Talk:Tracy Anderson

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Health and fitness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Business Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is being vandalized[edit]

A section listing criticisms of Anderson's claim that "no woman should lift more than three pounds" was removed. The section consisted of accurate statements by certified personal trainers and is in no way defamatory. Please give this article protection status. Torowhynot (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

Hi there, I work with Tracy Anderson and her team and we are looking to expand her Wikipedia page as the previous versions have been lacking. However, it appears that the content that we posted has been flagged. We are in the process of reviewing the guidelines and creating new content for this page that is compliant. We would greatly appreciate your patience as we work on this. We definitely don't want this current page to be deleted!

If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me: Chris@SlateStudio.com

Thanks!

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindst (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biased page[edit]

The previous comment blatantly states that the page was created by her PR firm, it has no actual details about her, her product her career , or anything else interesting or useful. The entire thing reads like exactly what it is, a press release from a PR firm. Nachoha (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reviews section[edit]

Hi Lourdes. I think if you reread McDonald's quote, "Despite possessing ... testimonials by Gwyneth Paltrow and Lopez", in the context of the article, you'll find that it is specifically there to set up the quote from Kat Whitfield that follows by providing useful background information. As a result, if we omit Whitfield's statement, we would seem to be taking McDonald's quote out of context. On that basis, I disagree with this alternative solution of putting Whitfield's statement in a footnote; it's necessary to understanding McDonald's statement.

With regards to WP:NPOV, the goal is not to equally present both positive and negative viewpoints on the subject, but to balance those viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the sources. In this case, the article in The Washington Post doesn't equally present positive and negative criticism; rather, in my view, the source's criticism is primarily negative. If there are other reliable sources that provide a more positive view on Anderson, I have no issues with including them, but The Washington Post article doesn't seem to be one of them. Mz7 (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mz7, hope you're doing well. I understand what you're saying. I agree with your viewpoint and my edits were in that direction too. In the sense that as the Washington Post article is predominantly negative, it doesn't make sense to include multiple statements from the Post's article into one section, which has no other alternative viewpoint. I am uneasy with the usage of words like "nonsensical", which is a very extreme viewpoint which we should not be giving importance to. I have reverted the section to your version while we discuss. My suggestion to you for the section is that we place just the following statement inside the section:

A number of articles have criticized Anderson's views on weight training for women. In an April 2015 article in The Washington Post, personal trainer Kat Whitfield asserts that Anderson's methods "certainly don’t follow exercise physiology principles."

How does that sound? Warmly. Lourdes 07:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: I’d be okay with that. I see what you’re saying with respect to “nonsensical”, and I’ve implemented your proposed text. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Mz7. See you around. Lourdes 12:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]