Talk:Daily Harvest

Apr 20, 2026 - 21:25
0 0
Talk:Daily Harvest

WP: NPOV Edits: new section

← Previous revision Revision as of 15:53, 20 April 2026
Line 89: Line 89:


{{reflist talk}}
{{reflist talk}}

== WP: NPOV Edits ==

Hello:
{{edit COI}}

I would like to request a final few edits to the recall section of the article. These edits are to address WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL issues. All requests pertain to the third paragraph of the 2022 recall section. Thank you for your time! [[User:Marksherr16|Marksherr16]] ([[User talk:Marksherr16|talk]]) 15:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

'''Request 1: Remove the sentence: "The company's handling of the crisis drew widespread criticism from consumers and in media reports."'''

Rationale for Request #1, along with language addressing the other three requests:

This sentence violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. It is an unsourced editorial conclusion that characterizes the overall response to the crisis without attributing the claim to any specific, verifiable source. The phrase "widespread criticism" implies a consensus judgment without citing who made it, how widespread it actually was, or what sources documented it as such.

The details that follow in the paragraph — the specific characterizations of the email tone and social media response — are themselves attributed only to unnamed "critics," which are further WP:WEASEL issues. However, this opening sentence is the most problematic because it functions as an editorial verdict on the company's conduct, something Wikipedia's voice should not assert directly.

The factual content of the paragraph is retained without this sentence. Readers can assess the described actions and their sourced characterizations without the article pre-summarizing a conclusion for them.


'''Request 2: Replace "Critics described" in sentence three with attributed language'''

'''Current text:''' "Critics described the email's tone as 'casual'..."

'''Requested change:''' "One customer mentioned in an August 2022 [[Fortune (magazine)]] report that the email’s tone seemed 'casual'.

'''Reason:''' "Critics" is a WP:WEASEL term. The characterization should be tied to a named, reliable source or removed per WP:VERIFY.

'''Request 3: Replace "Many felt" in sentence four with attributed language'''

'''Current text:''' "Many felt this language failed to convey the seriousness of the reported illnesses."

'''Requested change:''' Please rewrite as: “Several people who spoke to the Fortune Magazine reporter said the language didn’t align with the seriousness of the reported illnesses.”

'''Reason:''' "Many felt" is an archetypal WP:WEASEL phrase. It implies widespread opinion without identifying who holds it or providing a source.



'''Request 4: Replace "Critics argued" in the last sentence with attributed language below'''

'''Current text:''' "Critics argued this approach prioritized the brand's 'social media aesthetic' over consumer health and safety."

'''Requested change:''' "One consumer who spoke to Fortune Magazine commented that they felt the approach prioritized the brand over consumer health."

'''Reason:''' Same WP:WEASEL concern as above. "Critics argued" attributes a pointed editorial conclusion to unnamed parties. The quoted phrase "social media aesthetic" also requires a direct citation to the source that used that language. [[User:Marksherr16|Marksherr16]] ([[User talk:Marksherr16|talk]]) 15:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Read More