Talk:Rachel Parent

Independent Activist?

This page is written as if Parent is a independent activist and even the lede here looks like it was ripped from her website. I'm fairly sure that her parents are big-wigs in the organic food industry. There's something deeply suspicious about this and she's also wrong about pretty much everything she says about GMO because it comes from a complete lack of any scientific reasoning. She's the younger version of Vani Hari (Food Babe). Quoting from GLP "Rachel’s father, Wayne Parent, is the CEO of Nutrition House. His Facebook page suggest that he himself is an activist against GMOs. In other words, teenage Rachel is not just a leading spokesperson for labeling advocates; whether she will acknowledge it or not she’s a front for the ‘natural products’ anti-GMO movement who have done everything in the power to deny the public a right to know about the very real dangers of many “natural” supplements." This is an excellent look at Parent and her father Wayne and how she's been used to look like some smart kid who got woke whereas, in reality, she has deep connections to the anti-GM industry through her direct family. Is she notable? Certainly, but she's deeply controversial at best and this should be mentioned clearly. If this isn't worrying, I don't know what is and this needs urgent attention from an experienced editor. Smidoid (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added the WP:NOTAFORUM template to this talk page. Please note "that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article" --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: If she is, as Smidoid asserts, a shill for the family business, then the article would be improved by saying so. Throwing WP:NOTAFORUM at Smidoid seems a mighty chilling and incurious thing to do, and wholly contrary to what I understand the spirit of wikipedia to be.

What we lack, Smidoid, are any reliable sources to back-up your assertion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

My apologies Tagishsimon I'm not good at Wikipedia and it's remarks like the one you've just reference that make me even less likely to contribute. I had a link in the original piece but my clumsy fingers went and messed it up. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/01/06/real-story-anti-gmo-teen-sensation-rachel-parent-idealist-pawn-natural-marketers/ should have been included (I did quote from it). It's both extensive AND well researched by Dr. David Warmflash, a hugely respected writer in his own right. I'm a personal friend of Kevin Folta so that should be enough to explain why I don't feel unbiased enough to make these edits. I'm doing my best here, I'm a multi-time published author in my own right from the days before the Internet and an experienced tech journalist, but those days are but a far distant memory as my health has deteriorated. Facts matter and being threatened as above (yes, I read that as a threat) only hardens my attitude against Wikipedia.Smidoid (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, Smidoid, and have every sympathy for your frustration. It's nevertheless the case that wikipedia sets a high bar on the quality and independence of sources, for very good reasons; for every one well-respected and credible authority, there are ten or a hundred charlatans and propagandists. It is difficult to understand, but whilst facts matter, sources matter more than facts, because without sources we cannot assure the facts. The sad truth is that, especially for biographies of living people, this results in situations such as the one we may have before us here, in which a person is being represented as X, whilst a possibly very important Y cannot get a hearing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look at https://geneticliteracyproject.org/ ... it would be very unlikely to the considered as a reliable source for wikipedia, since its modus operandi is to invite anyone to write articles, which are then published "After reviewing the article" [1] ... there's no clarity about what the review process is, who does it, how thorough is it. So, for all we know, it's little better than a self-published source. As I say, frustrating if it happens to be imparting information critical for this article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this would at best be a primary source attributable for the opinions of the group, and not really what we're looking for to cover contentious material about living persons. GMG^talk 20:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: This is the talk page for improvements about the article Rachel Parent. Assertions without citations such as: I'm fairly sure that her parents are big-wigs in the organic food industry. There's something deeply suspicious about this and she's also wrong about pretty much everything she says about GMO because it comes from a complete lack of any scientific reasoning are insulting to her and her parents and do not improve the article. I'm fairly sure and being deeply suspicious and she's also wrong are only fact-based comments if there is something to back it up, gently pointing that out and what talk pages are for is hardly "chilling" and definitely not a "threat". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: It was interpreted as chilling and a threat by Smidoid and by me, so I have to beg to differ on those two counts. Your intention, and the effect of your communications, are not the same thing. You do not get to dictate how others react to your words and actions. My view is that the discussion Smidoid started was aimed at improving the article, fullstop. I find your continued attempt to police the way in which Smidoid expressed their concerns about the article deeply unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Equally I can not help how Smidoid and yourself have chosen to interpret it. This is not my attempt to to police the way in which Smidoid expressed their concerns about the article, it is basic Wikipedia policy regarding talk pages WP:TALK, paragraph one Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Rachel Parent has a reasonable expectation not to be rubbished in a completely unfounded way on this page and I make no apology for pointing that out. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: Well quite. What I object to is the way you went about it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Journalist?

Although Parent has a blog at Huffington Post Canada i don't believe this warrants calling her a journalist or columnist, hence my removing those labels from the lead and infobox, if other editors believe me wrong please reinstate (sending me a fish or two is also okay:}} Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)