Talk:Lori Greiner

Unsubstantiated

Can't find references to her inventing chalupas for Taco Bell or AirHogs helicopters, are those statements just vandalism? 71.139.177.218 (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to Travis Stork as Greiner's spouse. In fact, in Crain's and several other places her husband is listed as Dan Greiner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssonwalkar (talk • contribs) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Parking content here

• CBS This Morning, March 2013
• Anderson Live, March 2013
• The View (U.S. TV series), February 2013, February 2012
• Good Morning America, January 2013
• Entrepreneur (magazine), December 2012
• NPR, January 2012
• Town & Country, November 2010
• CNN, October 2012
• Bloomberg Television, October 2012
• InStyle, November 2011, May 2010
• Woman's Day, January 2011, May 2010, November 2009
• Family Circle, December 2010, November 2009
• Financial Times, January 27 2010
• SUCCESS Magazine, January 2010
• O, The Oprah Magazine, December 2009
  • I have removed the content above as it is not sourced and there is no indication as to what it means. Also according to WP:MOS it should be in prose format, not as a list. Please feel free to re-add this content piece by piece, in prose format, as sources are located. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Tag removal request - I request you to please remove the ADVERT maintenance tag at the top of the page as I have edited the copy and have removed the promotional content that made the copy read like an advertisement. The page now has only factual content following WP:CCPOL guidelines. Thank you. 103.57.71.178 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply 23-JAN-2019

  Please consult assigning editor  

• It is recommended that, as a courtesy, you first try asking the editor who assigned the template — in this case Ronz — in order to find out from them if it can be removed. Since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. You may contact them by placing a new message on their talk page.
• In the unlikely event that you do not hear back from them after a reasonable amount of time, please reopen this request by altering the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!
  Regards,  Spintendo  12:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It certainly is much better. Thank you for the work.

There are references without basic information, and the references are not using the same format throughout. This makes the article difficult to review and needs to be fixed.

Even with the confusion of the references, there are poor and promotional references being used for material in the lede. That's enough from my perspective to leave the tag in.

The number of WP:SPA editors involved, the amount of content they've added, and the promotional nature of the content strongly suggests WP:COI if not WP:UPE editing.

I've added a few more tags specific to these problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: I have fixed the references so please request you to remove the tags about unclear citation style and incomplete citations. Also, the listed sources are notable including Forbes, NY Times, Crain's Chicago Business, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Business Insider, CNBC, Entreprenuer, Seeking Alpha, Bustle.com etc. I request you to please remove the reliable sources tag also. Further, I am not connected to Lori Greiner but am paid by Phil Phallen to make these edits. Here is the disclosure

Please remove the tag of close connection as well. 103.57.71.178 (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing some of the references. They all need to be fixed.

Thank you for the disclosure. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: - I missed one out, now I have fixed all. Please review them and remove the tags, please. Thank you. 103.57.71.178 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There are still incomplete references. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: - I re-checked the references, but can't find the incomplete ones. Could you please guide me with specifics so that I can rectify them? Thanks a lot. 103.57.71.190 (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The publication date and author is missing from most of the refs. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: - I have checked and added publication date and author is each reference. You may review my latest edit. Please let me know if this is fine and request you to remove the tags. Thanks! 103.57.71.179 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Ronz:, I would appreciate your response on these changes. Looking forward to hearing back from you soon. Thanks!103.57.71.179 (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Publication dates still missing. Please appreciate that you got any response at all to the ping. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz:, you have really been kind in guiding me. I checked and re-checked all the references and each of them have dates. Besides, you can remove the close connection tag as I have disclosed my paid contribution and have removed promotional content. Further, I have corrected the citation style and have completed all references, and request those tags to be removed as well. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks! 103.57.71.179 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I gave you an example of the problem here. Please fix the rest. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz:, I have made the changes. In all of the references, access date was already mentioned and in most of them accessdate and date is the same. Nonetheless, I have added the dates as suggested. I would appreciate if you could remove the tags. Thanks 103.57.71.179 (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.

The article will take considerable time to review, because it's clear that it's the work of undeclared paid editors. I'm not sure what you can do to help hasten this. It would help if you could identify all accounts that you used or know were working with a similar COI. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response @Ronz:. I have no idea about other accounts but I have disclosed my paid contribution. Hope that helps. Looking forward to get this issue resolved. 103.57.71.176 (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem.

@Philpallen:, @Eirekara98:, @Dcnrkb: look like obvious UPE.

@Dtrebbien: is questionable. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting tag removal

Hey Ronz,

I am requesting you to please remove the tags on this page. All citations have been completed by a previous editor while the unclear citation style has also been taken care of. The article's list sources do show notable and reliable names such as Bustle (magazine), Forbes, Crain's Chicago Business, NY Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Business Insider, Entrepreneur.com, New York Post etc. which are enough to establish notability. Also, after the changes as per the talk page history, the article reads factual. I would appreciate if you could look into this, have also left a message on your talk page. I am making this paid request on behalf of Lori Greiner. Thanks.

FamJoshua1 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi FamJoshua1. Welcome to Wikipedia.

No, all the references are not properly formatted.

There are no notability issues here that I'm aware.

There have been no improvements to the sourcing since I last looked at the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Providing improvement to sources

Hi,

Please add the following sentence in the first paragraph of the page - She has invented over 500 products and holds over 120 patents.

Please add the following line in the second paragraph of 'Shark Tank' section - As of May 2019, Greiner’s Shark Tank investments have made more than $870 million in retail sales.

Please add the following line in 'Publications' section - In March 2019, she launched her first magazine Living Inspired, published in partnership with AMG/Parade.

Thanks, appreciate your support!

@Ronz: - I have just checked all the citations today and have formatted all of them as per last1=|first1=|title=|url=|website=|date=|accessdate=. They follow the same citation style and are consistent for verification. Further, with the references having reliable sources such as Bustle (magazine), Forbes, Crain's Chicago Business, NY Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Business Insider, Entrepreneur.com, New York Post etc. and you saying that you see no notability issues here, could you please remove the citation style and reliable sources tag.

FamJoshua1 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup work. I'll look it over later.

As for the potential new refs:

The Inc ref is a publicity piece.

The Country Living ref is better, though I wouldn't argue it's high-quality. They're likely just passing on material provided to them by Greiner's publicists.

The last ref is a press release.

So of the three potential refs, one might me usable. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Hatnotes discussion

Hi Ronz - Editor assistance page stalker here. I think we disagree about the numerous hatnotes on this article. I cleaned up the article and cleared them, but you put them back. Rather than revert, per common courtesy I'm starting this discussion so you as the tagger can defend them. For example, the citations look fine to me. Almost every statement is sourced. The sources all appear reliable - do you know of any that have been flagged on the reliable sources noticeboard? I see potential COI editing history with the SPA accounts, but nothing recently. The talk pages says that FamJoshua1 may have a conflict of interest, but he (or she?) only filled in the bare refs. Since everything is properly sourced and isn't promotional, the hatnotes may not be necessary. Thanks for you help keeping the encyclopedia in great shape. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The article needs a rewrite from the high-quality sources that BLP requires, with a careful eye to avoid echoing the public relations for Greiner.

The Forbes ref is unreliable and promotional. It's use, and the use of references like it, is rather typical of the problems we've had with this article.

The article is too much the work of SPA accounts, and others that seem likely to have a COI (or at least they've simply echoed the public relations for Greiner). Of the top contributors to this article, any coi of Dtrebbien (talk · contribs) is unclear, while Philpallen (talk · contribs) is almost certainly a paid editor [1], and Eirekara98 (talk · contribs) a likely COI of some sort. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: Based on the ANI link, I agree that Philpallen is likely COI but in reviewing his four contributions to the article over the past year, they are minor - a source is swapped, and Greiner's birthday was changed. The article has been winnowed down since then. Dtrebbien hasn't edited this in seven years. You're unfortunately dependent on the text the hatnote template generates, but neither of them are major contributors. Perhaps something saying undisclosed paid editing might be more appropriate, or you could flag their names on the talk page. The citation style is fine - that hatnote shouldn't be there. Ref expand would only make sense if there was a lot of unsourced info. There's only one unsourced sentence - you'd be hard pressed to find a single decent article without a citation missing, so I think we can agree that that one is also unnecessary. As far as unreliable sources, I agree that since the Forbes article was written by a paid outside contributor, as I see quite a bit, it's not as reliable as a staff article, but the source was used to simply say she was on Shark Tank. That's her main claim to fame, and really doesn't really require sourcing anyway. The Forbes site strangely slowly blanks itself out and says it's no longer available, so I marked it as a dead link. With the other sources, if they aren't listed on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, the RS hatnote shouldn't be there. If you disagree, you can start a discussion over there to get any suspect publications removed. In conclusion, this is overly hatnoted, which as you know is only going to discourage others from editing this. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

According to the article statistics, those three editors are the top contributors to the article.

I've removed the citation style tag. My mistake.

I've removed the Forbes ref and the associated tag. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: - Thank you for the clarification and advise, Timtempleton. I agree with you that the article is not promotional any more. It may have been when it was tagged by @Ronz: in November 2018, but since then the article is substantially changed to tone down the advertisement-like matter. Further, the tag for complete citation can also be removed as per WP:V, the citations are complete enough to verify the content of the page. It only seems fair to remove the hatnotes given the changes done on the page. FamJoshua1 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@FamJoshua1: The tags have already been removed. Please also review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you have a connection with the subject. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

DOB 1960 instead of 1969

The date of birth commonly see online suggests Mrs. Greiner was born in 1969, but there are conflicting reasons for why this doesn't make sense.

Mrs. Greiner's parents divorced in March of 1969. It's mentioned here. It is commonly said (though I cannot confirm through independent research) that her parents divorced when she was nine years old. It is exceedingly unlikely that her parents would have even been, you know, "her parents" if they officially divorced nine months prior to December 1969 (her stated month and year of birth both here and on many unreputable sites online) and it is impossible for them to have divorced when she was nine years old when the given divorce was nine months prior to her being born at all.

Well, how would I know that the person in the link is her mother, by chance? I suppose I cannot confirm 100%, but circumstantial evidence points to it. Ms. Husman died in November 2008. In Mrs. Greiner's book, she writes:

"It was 2008 when I got the call to come in and meet with Mark Burnett for a new show that he, ABC, and Sony were developing, called Shark Tank. The meeting went great and I was so excited to be chosen for the show. But then the most horrible thing happened: my mother, whom I loved very much, died suddenly right at the same time as shooting, and I had to withdraw."

The timeline fits. Shark Tank officially debuted on August 9, 2009. It's not impossible to suggest that the filming process for the show had begun several months prior to that.

[redacted] THCM THCM (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, I can understand that she could pass for 50. I assume she does what she can to stay in good physical condition. But the circumstantial evidence I see online suggests to me it's much more likely she was born in 1960 as opposed to 1969. There are details I cannot confirm - I cannot see when she attended and graduated from Loyola University, for instance, and I also cannot confirm the month and day of the year she was born on (her book does not give her birth year, by the way) - but December of 1969 simply doesn't make sense for the reasons explained and linked to above. If there is conclusive evidence to the contrary, by all means, revert back to 12/9/1969. But my reasoning is explained here to the fullest detail I can give. THCM THCM (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Content aside, this is a massive BLP violation. Please read WP:BLPPRIVACY. Praxidicae (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think I was using any information that wasn't readily accessible online - all of this can be found through basic Google searches - but I will redact as necessary. THCM THCM (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

COI header not actionable

Dear @Hipal: Can you provide an actionable item to do before removing the COI template? I looked over the article and wasn't able to find anything. But if the template is justified, then there must be something that should be done or addressed. Thank you, Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Confirm that each reference meets BLP standards and is used in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the instructions. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You removed the Entrepreneur opinion piece, thanks.

The Business Insider piece is a puff piece. I'm not sure it's so bad that it should be removed.

The Advisors piece is much worse.

The Success piece is similarly poor and promotional.

The Bustle piece is far over the line and should be removed.

The Seeking Alpha piece is a press release and doesn't mention Griener, so should be removed. --Hipal (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:THENFIXIT as you seem to know more about what are considered high-quality sources. Replaced the template as the existing one did not correspond to the complaint at hand. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Given the extent of the COI-editing here, I think a far more detailed review and cleanup are needed than I have time for. --Hipal (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed and replaced the crap sources that were templated at the top of the article: Advisors, Success, Bustle, and Seeking Alpha. I also rewrote any content that included claims not verified by either the old or new refs. Hopefully, there weren't won't be any more problems with COI editing. Stoarm (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have little beyond "crap sources". There is a sizeable marketing campaign behind her. We're not here to echo it. --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

What the fuck? I removed precisely what you suggested (the 4 refs) on January 1, nearly 9 months ago. I spent all that time cleaning up this huge mess of an article because you said you didn't have time to deal with it. I left what is sourced beyond the ones I removed. Now, you swoop in and fuck with my edits without even having the decency to discuss it first. If I could, I would've removed a lot more crap from this damn article, but then there'd be practically nothing left. But, hey, everyone knows you love proclaiming yourself the boss of every article you edit, so deal with this nightmare of an article yourself. Wipe out the whole damn article for all I care. You're going to do whatever the hell you want anyway, like you do all over this encylopedia. It's a-holes like you that drive so many good editors away from this project. Stoarm (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:FOC.

Those were only a list of some of the problematic references to point out that the references have not been reviewed carefully. Substituting them with references that were previously identified as poor isn't a solution. We're not playing whack-a-mole with poor references, especially not in a BLP. --Hipal (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

Don't fucking misrepresent my edits. Anyone can look at all of them, and their corresponding edit summaries, to see exactly what I did to try and reduce the mess. If there were any poor refs left in the article after I finished the cleanup, I wasn't the one who added them; they were already there. I removed all the ones you identified in this thread. You claim now, 9 months later, that those were just "some" of the bad ones. Well, that's your problem. You should've named the others while you were positng that list. And if you didn't have time to deal with it, as you stated, then you shouldn't have strolled in here after all those months went by and started reverting without discussing your concerns first. So, like I said, wipe out all the content if that's what you want to do. You don't give a fuck about what anyone says to you anyway. Why don't you nominate yourself for adminship. I dare you. It would be one of the most entertaining RfA's in the history of this project. Stoarm (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC) I'm not misrepresenting anything. Please take some time to cool off. --Hipal (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Anyone can look at my edits and see that you're completely full of shit, as always. "Please take some time to cool off" and then an edit summary of "deescalate". Classic troll behavior. Please, run for administrator. Now, continue your long history of always having to get in the last word with editors. Go. Stoarm (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC) I'm trying to deescalate your behavior. --Hipal (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Worry about your own behavior. Apparently, someone needs to teach you the meaning of deescalation. Let's start with this: I've made my points and you've made yours. So if you really want to deescalate, stop talking to me. Let's see if you're capable of doing that. Stoarm (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Please WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Nope, incapable. Keep talking. Go. Stoarm (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC) This is disruptive. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC) You're solidifying your infamous reputation as an inistigating, passive-aggressive troll. So, continue. Stoarm (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC) [2] --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Twelve hours later. Keep baiting, a-hole. Come on, continue talking to me. Stoarm (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain my perspective in more detail on the relevant content policies and the specific references.

I didn't see that the content was restored without consensus. We could copy it here for discussion, if that would help. --Hipal (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent expansion

To prevent further edit-warring, I'm copying the disputed information here for discussion. It should be removed from the article until we can find consensus, as BLP requires, and as enforced by sanctions.

To the lede:

Greiner has more than 500 inventions and holds 120 patents.

To "Career":

Greiner has patented consumer products in other categories such as cosmetic organization, jewelry storage, travel, electronics, and household items. Greiner has invented over 500 products and holds 120 patents.

References

These edits add two new references:

The Inc ref is a video version of a previously rejected publicity piece [3]. The non-video version is identified as an opinion piece, so should not be used at all.

The ABC biography is promotional and not independent.

Both these new references are WP:PROMO and do not demonstrate any encyclopedic value or weight.

The third reference, from Parade, published before she partnered with AMG/Parade, is a puff piece. While I'm not against it's use completely, I think we should take care how it's being used so not to violate PROMO, NOTNEWS, and NPOV.

The three references do not verify the information. Each has a different number of "inventions", and the details about the patents isn't the same either.

I'm not sure how any number of "inventions" could be fact-checked, so we problably shouldn't use Wikipedia's voice, if we mention any number or estimate at all.

The differences in reporting about her patents makes it difficult to determine what, if anything we should include. It certainly can be fact-checked, so I'm hoping we can find a way to mention it.

I don't see how such poorly referenced information belongs in the lede, even if we can resolve the verification problems. --Hipal (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the content as required in a BLP since there is clearly no consensus for it. --Hipal (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that her number of inventions has little context in these references, which we're not currently presenting at all. I think the article would be better off with that context rather than a rather meaningless, large number. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hipal: - I'm finally getting around to reading this info after getting pinged on my talk page. Thanks for putting down your thoughts and explanation of why you removed the info. I see the Parade source as a bit more reliable than you do. Yes, it's hard to source patent claims since they are sometimes filed under business names, and if it's hundreds, it's hard to count the results of most patent searches. But the info is reported in an independent source, and that's our standard. If it's 500 and they mistyped 600, then there's no reason we can't just say "reportedly more than 500". If she's famous for being an inventor, then the patent count is certainly lead-worthy material. The Inc staff moniker on the video is troubling - I like to see an actual reporter's name. And the ABC page looks like her supplied bio, so it should only be used for uncontroversial items. So we agree on most but not everything. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)\

Thanks. As I said, what broader context there is in the reliable references is what we should include. Throwing numbers out to impress is what the promoters do, which is why we're in this situation. We're not here to let them make this their soapbox.

If it's 500 and they mistyped 600 that would be OR, and covering for sloppy reporting, neither of which we should be doing in a BLP.

Is she famous for being an inventor? Are there any sources that indicate so that are not influenced by the Shark Tank public relations campaign? The Crains ref, likely, but I don't have access to it. The Philadelphia Inquirer ref doesn't call her "inventor", but has some nice context. The Twin Cities Business ref reads like a pr piece for Greiner's lawyers, but might have some context as well.

If we look for reference not influenced by her QVC show or Shark Tank, then I believe we have nothing at all. Because of that, I think we have the first sentence of the lede correct, and I'm leaning to agreeing with the recent removal of "inventor" from the infobox. --Hipal (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hipal: - this sources her numerous inventions and patents. [[4]] With Parade calling her an inventor and counting her patents As head of her own company, For Your Ease Only, Greiner has invented more than 600 products and procured over 120 patents, and the other info in the article, there's no question that she's an inventor. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we agree. My question is Is she famous for being an inventor?. Judging by the refs, her work at QVC and Shark Tank are what she's famous for. It's her television work that should be first and foremost. Her entrepreneurial background second, and highly intertwined with her QVC show. From that perspective, I think the lede is fine. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Timtempleton made his position very clear, concluding that "there's no question that she's an inventor." So, pretending that he agrees with you doesn't make it so. Trying to whitewash all mentions of her being an inventor is not only inappropriate and wrong, but diminishes the credibility of the entire article. Asking if she's famous for being an inventor is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether it is noteworthy; is it a significant part of her life and her life's work. For the record, an endless number of notable people (with Wikipedia articles) are not famous at all. Please educate yourself on the difference between notability and fame. Per WP:NOTE: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines". Stoarm (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed ABC and Inc refs, per agreement above. Stoarm (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No one is trying to whitewash anything. Please retract. Misrepresenting and attacking others is not the way to create consensus, as you should have learned from your most recent block. --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to be pulled into a simmering dispute, but I will comment that the whole point of Wikipedia is to let readers know things they may not know, such as things people did but are not well known for. We are trying to educate people. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's fine for the article body, as has been discussed.

We don't "educate" by promoting, or echoing promotion. That's been the problem with this article all along. --Hipal (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Timtempleton has told you (again), as politely as he can, that you are wrong. You have no one agreeing with you. The content is sourced and is an obviously significant accomplishment, so do not continually restore without consensus. Also, please educate yourself on WP:FOC. Stoarm (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

FOC means not commenting on editors as you are doing, rather focus on policies and references, which you are not doing, but you know that [5] [6][7][8] --Hipal (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you see the total hypocrisy in that statement, which of course completely violated FOC. Invoking policies, then not following them yourself is disruptive to the process of improving aritcles. As WP:FOC clearly states, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor." But you know that. And does your prior comment on an editor's prior block focus on content, or on editor conduct? You know that, too. Any editor can see for themselves that my comments above do focus on content, so perhaps you didn't read them carefully. Both Timtempleton and I have told you the same thing regarding Greiner as an inventor. If you want the changes you seek, simply get a proper consensus. Stoarm (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

And your continuing as you are is not "total hypocrisy"? so perhaps you didn't read them carefully. Seems like you're just trolling me there. --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

At least you're not denying it. Thank you. That's a step in the right direction. Now, on to improving this article. Stoarm (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Offer of compromise

I'll make a deal. If you propose the exact changes you'd like to make to the article, and number each of them (e.g. Proposal 1, Proposal 2, etc.), I will support any to which TimTempleton agrees. Of course, you two may negotiate changes to your proposals so that both sides will be satisfied. My only conditions for this compromise are (1) that there must be a clear agreement between the two of you as to exactly what the change(s) will be, (2) TimTempleton will make the agreed upon edits, and (3) any subsequent changes by you to the agreed upon edits will be reverted unless there is a new agreement as outlined above. I believe my offer could result in a very quick resolution to this ongoing dispute. Stoarm (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're willing to defer to others. That's progress. Will you defer to policy, or do we need intermediaries to interpret and decide on the policy? --Hipal (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:FOC. Do you accept the offer? Yes or no? Stoarm (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you please answer the question? I feel it's essential it be answered before the offer can be considered. --Hipal (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The offer speaks very clearly for itself. Do you accept it? Yes or no? Stoarm (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the offer is not clear. You'll not clarify it regarding how Wikipedia's policies apply? --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

As my offer makes abundantly clear, that's between you and TimTempleton. It has nothing to do with me since I will not be involved in the negotiation of your proposed changes. Obviously, each change can only be made if both of you agree to it. You've hit the lottery with my offer of compromise, so your continued debate on the matter is utterly perplexing. If you don't think you can work with Tim, then say no and we'll go from there. Otherwise, let him know it's a yes and get on the road to happiness for everyone. Stoarm (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not making any sense. I asked a simple question that I find essential in going forward with any agreement with you. I'll assume the answer is "no" until you make it clear. --Hipal (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Follow WP:DR. WP:DRN seems to be what you're trying to do. --Hipal (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't look a gift horse in the mouth. You have an amazing opportunity to resolve all your objections with TimTemplteon, assuming he agrees to work with you. With me out of the picture in the discussions between the two of you, I don't see why it can't be settled quickly. Your choice, but my offer won't be on the table forever. Stoarm (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I chose to follow DR. --Hipal (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

See my comment in the thread below. I already informed TimTempleton of my decision via this self-revert on his talk page. Stoarm (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup reverted for no apparent reason

Re [9]: I provided a brief explanation for each of my five edits there, and none are related to the disputes above. Please explain, citing relevant policies, why none have been retained. --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"No apparent reason"... other than the detailed edit summary provided and all prior talk page discussion. Let us know if you accept the above offer to work with TimTempleton, which will resolve all disputed content. Stoarm (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

see tp, consensus still needed for these issues, content prose prev addressed and edited with regard to tag(s)/promotion, content that is potentially contentious or likely to be challenged s/b sourced even in lead and/or have multiple refs to verify As I said, I don't believe any of the edits, other than perhaps the tag, have anything to do with the other disputes. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I've handed you a huge compromise and easy resolution on a silver platter, yet you continue to argue and complain instead of simply saying yes or no to the offer. Perhaps you are unsure if you'll be able to work cooperatively and productively with TimTempleton to reach a satisfying resolution to all content disputes, both old and new. Stoarm (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You're ignoring the purpose of this discussion, disrupting it in the process. --Hipal (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Any policy-based objections to removing the references from the lede? --Hipal (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware of all of the past issues and discussions regarding the MoS protocols for sources in the lead of an article. Refs are not prohibited from any lead, nor are they required. There is also no exception to ref requirments with regard to the lead. They should be avoided in the lead, but there are circumstances where they're necessary, particularly when content is challenged or likely to be challenged. There is a long history regarding the refs in question. In any case, I have removed three of the refs from the lead (Parade, Crain's, Philadelphia Inquirer). I will not object to removing the other two from the lead (EW, NY Times) if do you not object to me relocating them for now to the corresponding content in the body. Then, they can be discussed along with the current two attached to that content about her QVC show. Stoarm (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for removing some. Progress!

I'm not asking for removal of sources from the article. I relocated them before, so I don't understand the problem or why such discussions are needed. --Hipal (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I can relocate the remaining two to the body temporarily. But that would leave four refs for the content about Greiner's QVC show, which is too many. It would need to be decided which of the four refs should remain to verify that content. So, do you want me to move them?

Also, in the Career section, I think that long list of all the Shark Tank products she invested in is ridiculous and should therefore be trimmed. I feel that only the few noteworthy ones should remain. Do you agree? Stoarm (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Good points all. Thank you.

I was hoping the references could be used elsewhere or expansion. I don't want to lose them (unless there's clearly some reason to do so). I'd appreciate if you'd move them where you would like.

That products list was the next area I wanted to address, hoping it would be an acceptable area to work on that wasn't related to the other disputes. I was going to look for new references that might suggest mention of one or more might be due, but I wasn't expecting to find them. This is promising that we both want to work on them for the same reasons. --Hipal (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the two remaining sources in the lead, I just discovered the E News one has advertisements for Greiner's products below the article itself. It even has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page that says, "We love these products, and we hope you do too. E! has affiliate relationships, so we may get a small share of the revenue from your purchases". I hadn't caught that previously. When I see refs like that, I think advertisement, not news. So, I removed it from the article entirely. If you want it restored for some reason, let me know. As you requested, I moved the NY Times ref from the lead to an unsourced sentence in the body, where I also added a mention of her nickname since it was only included in the lead.

As far as the way-too-long list of Shark Tank products... from reading a lot of high-quality sources over the years, I believe that Scrub Daddy and Squatty Potty are among the most noteworthy/successful of Greiner's Shark Tank investments. Further, I've repeatedly read in solid sources that Scrub Daddy was, and I suppose still is, among the most financially successful products in Shark Tank history. And Squatty Potty is probably very close to it. Also, Drop Stop has its own article. Marzetti bought Bantam Bagels, which is sourced in the Greiner article. But moving on from what is really OR, I am perfectly fine with you trimming that list of products and leaving only the ones you feel are worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia. That paragraph, with all the products, is the one in the article that bothers me the most. Stoarm (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've seen, I also did some basic copy editing and rewrites, and moved around some of the existing content for more logical placement and flow to prevent reader confusion or objections. There are several edits because I was tweaking the layout as I went along. I was tempted to start working on the paragraph containing the annoying long list of products, but I'll leave that project in your hands. Stoarm (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I've done all I can to clean up this article, while trying to maintain a fair balance based on reliable sources. From this point on, I'll leave it to you to take care of of completing whatever changes you feel are necessary to make this a quality article. I have no objections to you reverting or changing any of my edits. Stoarm (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Year of Birth Missing

9 December 1969 (age 53 years), Chicago, Illinois, United States Sunny Diyali (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable reference. --Hipal (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

https://allfamous.org/de/people/lori-greiner-19691209.html DenisKorwin (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not reliable. --Hipal (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Whst about IMDB? Same date in question.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4883262/?ref_=ext_shr Peacekeeper 1234 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

IMDB isn't a reliable source as it's user generated just like Wikipedia.WP:IMDB Kcj5062 (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What about National Today? or literally EVERY source?

https://nationaltoday.com/birthday/lori-greiner/ Realpala (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.tvinsider.com/people/lori-greiner/

tvinsider agrees Realpala (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Neither remotely meets WP:REPUTABLE. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

why dont we use what other pages do? add different years, theres literally only two choices Realpala (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required. --Hipal (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal her dob was inputted on the page as 12/9/69, not sure if it has any basis Realpala (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

College grad year

@Hipal Hi, I'm not too sure if this will be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, but on the Loyola Chicago University Twitter page, it has listed her as being an alumni and having received her BA in 1982.[10] Kcj5062 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd assume that would be considered a primary source, if the identity of the twitter account is verifiable. Maybe we should check at WP:RSN. --Hipal (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to be sure before putting it up in the article. There's also a LCU instagram page that has this up.[11] I'll ask over at WP:RSN. Maybe this will help out with the debate about whether she was born in 1960 or 1969. Kcj5062 (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay I know this won't be considered a reliable source, but I thought I'd point it out. On page 172 of the 1979 Loyola Chicago University yearbook, there's a picture of the Alpha Kappa Phi fraternity and she's listed among the names. This was before she got married so her last name was Husman at the time.[12] This makes the 1960 birth year seem more accurate because unless she's some sort of child prodigy, it's unlikely she was already in college at 9-10 years old. Kcj5062 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

DOB incorrect

she is 60+ shame on her for lying about her age 205.178.49.134 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)