Talk:Gwyneth Paltrow/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

" Religion "

A question on Mrs Paltrow faith. If she pratice a faith what is it if anyone know ? I just find this stuff interesting those it is not that important.

She's called herself "Jewish" a few times, and says she celebrates some Jewish traditions. (see [1]) She's definitely not Quaker, though. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


It wouldn't matter if she considered herself a duck. Being Jewish is about declaring yourself Jewish (as Michael Richards found out). To be Jewish, comes from your maternal side, not the paternal side. If your mums a jew so are you. It's nice she embraces the culture but she's not Jewish by birth.

That is a good point, but lets say if her mother was not practicing at the time of Gwyneth's birth, then her fathers side, may of been taken over and raised in the jewish faith.

Whether her mother is Jewish is completely irrelevant, because "maternal inheritance" of Jewish status is a religious belief held by Orthodox Judaism, which she does not follow in the first place. By Reform Judaism (one of the largest denominations of Judaism in the world), she can be considered 100% Jewish, and she certainly has Jewish *ethnic* heritage.

She may "embrace the culture" but on the PBS show "Spain... on the road Again" she sure chowed down on the shell fish. Proxy User (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • She not is jew - jewish = son of jewish mother(and not father only); the fater is jew, because the mother not is a jew(is a dutch quaker). conclusion: she´s not a jewish!!!(jew = only mother jewish and not the father)!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.164.232 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

She is spritual. Also she practices Kabballah. Has been seeing the red string and has visited the Kabballah Centers and has been photographed leaving them. Her wearing the string --> http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/95924/original.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.80.103 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


            • she wear a kabbalah string and goes to the centers***** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.106.124 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Tufano" vandalism

Note that edits inserting supposed information about "Marc Tufano" are vandalism and should be reverted on sight. This has affected multiple articles (Robert De Niro, The Beatles, etc. etc.) -- Curps 18:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Fishsticks" nickname?

Anyone know how she got the nickname "Fishsticks"? people say because she is wet blanket a downer, snobby, and not fun to be around. Maybe she smells

Probable vandalism

I deleted a revision stating that Paltrow and Chris Martin have known each other since childhood. All of my research indicates Martin and Paltrow met for the first time backstage after a Coldplay concert.

Spanish

Does anyone know whe re she learned to speak perfect spanish with a slight madrid accent?

She was an exchange student in Spain while at high school, and still keeps in touch with her spanish "family".

September 27

Her birth certificate at Ancestry.com say she was born on Sept. 27th. That may well be considered original research, but Yahoo confirms that date as well. Mad Jack O'Lantern 07:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not original research. It says on WP:NOR "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. [...] This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." There is also a free version of the CABI here[2] for anyone that wants to check. --Fallout boy 23:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It may be original research because the certificate doesn't say it's the same Gwyneth Paltrow we are writing about. Us making that connection (however correctly, in this case, since there's really no doubt) is the original research part. But again, I won't tell if you won't. :) Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for info! :) Yuri7 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

–

For Goodness' sake, is it finally 27th or 28th of September?? I cannot be both.

According to AMG and Who2, her birthday is September 28. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.232.2 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah, but E! Online says 27th. Tabercil 12:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism... hobo murdering

I don't think this is true at all, but i found this trivia fact on paltrow's page. "Before beginning production for a new movie, she is known to murder a homeless man with a hammer. "

I doubt that considering how hard it can be to find hammer wielding hobos in New York. London, maybe, but not NY. <badum bum>


It was from a skit she did for Conan O'Brien's anniversary show. The original poster probably got it from a news outlet that took it seriously? Tabloids are known to do that a lot.

Birthday.

EVERY magazine article that I have read state that her birthday is in fact Sept. 28. Biography, Who2 and others also state this. ONLY yahoo movies and subsequently imdb.com states that it is on Sept. 27.

Warned and Sentenced?

Something should be said about the conviction for which her stalker was sentenced. It sounds like he was warned by the FBI and then sent off to a mental institution. Landroo 20:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I took out the hair color and Madonna "Trivia" as there is no evidence for that they are true. 84.166.181.120 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A perfect murder

In her statement to provide information on the assassin, she speaks with the detective in hebrew and later in arabic, What is the indication and what were said?Eyas Hajeh 14:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Weeded out the "Categories"

The categories had a lot of inaccuracies. I deleted the "singer" references; the vegan category (she's not; she eats chicken and fish); and the Jewish categories (Paltrow is a mixed-bag spiritualist like many in Hollywood. Though her father was Jewish -- and her mother Quaker -- and Paltrow sometimes includes her Jewish heritage in her family celebrations, she's not a Jew, and Judaism is certainly not the sole focus or extent of her spiritual practices. I don't think we can rightly call her a Jew by most anybody's definition). Likewise, I'm deleting the word "singer" in paragraph one of the article, until someone posts something in the body of the article about her singing. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here is a source that she practices both Judaism and christianity: http://profusion123.blogspot.com/2007/01/gwyneth-paltrow-celebrates-christian.html http://www.generationj.com/issues/jan_1/paltrow.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zivb2007 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, she's half-Jewish, which we already knew; and celebrates all kinds of spiritual holidays (she practices Yoga and all kinds of other new age spiritualities). I guess the question remains, does this qualify her to be listed as a Jewish actor? I really don't know, but I left your revert in; those who see her on the Jewish actor list can then verify her precise ethnicity and religion for themselves. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Blogs normally cannot be used as WP sources. See WP:RS. David Spector 22:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Natural hair color

Why is this information deleted? Is somehow harmful? —Guy Peters Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 15:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What was her natural hair color? Badagnani (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
What was her natural hair color? Badagnani (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


it is ash blond and can been seen in the movies flesh and bone and hook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.80.103 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

reversed vandalism. i wandered onto the page and it was one line. in any case, it was stupid, and i got rid of it. Caribouforyou (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

notability

"She is perhaps best known for her role in the [film] ... Iron Man"

This is an absurd statement. Iron Man, although commercially successful, only just came out a few months ago, and Paltrow's role was not significant by any reasonable standard. -69.47.186.70 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

There is a "vegetarian" category but this is not mentioned in the article. Badagnani (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In episode 3 of "Spain... on the road Again" she tells Mario Batali, "Clams and oysters I love." So she isn't a vegetarian--she's what some call a "pesco-vegetarian," which isn't an actual type of vegetarian. Badagnani (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
As well, she chowed down on the lobster and prawns (and I thought she was such a nice Jewish lady). Proxy User (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
See pescetarian for more detail, although she is not quite that either since she also eats free range poultry. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

She ate a lot of different types of seafood later in the same episode. "Pescetarian" is not a form of vegetarianism since fish and shellfish are not vegetables. Badagnani (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced categories

This article has been added to the categories Category:Ashkenazi Jews, Category:Russian-American Jews, and Category:Russian-Americans.[3] None of these claims appear to be sourced. Per WP:BLP, do not add them again without proper sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Douglas

Is there a relation between Paltrow and Douglas? I read Douglas helped her to get a college place at the University of California. Friend of the family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.211.120 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Gossip column stuff?

Paltrow lives in New York and Belsize Park in London, in a house bought from Kate Winslet.[42] She practices yoga daily, works out regularly with her personal trainer Tracy Anderson,[42] and used to follow a macrobiotic diet until the birth of her children. She told People in 2005 that, "I'm not as stringent as I was in the past. Now I'll have cheese once in a while or white flour, but I still believe in whole grains and no sugar."[47] Paltrow is friends with Madonna[48] and fashion designer Valentino.
In December 2006, Paltrow was reported on the Internet to have told Notícias Sábado, the weekend magazine supplement of Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias, that she thought British people were more civilized and intelligent than Americans.[49] Paltrow denied making the statements attributed to her and told People magazine that she never gave an interview to a Portuguese publication, but instead had tried to say in Spanish, during a press conference, that Europe was an "older culture" and Americans "live to work".[50] Diário de Notícias said in their 6 December 2006 edition that it had obtained the quotes from English-language articles that are still referenced online,[5][48] though Paltrow has insisted that she was misquoted, declaring in 2007: "I love America, and I'm an American through and through."[20]

The above seems extraneous. Any objections to cutting it? It seems more like trivia rather than encyclopedia information.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

CUT I say! --BwB (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded! Taward (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll cut it now. --BwB (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"Extraneous" is a very kind way of describing this material. I support the removal. Like most people, I'm pleased to learn that Paltrow is eating cheese again, albeit only "once in a while", but unless she makes a career out of cheese eating, we needn't report it here. Rossrs (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Country singer?

We have a recent addition to the lead that Paltrow is a "country singer". Since the vast bulk of her career has been an actress, and is most widely know for her acting career, is it appropriate to classify her as a "country singer" in the lead? --BwB (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Now we have gone from "country singer" to "singer". Is this still worth mentioning in the lead? --BwB (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed "singer" from the lead of the article. Perhaps others can justify why it should be included. --BwB (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Its because her song from the Country Strong soundtrack in on the radio. People assume she is realeasing a country album. In reality, she sung a couple songs for the soundtrack, sometimes teaming up with country stars like Tim Mcgraw, but she is not a singer and is not signed to any label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.10 (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree with this comment. --BwB (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do any of you have objection still to having singer added to the lead? After her performing at the Academy Awards and two Glee episodes I think it's only fair to add it. Amy Adams who is known as an actress is still listed as a singer in the lead due to her performance in Enchanted and like Paltrow, also performed at the Academy Awards. Anyone have any comments? DeadSend4 (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an objection. This isn't like with Katie Holmes. Paltrow has appeared in three Glee episodes, singing more songs than certain recurring Broadway legends, and is set to reappear in the series' third season. Most, if not all, guest stars on Glee, have to also go through a singing audition, and some don't even get to sing. She has also appeared in two motion pictures, and has had several songs chart on Billboard's Hot Country Songs chart. She's also been called a singer by Billboard, the CBC, E!, Entertainment Weekly, MTV News, The New York Times, Rolling Stone, TIME, and more. If people don't agree with "singer" maybe "occasional singer" could be used, but she is gaining attention in the music industry. Yves (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree to "occasional singer" with appropriate strong RS's. --BweeB (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

controversial statements

Is that section really appropriate for the biography of actor? I mean this "she once might have said something bad about America" seems to completely out of place to me. Imhp the whole section could/should be removed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Source on YouTube

Is this YouTube video a reliable source for the statement - "In 2010, she suffered a severe tibial plateau fracture, due to a vitamin D deficiency and osteopenia.[1]" --BwB (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Vitamin D Association Experts' Forum 2011 - Sunlight Robbery - the failure of UK policy on Vitamin D. Oliver Gillie PhD

Album appearances

Why is Cruisin' not listed in the album appearance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.50.88 (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of her surname

The lead says /ˈpɑːltroʊ/, but isn't it /ˈpæltroʊ/? I mean, the same vowel as in "cat" and "alley"? At least that's how most speakers pronounce it here, with just one speaker saying something like /ˈpɒltroʊ/ (which I guess would be rendered /ˈpɔːltroʊ/ under the system used on wiki).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard the latter pronounced most. I'm not sure which is correct, though. Yves (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
By "the latter", you mean the pronunciation of "pall" with the same vowel as in "tall"? In any case, the current transcription in the lead does not express either the "alley" or the "tall" vowel. It says /ˈpɑːltroʊ/, which is the first vowel in "father". I think that this would be correct only if you pronounce "tall", "god", and "father" with the same vowel, which is restricted only to some North American dialects. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Do we have to provide reliable sources on how the name is pronounced? --BwB (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Only if explicitly requested, I believe, as with most other specific facts. Certainly most transcriptions you'll come across are not sourced (e.g. Leicester), except when there is some debate about them (as in "Weird Al" Yankovic, whose originally Serbian surname many people acquainted with Serbian want to pronounce as "Yankovich"). --91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You are all incorrect. Even the spelling of her surname is incorrect too. The consonant w should be pronounced as "v", because the surname is Polish (see the article). Actually, it should be Paltrowa, the feminine version. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Career Comeback" Section name

I would like to change the name of this sections. The section covers the years 2007 to 2013, but is called "Career Comeback". How many years should be call "comeback" and how many years are just the continuation of her career? Perhaps we can call the 2007/2008 years the "comeback years" and then just call the 2008 - present as another section? What do others think? BlaDBla (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

33 días

I notice it says the film 33 días had a 2013 release date; as that has now passed this should be updated. Online appears to date it as 2015 at the moment.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gwyneth Paltrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How is she, or her brother, a jew?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't your mother have to be a Jew in order for you to count as one? Her mother's stated as Christian, that means she does not count as a Jew, right? I'm not trying to be hateful, just want some clarification.--92.114.148.141 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Depends. There are many orthodox rabbis who accept anyone as a Jew whose father is a Jew, and who "identifies with the Jewish community," as they say. Orthodox Jews will accept anyone who has been converted by an orthodox rabbi, and conservative Jews will accept anyone who has been converted by an orthodox or conservative rabbi. I think there's a different standard in Israel for automatic citizenship under the Law of the Return (like many Soviet Jews). Anyway, lots of people identify as Jews even when only their father is Jewish. --Nbauman (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The Forward is about the most authoritative, reliable WP:RS you can get on the question of whether Paltrow is Jewish. She says she is. http://forward.com/schmooze/205224/gwyneth-paltrow-is-converting-to-judaism/?attribution=blog-article-related-1-headline&attribution=blog-article-related-1-headline&attribution=blog-article-related-1-headline&attribution=blog-article-related-1-headline Gwyneth Paltrow Is Converting to Judaism. September 5, 2014. by Gabe Friedman. They quote the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2745072/Gwyneth-Paltrow-converting-Judaism-following-split-Chris-Martin.html New reports claim Oscar-winner Gwyneth Paltrow is'converting to Judaism' following split with Chris Martin. By Laura Cox. Daily Mail. 5 September 2014. --Nbauman (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Where does the article state that she was either Jewish or raised Jewish. It only says they celebrated Jewish and Christian holidays. There are more than a few Jews who celebrate Christmas, but that does not imply they became Christians. I suggest some research and/or clearer editing are needed since the ambiguity in the article makes the above details off topic and a bit misleading. --Light show (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed --Light show (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's an article in which she specifically says that she is “'mostly Jewish', because her mother married a nice Jewish boy descended from rabbis in Poland.” http://atlantajewishtimes.com/2016/08/paltrow-glows-amid-hadassah-crowd/ Here's another article in which she tells Jay Leno that she has a "Jewish part." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Paltrow.html That's how she identifies. I would quote her as having said that she is "mostly Jewish." Is there any reason not to? --Nbauman (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
"Mostly" is ambiguous. Her saying she was converting, is not. --Light show (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?

Here's an interesting book about Gwyneth Paltrow. The book itself looks like a WP:MEDRS.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/5/8548229/gwyneth-paltrow-health-advice
This professor put Gwyneth Paltrow’s health advice to the test. The truth is even worse than you’d think.
Julia Belluz
May 5, 2015

--Nbauman (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's another article. Jen Gunter is a board-certified gynecologist whose blog is often published in major newspapers and other WP:RS, and her work is often cited in WP:RS.
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/dear-gwyneth-paltrow-im-a-gyn-and-your-vaginal-jade-eggs-are-a-bad-idea/
Dear Gwyneth Paltrow, I’m a GYN and your vaginal jade eggs are a bad idea
Jen Gunter
January 17, 2017
Gunter's blog also has a tag, Bad GOOP Advice https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/tag/bad-goop-advice/

--Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm removing the quoted material, even though I don't think it's a copyright violation. --Nbauman (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's third-party coverage in a WP:RS http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/222443/gwyneth-paltrow-website-goop-selling-jade-egg-for-vagina --Nbauman (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Because some editors have said that Gunter was merely writing a blog, and therefore not a WP:RS, I am listing several third party WP:RSs that have reported on her story.
This should establish WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." [footnote: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered."] WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, which is a "fundamental principle of Wikipedia." According to the headnote of WP:NPOV, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/01/22/no-gwyneth-paltrow-women-should-not-put-jade-eggs-in-their-vaginas-gynecologist-says/
No, Gwyneth Paltrow, women should not put jade eggs in their vaginas, gynecologist says
By Kristine Guerra
Washington Post
January 22, 2017
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/20/sf-gynecologist-blasts-gwyneth-paltrow-for-jade-eggs-for-your-yoni-and-tampon-advice/
SF gynecologist blasts Gwyneth Paltrow for jade eggs for your ‘yoni’ and ‘toxic’ tampon advice
By Martha Ross
The Mercury News
January 20, 2017
Gwyneth Paltrow gets absolutely roasted by gynaecologist for recommending 'vagina egg'
“The biggest load of garbage I have read on your site since vaginal steaming.”
By: Erin Van Der Meer
January 19, 2017 9:16am
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/01/19/doctor-criticizes-gwyneth-paltrow-for-advising-women-to-hold-jade-eggs-in-their-vaginas-all-day/
Doctor criticizes Gwyneth Paltrow for advising women to hold jade eggs in their vaginas all day
WITW Staff
New YorkTimes
01.19.17
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4132644/Gynecologist-slams-Gwyneth-Paltrow-s-vagina-eggs.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4132644/Gynecologist-slams-Gwyneth-Paltrow-s-vagina-eggs.html
Gynecologist slams Gwyneth Paltrow's 'vagina eggs' as 'dangerous' advice that could cause infections, painful sex, and deadly toxic shock syndrome
By Mia De Graaf
Dailymail.com
18 January 2017
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SF-gynecologist-warns-women-not-to-use-the-jade-10872323.php
SF gynecologist warns women not to use the jade vagina eggs Goop is selling
By Alyssa Pereira
San Francisco Chronicle
January 20, 2017
http://www.cosmopolitan.com.au/celebrity/gwyneth-paltrow-slammed-gynaecologist-vagina-egg-20066
Gwyneth Paltrow gets absolutely roasted by gynaecologist for recommending 'vagina egg'
“The biggest load of garbage I have read on your site since vaginal steaming.”
By: Erin Van Der Meer
Cosmopolitan (Australia)
January 19, 2017
--Nbauman (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything? thread

  • Per talk page guidelines, this isn't the place to be discussing other people's books, even when interesting, unless they relate to improving material in the existing article. It appears to be off topic. Deleting material that doesn't belong on a talk page is not a violation. The violation, if any, is misusing it as a personal forum.--Light show (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this thread doesn't belong here, but I think deleting it is a little heavy-handed. I'm more concerned about the thread below: an actual conversation. The talk page guideline gives suggestions for dealing with off-topic conversations including {{collapse}}ing them or moving them to the talk page of one of the participants. Deleting, not archiving, but actually deleting the good-faith comments of established editors solely for being tangential is not something I've seen done before, and it does not sit well with me. In future, I would encourage you to consider archiving threads instead. Thanks. Rebbing 02:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I mostly agree, and normally don't bother removing off-topic discussions. However, for Paltrow, who even the article states considers matters about her personal life private, and who has made headlines because of a stalker, misusing a talk page by publishing quotes by some gynecologist about Paltrow's eggs, are an obvious exception. Even on a talk page, which many read, and per BLP, Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. And even if questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Such trivia doesn't deserve to be archived, IMO.--Light show (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh! I hadn't realized you considered this a BLP issue. I'm all for removing BLP-violating nonsense from talk space (WP:BLPTALK), and I don't think it happens nearly as often as it should. However, even keeping in mind BLP and Ms. Paltrow's particular (and understandable) concerns about her privacy, it's not clear to me how this qualifies. If I'm reading Nbauman's word vomit correctly, this has nothing to do with Ms. Paltrow personally but is instead about the "jade eggs" promoted by Goop.com (archive), a website owned by Ms. Paltrow. (My apologies for continuing this thread.) Rebbing 03:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm embarrassed to admit I only just realized that the entire block above is copied and pasted directly from Vox. (In skimming, I assumed the last two 'graphs were analysis by the submitting editor—nope.) In addition to being obviously off-topic, it's almost certainly a violation of our non-free content policy. I propose redacting the copyrighted content from Nbauman's first comment and archiving this thread. Rebbing 03:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Fine with me. But per guielines, talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles...Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. So either way. --Light show (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You have already discussed the GOOP web site. Apparently you didn't know its content. The "jade eggs" are a commercial product that Paltrow is promoting and selling. There is no violation of her privacy, because she is discussing the product on her GOOP web site. She is holding herself out as a spokesperson in the public forum about this topic. If she thought this was too private for public discussion, she wouldn't have posted it for all the world on the Internet. A WP:RS gynecologist believes that her advice is fraudulent and dangerous, and many WP:RS have repeated these criticisms.
This is as much on topic as discussing Jennie McCarthy's views on vaccination. It is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to also address the criticisms of her views under WP:RS. Not to do so would be WP:CENSOR. I would like you to explain why GOOP is unsuitable for the talk pages, or the article. I would like you to explain why criticism of her health advice is unsuitable. You seem to be deleting it simply because you don't want anything critical of Paltrow.
The reason that I quoted extensively from the Vox article is that (1) a quote that short for these purposes is fair use, not a copyright violation, under copyright law (2) I wanted to post this controversial material in the talk pages for people to discuss before posting it directly into the article. This is what I get for trying to get discussion and consensus.
BTW, calling my comments "word vomit" is a WP:NPA violation. --Nbauman (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Your post begins, "Here's an interesting book about Gwyneth Paltrow," which immediately seemed off-topic since there was no connection implied to the article. There's still no connection. You didn't post it as part of a question. Naturally, a giant quote from a book about a topic unrelated to anything in the article appears off-topic. There was no indication that you were seeking opinions about whether to use it in the article. --Light show (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Since GOOP is in the entry already, do you agree that GOOP is on topic? --Nbauman (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I think calling your unformatted copypaste (273 words with no analysis; ever hear of quote marks or block quotes?) "word vomit" was a kind understatement—not a personal attack. I've seen ANI acquit editors of incivility for much harsher words that were actually personal and not about content. Anyway, there is no way that that was fair use, at least by the more stringent requirements Wikipedia applies, and, since you were able to link to it—it's an online article, not a book—a brief sentence describing it would have been effective. Pasting the first half of the article unformatted—byline, tagline, and all—was shamefully lazy. Rebbing 15:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

My question is, "Is GOOP on topic in this article?" Since the article already includes a section that mentions GOOP, I think it is on topic. --Nbauman (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

GOOP is in the article as among her personal projects. However, your post, "Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?" was off topic, since it was meant to create a controversy about trivia by citing a professor and some blogs about the often unscientific health opinions from celebrities. Everyone knows that "every day, we are bombarded with messages from celebrity culture about things we must do to be healthier and more beautiful." Some of their opinions are right, some are wrong, and god forbid some women could even end up looking like this! --Light show (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The article's brief mention of Goop is appropriate; your sharing of clickbait "news" and private blog posts is not. Rebbing 23:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Where in WP:RS, or any other WP policy or guideline, is there a definition of "clickbait"? Or a mention of "clickbait"?--Nbauman (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Although I didn't use that term, clickbait could refer to flooding a talk page with links with no stated reason. Or possibly when the title of their post is the title of a book, followed by a link to a book review. I see no rationale for using the talk page in such a way. What's your point? What is your question? Or are you in any way involved with the book? In any case, you appear to be misusing the talk page as a forum, which is against guidelines. --Light show (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
My question, which no one has answered, is, what is the authority under Wikipedia policies or guidelines for defining something as "clickbait"? How do you establish that something is clickbait, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? In fact, one of the reasons you gave is given as an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "Delete as trivia."
My simple question is: "Why is this clickbait?"
(P.s. I was not "flooding a talk page with links with no stated reason." My stated reasons were that (1) I was giving many citations in order to demonstrate WP:WEIGHT, and (2) I was answering your objection that it was a blog.)--Nbauman (talk)
Weight for what purpose? This is a talk page to improve the article, not promote books or medical advice or discredit people. And adding a list of cites under a question, "Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?", which is silly, is still a misuse of talk page guidelines. Are you involved with the book? Your first sentence was only "Here's an interesting book about Gwyneth Paltrow." --Light show (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Once again, my question is, "Why is this clickbait?" --Nbauman (talk)
You shared an article with a sensationalist headline with an even more exaggerated title; that's clickbait to anyone with any common sense. Wikipedia isn't therapy, and we are not obligated to prove to your satisfaction that you're wrong as you play "I can't hear you!" and ask nonsense questions like, "What is clickbait, really?" Your post here was disruptive and has no possibility of improving the article, and you should let this go. Rebbing 03:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Even if the headline were clickbait, where is there any Wikipedia rule that says we can't use clickbait? --Nbauman (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Gwyneth Paltrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gwyneth Paltrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comedian?

I question the intro sentance: "Gwyneth Kate Paltrow.....is an American actress, singer, comedian and food writer." Under what metric does she qualify as a comedian? Because as an actress she has played comic roles? Wouldn't that fall under the broader characterization of an actress?. I think the identification is misleading and should be removed. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Light show (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

GOOP NPOV

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 Goop (company), 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) 17:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

GOOP controversy in NYT

Here's another one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/29/style/goop-gwyneth-paltrow-dr-jen-gunter.html
A Doctor Gives Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop a Pelvic Exam
By KATHERINE ROSMAN
JULY 29, 2017

For reference:

WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

This means that you can't eliminate all negative views in the Gwyneth Paltrow article and relegate them to a separate GOOP (Company) article. --Nbauman (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Goop summary - citation overkill

The current summary of Goop in the article is citation overkill. Goop has been widely criticised and Paltrow does seem to be the origin of many of them (although she has said in a recent interview with Jimmy Kimmel that she doesn't understand some of what Goop puts out), but the current mess doesn't help the reader understand what's going on. @Rp2006:, while it may have looked as though I 'removed valid cited material', most of that is still WP:PRESERVEd on the Goop page, and I saw my role as being the barber listed in the citation overkill essay and entirely appropriate, as a first draft. Please consider adding to my summary rather than reverting it. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the IP editor. Paltrow is primarily known for her acting, and the Goop bit should be limited and not made to overshadow the article on the individual, particularly where there's another article Goop (company) pointed to by {{main}}. And long string cites like "Some have characterized Goop's claims as 'ludicrous and tantamount to fraud'.[110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117]" is really overkill. Keep it in the Goop article. TJRC (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree as well. If Goop has its own article, there's no reason to have more than about 1 paragraph on it in this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear 122.108.141.21 editor: Get an account please. IMHO, the revert of my material results in a reduction of accuracy in several unacceptable ways. The first is a small point, but saying that Goop "derives from her initial" implies to anyone reading that (including me initially) that she has two middle names beginning with "O." This would be odd, but the normal interpretation of that statement. This has been an oft repeated statement in the media. And I suspect one journalist assumed that was the case, printed it, and this error was repeated and has stuck. The interview I quoted gave a more subtle and clearer description in Paltow's own words, and I think it should be included to keep the record straight. This one I am going to reinsert now. The bigger issue I have with the revert is as follows: To avoid overkill, rather than add all the text with criticism present in the Goop article, I summarized it in a sentence but included all the citations from there. Each is relevant to a different criticism made regarding Goop and Paltrow. Is that really citation overkill? I take that style policy to mean multiple citations to verify the same single, simple fact such as birthplace or to document an event. This is not that. To make matters worse, one of the only references kept is one that defends the criticisms to a large degree, rather than being representative of it in the first place. My inclination is to revert this section of the revert, but let's see if you can further improve it first and come up with a good compromise. RobP (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to make the changes you want to see. Seven citations in a row, as has been noted above, is citation overkill, and makes it look like we're trying too hard to bolster the claims in the article. The citation overkill essay suggests using only the three most pertinent sources. What I liked about that source was that it discusses two criticisms of Goop - that it sells very expensive stuff (reflecting the earlier content of Goop) and that her grasp of medicine isn't good (reflecting the wellness stuff Goop promotes now). @Rp2006:, which of your preferred sources would you describe as the best for addressing these two criticisms? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been editing this article for a long time, since the beginning when Paltrow's fans were summarily deleting all the criticism of Goop, and finally everything about Goop. I'm glad to see that some people want a WP:NPOV article.
I don't think this is citation overkill. The reason for so many citations is that the Paltrow fans were claiming that it was unimportant. The number of citations demonstrates that the Goop topic meets WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, that is, multiple discussion in WP:RS, and therefore under Wikipedia guidelines belongs in the article.
Furthermore, these deletions [4] remove most of the criticism of Goop. WP:NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. According to WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." According to WP:NPOV, "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." WP:NPOV can't be overriden by editor or Talk page consensus. There have been many criticisms of Goop by medical doctors and other experts in WP:RS. Therefore, they belong in the story. Therefore, you have violated WP policies by deleting them. Therefore, we should put them back in. --Nbauman (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nbauman:I made another attempt at this. I added a SHORT summary of each of the Goop controversies (from the Goop article) along with the appropriate citations. I cannot see anyone claiming this is citation overkill now. RobP (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RobP, looks good. If anything, it could go into more detail about the specific dangers raised by Jen Gunter and others.
I would remind the other editors that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deleting well-sourced material in Wikipedia. In other words, you can't delete citations merely because you personally think there are too many of them. You must have a valid reason under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Nbauman (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @Rp2006:, I have reworded some of what you wrote to better reflect the sources given. @Nbauman:, I appreciate that it has been difficult to provide a balanced picture of Paltrow's health claims in the past - I've had some material of my own removed swiftly (despite the article being clogged with over 20 dead links as of March, my earlier material on jade eggs was swiftly reworded). "Some have characterized Goop's claims as 'ludicrous and tantamount to fraud'.[110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117]" is unhelpful to readers because it makes the material in the article harder to match with its source, and as discussed in the citation overkill essay, makes Wikipedia look biased. Furthermore, the quote given in both this article and the Goop article, 'ludicrous and tantamount to fraud', was only used to describe a contributor to Goop, and didn't mention Goop or Paltrow at all. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good! And, 122.108.141.214, looks like you are not new to WP, so may I ask why you edit without an account? RobP (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - I prefer to edit without an account because I think it helps keep WP open to everyone. I'm a bit concerned about the use of primary sources in the summary (and in the Goop article) - both Gunter's blog and Goop itself. I think that both of these sources could be taken out of the current summary without the article losing anything, as they have been extensively quoted/screenshot in the Gizmodo and Washington Post sources (and Gunter seems to have become a go-to person for media reporting on Goop's women's health claims). I'm not absolutely certain about removing the primary sources, though, because I don't edit BLPs often. What do you think? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
One issue here is that there is strong scientific evidence against the treatments Paltrow promotes, and the editing left out some of the evidence. For example, the LiveScience article had a good discussion of what vaginal steaming was, where it came from, why it's ineffective, and the small but potential risks of injury. The Toronto Star doesn't give that much information. If we're going to cut the information from the article (which I think is a mistake), at least we should leave it in the links. --Nbauman (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
If the LiveScience article is that useful in terms of vaginal steaming, surely it should be used as a source for the vaginal steaming article? The long list of links behind one statement is not helpful to readers, because it makes it difficult to verify the information in Wikipedia in relation to the original sources. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's even more difficult to verify information if you delete the links to some of the evidence. In my original addition, I tried to use one popular and one scientific link to make each criticism of Paltrow's claims. I think it deserves an even longer discussion in the article. But it's hard to write a section when editors constantly weaken and shorten it. Relegating criticism to a separate GOOP article is WP:POVFORK. Gwyneth Paltrow gets 260,000 hits a month, but GOOP gets only 8,000 hits a month. --Nbauman (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The linklist of 'references' I deleted weren't being used to back up information in the article except in the broadest of terms, that there has been criticism. (And even then, it attributed to Goop and Paltrow what was said about one of her guests). Could you please provide a wikihistory link to your original addition, or a date range to search for it? I'm curious as to how it compares with the current summary, and without a date range to narrow down the search, it's a bit difficult to find what your original addition looked like.
This is a Wikipedia:Summary style section on Goop, not a POVFORK. Adding links and discussion about the safety of vaginal steaming to this article (rather than the vaginal steaming article) would be a WP:COATRACK. Gwyneth Paltrow gets that many hits a month because she is linked to from thousands of pages on Wikipedia and she has been acting (still is) for almost 30 years, has been a singer, has been on TV, etc etc etc in addition to being the chief creative officer of Goop and now its CEO. The Goop article isn't even linked to from 50 pages and is only two months old. 8,000 hits per month is very respectable - for comparison, the vaginal steaming article got 6,364 hits in the last month and is on the women's health and the alternative medicine project's lists of most popular pages. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?

Timothy Caulfield, a Canadian professor of law at the University of Alberta, the former research director of its Health Law Institute, and current Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, published a book in 2015, "Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?".

69.181.23.220 (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

We had a long discussion about that book and many other WP:RS critical of Paltrow, all of which Paltrow's fans objected to, in the archives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gwyneth_Paltrow/Archive_1#Is_Gwyneth_Paltrow_Wrong_About_Everything? --Nbauman (talk)

Are jade eggs really a Chinese practice?

Here's Jen Gunter's latest research. It's been picked up by many WP:RS.

https://journals.lww.com/jpelvicsurgery/Abstract/publishahead/Vaginal_Jade_Eggs___Ancient_Chinese_Practice_or.99549.aspx

Vaginal Jade Eggs: Ancient Chinese Practice or Modern Marketing Myth?
Gunter, Jennifer, MD*; Parcak, Sarah, PhD†
Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery: October 25, 2018
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000643

Objective To identify evidence that vaginal jade eggs were recommended or used in sexual health practices or for pelvic muscle exercises in ancient Chinese culture.

Materials and Methods A search of the online databases of 4 major Chinese art and archeology collections in the United States.

Results More than 5000 jade objects were viewable in online databases. No vaginal jade eggs were identified.

Conclusions No evidence was found to support the claim that vaginal jade eggs were used for any indication in ancient Chinese culture.

--Nbauman (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)
Reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:20, 16 August 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 transgressions 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)
That's not a very nice thing to say Stardig! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I feel as though it was a measured response. I sense a lot of toxicity in this weird little subculture, and many here could benefit from being made aware of their own BS. Stardig (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Stardig: "to what accusations do you refer?" First, you were ok here until you said "Frankly, your censorship runs the risk of causing real harm." Wikipedia is not here to denigrate subjects in the interest of public safety. Please understand the difference between WP:MEDRS and WP:BLP. Materialscientist is one of my favorite admins and has always been ready to block vandals. You're wrong again, here. Adding content without adding proper citations is vandalism, which is why you were reverted. Do not now complain and claim you were wronged. You wronged Wikipedia and our readers. This statement of yours is arguably a personal attack against him and reveals the depths of your ignorance. Folks like you that claim "toxicity" are simply on the wrong side of consensus. You think any environment that doesn't welcome your foolishness must be toxic because you cannot fathom that it is you who is wrong. Please reconsider which of us has any business condescending. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman:Your blatant attempt at sucking up to your favorite admin made me physically cringe, as did your botched interpretation of my statement to him as "a personal attack". The fact that you would try to characterize my assertions as "denigrations" speaks volumes about what I'm sure you regard as your gargantuan intellect. Anyways, no such explanation about the reason for the reversion, nor the very specific meaning of vandalism that is entirely unique to the wikipedia editor community, was offered. However, upon reading, your claim that my statements constituted vandalism doesn't even remotely hold water. The page on vandalism very clearly states that "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". You've chosen to ignore this explicit truth because it suits your childish ego to disparage me. There are deeply ingrained cultural problems with this community, and I think you typify everything wrong with this place. However, I'm certain you lack even an ounce of personal reflective capacity, so you will no doubt fail to recognize this. Now please, address my argument regarding Ms. Paltrow's article; I grow weary of your toxicity. Stardig (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Alright, since you insist on going down in flames, I will not waste more time on you. Meaning, if you keep behaving like that, you will be banned indefinitely within a short time, and you will deserve it. Bye.
Back to article work! I will now revert the Science Moms deletion (see next section). --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You have failed to address my argument regarding the subject in question, have chosen to instead tunnel vision on my interactions with a massive internet bully, and inexplicably, have gone on to once again threaten me. What is it with you guys? Stardig (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
"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. People deserve to more readily have access to information which is crucial for their determination of her legitimacy as someone who not only offers advice on health and wellness, but profits greatly from the sale of related products and services. This is therefore, in some respect, a matter of public health." This is what I would like to be addressed. Refute it before you move on please. Stardig (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.inquirer.com/health/goop-gwyneth-paltrow-pseudoscience-netflix-jade-egg-20200204.html
https://theconversation.com/gwyneth-paltrows-new-goop-lab-is-an-infomercial-for-her-pseudoscience-business-129674
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51312441
https://scroll.in/article/953906/how-gwyneth-paltrows-goop-and-others-in-the-wellness-industry-use-pseudoscience-to-make-profits
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/19/15988180/gwyneth-paltrow-goop-jade-egg-debunkers
https://www.salon.com/test2/2017/08/24/gwyneth-paltrow-goop-truth-in-advertising/
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gwyneth-paltrow-and-goop-another-triumph-of-celebrity-pseudoscience-and-quackery/
Stardig (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Goop

Is it appropriate for the second paragraph of the lead to be a detailed analysis of her business? -- Citizen ☎ 18:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Citizen, I agree with you, I have moved that part to the end of the lead. Alexcalamaro (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The level of detail was excessive for anywhere in the lead, and putting so much emphasis on one aspect of Paltrow's life / career in it looked very PoV. The information was already repeated, more appropriately, in the section on Goop in the article body. I've cut down the section on the lead to simply mentioning the criticism rather than detailing individual products / claims etc. Jellyman (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Age

She is 51 already if born in 1972 86.4.242.197 (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

She was born in September. Ollieisanerd (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023

Suggestion: either remove or add a source for the claim that Paltrow was in one episode of Scottish soap Take the High Road early in her career.

This claim is unsourced and was added on 1st April 2021 by an IP address user*. It maybe have been a prank.

One of the regular actresses in the soap also had the first name Gwyneth, but from a brief search, I couldn't find any online reference to Paltrow herself ever appearing. My search was definitely not exhaustive. If the claim is legitimate, IMO it should be sourced.

Thanks for your time!

(* I know I'm just an IP address too, but I hope you understand what I mean.) 174.70.90.63 (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 Already done by User:Ohnoitsjamie, closing request. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gwyneth_Paltrow/Archive_1&oldid=1197717078"