: Yes, you use {{R|ref name}} and add the named reference to the "References" section {{Reflist}}. Thanks! – Vistadan 11:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Credit where it's due

The pic we use to illustrate the article is hilarious. well done. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Seriously. And it's straight up the promotion. The series is, like, meta-hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Feminist Perspective on Goop Labs

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)

Hi. Please create a named account so we can discuss this properly. As a feminist, I believe you're raising an important issue. (Even if I detect some lack of respect.) I have mixed feelings about claims that our thinking is infected with some kind of "false consciousness." On the one hand, it's a free-for-all to substitute anything in place of our false consciousness. Like, maybe we should all wear pink slippers and worship a comet because up till now our thinking has been controlled by the dictates of evolutionary pressures and the patriarchy and markets and whatever. On the other hand, humanity does have "false consciousness" ... which is why we need science... How about we include this NYT article - it is a respected source - and we to be allies who may respectfully disagree instead of having a war? BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The article currently includes a paragraph with opinions from Elisa Albert and Jennifer Block. I almost removed it as ridiculous apologetics, but considering that the rest of the article meets WP:PSCI, have left it. While they cannot be considered a reliable source for anything but their personal opinion, and cannot speak for feminists in general (they don't all support quackery and pseudoscience), since it's attributed as their opinion it may be acceptable. Nonetheless, the arguments presented are fallacious. You'll find plenty of feminists criticizing vagina steaming, and it's not because they're white men, capitalists or "affraid of Goop". —PaleoNeonate – 03:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Cast List

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

I'd be very happy to go with any emerging consensus on this, but I think I have set the base-line from where we should start. I would encourage any interested editers to have at it. Best. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

May be my OCD talking, but when it's possible, I like things to be comprehensive. And I don't see why not here. So what if they don't have Wikipedia pages? They were still in the series. Vistadan, Rob What do you think? BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Of what value is a list of nobodys? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So, I agree that nobodies shouldn't have Wikipedia entries, but once some nobodies becomes relevant to something that is notable, then they warrant inclusion. That's how I understand the Wikipedia policy anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_articles_or_lists. Anyway, calling it a cast list and then including only a couple of the people in the actual cast just isn't factually accurate.BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I made an edit to the cast list correcting the spacing and hyphens, so the names that were added are fine by me. Vistadan 17:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So, I'll revert the deletion because including the list is in keeping with the policy I linked above and it's more factually accurate.BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

And I'll change it back until a consensus has been achieved. Simples. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

How much consensus do we need? It's now 2 in favor of the long list (plus whoever put it up) and just you against.BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 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)

I always find it fascinating how things ebb and flow in this situation. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 22:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. jps, thanks for pointing me to WP:LISTBIO. I'd still rather err on the side of too much information, but this makes sense to me.BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have had editors arguing with me citing the same WP:LISTBIO concerning a list in an article (not a stand alone list) to say either that everyone should be listed or that only those with articles should be. As usual, WP's rules are clear as mud. RobP (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the policies aren't necessarily clear as written (perhaps intentionally), but in this situation I think we should worry that we might end up identifying living people on Wikipedia as cast members of this show with no other mention anywhere else. This kind of publicity can really stick and given the controversial nature of this show, I think it best we don't get too inclusion-happy and stick closer to ideals of WP:N. WP:FRINGEBLPs are delicate things and I worry that if the only thing we can identify someone as in Wikipedia is as a cast member of Goop, we run the risk of having Wikipedia act either unintentionally as a WP:SOAP or an WP:ATTACKPAGE. Either way, it's no good. jps (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Expert(?) bios

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)

Unnecessary. If the “experts” are WP notable, their names can be linked to their WP bios, and that is sufficient. RobP (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

What about the ones who aren't WP notable? On the one hand, they aren't notable enough to be on WP, so who cares? But on another hand, if we're dealing with this series, maybe they do warrant mention?BillyGoatsGruff2020 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Explain why please. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Editor notice

@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)

@Prinsgezinde: I feel the R| ref style User:Rp2006 is suggesting be used makes the text easier to read, especially for someone editing the page for the first time. He might not be justified in using an ascii art notice but I don’t know if there is another way to present this request, similar to the “use dmy format” suggestion? If so, that would be preferable. To be honest, since finding out about the R| ref format I’ve been using it almost exclusively.

As for changing the ref style, I know that is frowned upon but I feel that if you’ve done major work to a page, or re-written it you are justified in using the ref style you prefer, as long as you use it consistently.

If one is that obsessed with the ref style they can always return to the page occasionally and update any refs that don’t match that style.

in summary, I don’t think it’s a big deal. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

True enough. Like I said, I don't mind the ref style, I mind that Rp never discussed any of his changes and included a notice that implied a full consensus. If a consensus for it emerges here then that's all the better. Prinsgezinde (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

My "notice" implies nothing regarding how the article's structure was achieved. It is simply there to remind editors that the article's refs were now in fact restructured, and (unless that changed) it would be counterproductive to have refs in the other format injected and make it a mix (which is against WP policy). Again, why not have a simple banner in the comments which MAY avoid extra unnecessary work for editors to rectify inconsistencies. RobP (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Documentary series"

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)