Talk:Faith Popcorn/Archives/2012

Deletion

I submitted this page for deletion as it reads like a vanity article, maybe (at least in part) taken from boilerplate for press releases. In additon, the user that created it and has been the only person editing it has edited only this article. --Andymussell 01:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It reads terrible, I agree with you there, but Faith Popcorn is or was a fairly well-known person. In the Bride of the Monster episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 Joel Hodgson's invention is "Microwave Faith Popcorn."[1] The Popcorn Report[2] was widely reviewed at the time. She also gets hits at both Google News[3], and Google Scholar.[4]. One article at Scholar Google being a debunking of her from St. Norbert College professors. So she at least became important enough to earn academic debunking.--T. Anthony 05:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, her writings are so amorphous that there seems to be no point refuting them. Also, she has a real name and a birth date (surprise)! Where are they?

Edits

This apparently was created by someone vanitying for her, but I think I've changed the tone a bit. I vacilate between thinking I went too far or not far enough.--T. Anthony 07:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

By coincidence I came across this via the MST3K episode above. As a completely disinterested party - I'm British, I had never heard of her before, she is as obscure as Judy Tenuta - I believe that the article is fine. It would be good if there was a way of pointing out how popular The Popcorn Report was at the time; did it make the bestseller lists? Was she in the news a lot? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I provided information that is well known by those in the marketing world and should be available to those interested in learning about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benchylunch (talk • contribs) 08:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Many people equate "marketing" with "spamming" and "lying;" it would be unfortunate to give credence to that belief. Niczar ⏎ 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

The recent addition of success has a PR bent to it. Aside from the very positive spin, caller her "Faith" (first name basis) has the familiarity of someone who's packaging her. The LA times article is also from the Entertainment section. We'll need to fix the ref if we keep it, but at a minimum this is a pop, rather than business press reference and should be highlighted as such. Mattnad (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've updated the section. Mattnad (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

My concern is that the cited information in the article appears cherry-picked from sources to present a certain point of view, rather than presenting the perspective of the sources as well. The LA Times article is difficult to present well, given that it just reports a few predictions and outcomes with really no summary. My main concern is the Cityfile article. If we agree it is a reliable source for discussing her predictions, then we need to present their pov more accurately. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finally providing an explanation for your tag. I found the original interview source - she made a bunch of predictions in 2006. I added several more gems from that interview. So no need for the tag since I've found a source I hope meets your standards for reliable sources. Mattnad (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Same as before. I guess because of her profession, this will be a regular problem as cherry-picked material is added without regard to the overall article or WP:NPOV. I find the versions from a year ago to be far superior to what we have now. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Philip Morris info is the worst of it, so I've moved it below for analysis and rewrite. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved to talk - Philip Morris

If this material is going to be incorporated into the article, it needs to be rewritten to fit within the article, rather than something that appears just added on. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking over it more closely, I don't think we should include it without better sources. It looks like a WP:SYNTH violation without at least an independent source linking all the pieces together. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it was copied from [5] with coi problems as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Work helping Philip Morris promote smoking

A 1993 internal Philip Morris (PM) memorandum discusses PM's plans to team up with new-age "trend guru" Faith Popcorn to promote her claim that the public was "fed up with self-deprivation in the name of health." Daragan's goal was to "broaden the reach of 'pleasure revenge' news and publicize the new trend of indulgence and anti-politically correct behavior that Faith Popcorn has noticed and recently discussed in the press."

Popcorn claims to have predicted such things as casual Fridays and widespread shopping on the Internet.

To help undermine public health messaging about the health effects of smoking, Karen Daragan, Manager of Philip Morris' Media Programs, planned to create video news releases (VNRs are pre-recorded "news stories" that corporations make and shop around to television networks) about a supposed public trend of "pleasure revenge" to amplify coverage of Popcorn's claims that people were "fed up with self-deprivation in the name of health." Daragan crafted the soundbite to be used in the VNR:

"Potential soundbite: 'People are fed up with self-deprivation in the name of health and politically correct behavior; we're sick of being perfect. In a decade marked predominantly by fear and cutting back...we want to cut loose again. That's why more people are smoking and drinking socially and just plain enjoying themselves.' "

A video news release, was, in fact, created, at a cost of $18,000.

Articles Popcorn helped Philip Morris generate regarding "pleasure revenge" news

• Debra Goldman, AdWeek The Pleasure Principle Magazine article. January 12, 1994. Bates No. 2070132092 - AdWeek magazine article about smoking and "pleasure revenge"
• Philip Morris Sound Science and Pleasure Revenge News Clips Memorandum. November 19, 1996. Bates No. 2072197032

dob - and the birth name

Is there any access to verify this claim? The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life, Ralph Keyes, Macmillan 2004, p87 - its being used to support this claim - (born May 11, 1943 as Faith Plotkin) - Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Her cityfile.com profile might not be a reliable source, but gives 02/11/1947.

NYTimes 1991 gives 1947 as well.

These three articles from Canada.com published in 2008[6] [7] [8] give 1948.

NYTimes 2005 gives May 11, 1943. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that investigation and posting Ronz. I will have a look at them later but at first glance they seem varied and alert me that there is an issue with our claiming one is correct .. I will investigate more later, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I got called away while working on this, so didn't have time to make further notes.

If any of these sources did fact-checking on the birthdate, it's very difficult to determine who it was. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest removal of the exact claim and a solution similar to the one that I was involved in at the Rebecca De Mornay BLP - Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it for now. Anyone have a suggestion on where to include the different dates and sources? Do we have any reliable sources with any personal information on her that we could use to start a section? --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A shufty on Google books throws up American Women in Business Vol 2, which reads like a load of puffery, and gives her DOB as 1943. Dave Mote's Contemporary Popular Writers says circa 1947, and also claims that she changed her name from Plotkin to Popcorn in 1969. Standard Directory of Advertising Agencies from 1967 lists a Faith Plotkin as Copy Chief for presumably an advertising agency, although the clip doesn't include the name of the agency. Reading through some of these, and particularly The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defence at Work (which goes into a bit of detail about her name change here), I get the impression that an accurate biography would be considerably less dramatic than her given biography, to put things diplomatically. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Gawker as ref

Sorry I didn't point it out here earlier, but I've asked opinions on Gawker as a source at BLPN --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about criticism section

First, the prominence given seems to violate WP:UNDUE.

Second, the main source appears to be an unpublished (or self-published) opinion piece. Although the authors are from a university, it is unclear what weight one should give this without further analysis.

Third, we appear to be contrasting apples and oranges. She cites a 95% success rate, but they claim 50%. Superficially that seems plausible but are they even talking about the same things? I think not.

I would remove this all but I am editing on an iPad while on holiday and it does not seem urgent. It is important, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I the criticism section is not large by any means. It's that the rest of popcorn article has been edited down to nearly a stub by other editors. If we're allowed to have Popcorn's self promoting stat of 95% which is broad and unspecified (see WP:RS on self published information that gets repeated), then we'd just as easily allow for an academic review of a sample of her claims. I'm not sure why you've taken issue with this since it's relatively benign and somewhat common sense to question the claims of popcorn - a person who claims she can predict the future and makes outlandish claims to get press mention (in entertainment news no less). I'm still looking forward to my ""removable cochlear-implants, rentable by the hour, that instantly lend you fluency in French or an understanding of how to tune a car." Out of curiosity, why so much interest in Popcorn anyway?Mattnad (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The prominence is a result of the lack of sources in general on Popcorn. What little coverage she gets is mostly just entertainment pieces responding to her yearly forecasts. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should remove to primary pdf of the norbert school report - if only for the opening ambition of their report -

This paper will attempt to debunk the myths that The Popcorn Report promulgates. The paper is not meant as an attack on Popcorn, but as a reminder to business people (practitioners and academics alike) that fortune telling is not a science and should be used with care.

I would say looking at it that a selective merge of the criticism section into the prediction section would improve the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Give it a go! --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I made an attempt, I am not certain about the norbert report so I took a bit of weight out of it, I think its better but might not be quite far enough. There are criticisms of her methods but whether the norbert one is balanced is open to discussion. I removed it in the end as the more I looked at it the less value as an noteworthy npov independent assessment I felt it had. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to include Popcorn's self promoting 95% accuracy rate (from her publisher no less - see WP:RS and self-published sources), then it would seem strange to ban an academic paper, with citations, on NPOV grounds. Restored ref.Mattnad (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have remove it again.its a not notable college paper with the stated intention to debunk - if the research has been independently comment on then feel free to include it, but otherwise it is just a not notable student paper. Off2riorob (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed. An academic paper that provides ample citations is not allowed, but you feel fine quoting her publicist's claim of 95% accuracy. Please provide ANY guideline that requires a reliable, third-party academic source to be "notable" for inclusion. Also, you seem to take issue with mild statement from a published book that tests some her predictions. And you of course removed another prediction than has yet to arrive (Androids serving our food). I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's becoming difficult given your desire to exclude anything that would suggest (God forbid), that Popcorn's predictions of the future are not always proven out.Mattnad (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And one more point. That a paper states its intention is not grounds for exclusion. The Harper Collins Biography did not state its intention - but I think we could easily surmise that their purpose was to promote the books of their author and present her as a nearly infallible futurist. Until we have third party evaluation of the 95% claim (and not just repeating it), I will remove it a RS and NPOV violation.Mattnad (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)