Talk:Tracy Anderson

This article is being vandalized
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)

Contested deletion
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)

Biased page
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)

Critical reviews section
Hi. 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)
 * Hi, 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you so much . See you around.  Lourdes  12:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)