Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 7

message: I have an idea. The effort being used here by both sides on an article about a mediocre dietary supplement could be used to improve dozens of articles to GA/FA status. Hmm........ — Deckiller 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, continue your bickering :) — Deckiller 07:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Deckill, it is an excellent idea. There is a problem here, however. I think what is going on is we have a perfect storm of Wikipedia interests here. (Pardon the editorial, its not relevant to the article, but might be interesting to some.) First we have the company here, interested in making this a favorable article to their product (see above). Then we have juice plus fans, folks who are believers in the product. This group will not be happy as long as the article has negative information. So next we have some folks who see some weaknesses in this product. I (one of them) believe they (we) are well informed, NPOV and don't want this site to become a marketing conduit for a product. Naturally if both sides here can adhere to WP policy, we might make wonderful use of Wikipedia to arrive at something informative and NPOV for readers. In a sense I see that happening, if not painfully slow. All the back in forth between these two groups is what makes this mediocre supplement such a big issue, and touches a deeper issue on how corporate interests intersect with Wikipedia. Which brings us to a third group of folks here who are showing up to debate because they are true Wikipedia enthusiasts (the admins, etc). I personally believe these editors really see this article as a great chance to iron out and teach wikipedia policy. And, I must admit, they seem to be really amazing people who can really see NPOV and pick up diverse topics, and, somehow, have lots of time. So yes, I think this whole thing seems silly at first glance -- so much more could be accomplished by devoting energy elsewhere, but I think we are really doing something important here. And I think we are all learning something. So I don't think this debate will end anytime soon. So hop on in :) Tbbooher 02:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like the origins of World War I in a sense :) — Deckiller 02:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea

message: The recent spate of revisions and reverts has led to the resurrection of material, the deletion of which had been agreed upon on the talk page. Careless reverts are not the way to sort this article out. I have just removed the SNAEMS stuff for the umpteenth time. This chaos is negating much valuable work over recent weeks. --TraceyR 06:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits are being restored. POV-pushing is being reverted. Flawed logic and a misunderstanding of consensus will not prevent relevant content from being included in the article. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus had been reached that effects which were deemed not to be due to the supplement should not be included, nor should the Wake Forest consent form (which provides no source for its list of effects). This material is not verifiable - it has nothing to do with "POV-pushing" and "flawed logic". --TraceyR 06:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I have restored the article to Rhode Island Red's last version from June 17.  Can everyone please signoff to agree that this is the closest thing we've got to consensus, so that we can stop with the edit wars? --Elonka 06:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very misleading, you're trying to suggest that RIR endorsed the entire version of the article when that edit was removing the plus sign. I've read what you guys have considered "consensus", and to be blunt, you're wrong. Elonka, I've taken you to arbcom over proving how wrong you were about what was or wasn't consensus, please don't waste my time and force me to do it a second time. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is the second time someone has said "months" of consensus. It seems this dispute started about one month ago. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I don't think which version we use matters since aside from a couple of points, not much is terribly different. I am concerned though Ned that you are re-adding the information from the retracted FDA report and the Wake Forest consent form.  Both were thoroughly discussed; the FDA report fails to meet the reliable sourcing standard and the consent form indicated that some of the adverse effects were actually due to blood draws and other study methods and not the product itself. Shell babelfish 07:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you already removed that? -- Ned Scott 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - you reverted to my version; this is just a bit confusing.  Looks like I got the FDA but missed the consent form.  I'll fix that. Shell babelfish 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ned, I'm happy to prove consensus to you.  Feel free to pick any one section that you have questions about, and I'll provide diffs showing where it's been discussed, and who thought what. --Elonka 07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I thought the consensus on the "+" was that we should mention it once in the lead paragraph and not in the rest of the article, but I really have no strong preference on that one.  As for the Adverse Effects section, here's what I propose for what it should look like.  We haven't had it like this in the article yet, but I think it should address everyone's concerns (at least I hope so):  "Reported adverse effects have been rare, having only been mentioned by three studies which were neither randomized, blinded nor placebo-controlled. In one 1999 study, some of the subjects who took Orchard Blend and Garden Blend developed a hive-like rash.[13] Another study reported adverse effects (upper-respiratory tract, urinary, and musculoskeletal) in roughly a third of the participants who took the products for 7 days. However, these events resolved spontaneously and were deemed by the researchers to be unrelated to treatment.[10] In a third study, some subjects withdrew due to gastrointestinal distress, but it was unconfirmed as to whether or not this was caused by the Juice Plus regimen (a combination of Orchard Blend, Garden Blend, and Vineyard Blend).[22]"  Will that work for everyone? --Elonka 21:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that we once had (almost) unanimous agreement that, if the study's researchers deemed that a reported adverse effect was unrelated to treatment, then this adverse effect should not be mentioned. --TraceyR 22:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: wrt the '+' sign, my recollection is in agreement with Elonka's. --TraceyR 22:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I too recall a consensus against the '+' sign except for the first use, and that adverse effects that were deemed unrelated to treatment should be excluded. However, since Elonka has provided a new compromise summary just above, I am happy to accept that version. EdJohnston 00:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with EdJohnston and others. Elonka's compromise works in my opinion. Tbbooher 02:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm good with the plus sign either way, sorry I misunderstood the discussion.  I like Elonka's rewrite. Shell babelfish 04:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yay!  Thanks everyone for weighing in.  I have updated the "Adverse effects" section of the article with the compromise text (I also added the years of the studies).  Hopefully this will help stabilize things a bit.  I do still feel that the third study is questionable, since it's not confirmed to even have anything to do with Juice Plus.  But if listing it in the article for awhile helps the article to remain stable, that works for me.  :) --Elonka 05:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a couple of tweaks to the last version of the Adverse Effects section. First, saying that AEs were rare and only reported in only 3 studies creates the false impression that other studies looked for AEs but did not find them. This is in fact not the case. Only these 3 studies made any attempt whatsoever to monitor AEs. Secondly, the correct terminology to describe the cause of AEs in the Houston et al. study is that they were deemed to be "possibly due to" the Juice Plus regimen. This is preferred/standard terminology vs. saying that the cause was unclear. Also, including the publication dates of the studies doesn’t seem to serve any great purpose, and since we have not done so in the discussion of other research, it didn’t seem consistent to do so here. As it stands now, the discussion of these 3 studies is acceptable to me. Rhode Island Red 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how rare might be a bad choice of words; we don't have a secondary source backing up that statement and that's inserting our own opinion.  I don't think possibly due or the cause being unclear is much of a change; the study itself does say possibly though.  I'm not sure why the publication dates were there and not anywhere else; aren't those in the refereces? Shell babelfish 20:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies if it seemed like I was stirring the pot by making the last set of changes. They seemed reasonable enough so I didn't think it would be a transgression to go ahead and make them. I'll wait for further comment. Rhode Island Red 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be willing to remove the word "rare".  As for the publication dates, I think we should include them because they provide useful context.  For example, with the 1999 Inserra study, I find it useful to know that none of the studies since then have reported similar effects.  Whereas if it would have been a 2007 study, there might have been the implication that this was something new that was now being studied.  I'd also like to again discuss whether or not we should even include the Houston study, which says that adverse effects were "possibly due to" the Juice Plus regimen.  Since it's not a confirmed AE that's related to Juice Plus, I think that wording should be removed altogether from the AE section.  What do other editors think? Years or no, Houston study or no? --Elonka 21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's drop the word 'rare'. It's OK to include the dates. Omit the Houston study. I added an arbitrary section break (above) to make it easier to follow the thread.  EdJohnston 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions/reverts getting out of hand

message: ::::::: I'd be willing to remove the word "rare".  As for the publication dates, I think we should include them because they provide useful context.  For example, with the 1999 Inserra study, I find it useful to know that none of the studies since then have reported similar effects.  Whereas if it would have been a 2007 study, there might have been the implication that this was something new that was now being studied.  I'd also like to again discuss whether or not we should even include the Houston study, which says that adverse effects were "possibly due to" the Juice Plus regimen.  Since it's not a confirmed AE that's related to Juice Plus, I think that wording should be removed altogether from the AE section.  What do other editors think? Years or no, Houston study or no? --Elonka 21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's drop the word 'rare'. It's OK to include the dates. Omit the Houston study. I added an arbitrary section break (above) to make it easier to follow the thread.  EdJohnston 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: I'm not sure why the history of NSA and NAI (and names of NAI's other customers) merit mention in an article about Juice Plus. This sort of information would certainly be relevant in an article about the respective companies but surely it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. --TraceyR 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just created an article on National Safety Associates. If you see anything that's not JP-related that you want to move there, feel free. --Elonka 23:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (followup) I moved some of the information out, let me know if you have concerns about anything else.  :) --Elonka 23:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka, I find it very distasteful and disrespectful that you continue to revert war over the product description section, and attempt to do so with misleading edit summaries. As pointed out before, this does not violate WP:NOT, and you have no consensus to remove. -- Ned Scott 00:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   --Elonka 01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, are you going to respond to the substance of  Ned's accusation? Responding to a direct and specific accusation with a link covering an un-related block seems sorta like changing the topic. Bhimaji 02:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for jumping on the bandwagon, but this type of deletion of referenced content without consensus is what led to our last round of conflicts and resulted in Elonka launching a red-herring user conduct RfC against me. These heavy handed tactics really have to stop. Rhode Island Red 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Red, the RfC wasn't a red herring. It was a direct response to your excessive editing and rude behavior towards your fellow editors. Thanks.Citizen Don 05:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus emerging on the RfC page suggests otherwise. Rhode Island Red 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Juice Plus? NSA? NAI? 

message: I'd like to get everyone's opinion on this, for clarity.  Should or shouldn't the Wikipedia article include the detailed RDI information on the "Juice Plus Gummies" product? 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gummies poll

message: I'd like to delete a line out of the Criticism section, because I question the reliability of the source:
An unpublished chemical analysis of Juice Plus reported by GNLD International, a competing supplement company, is claimed to have shown that Juice Plus Orchard/Garden Blend did not contain detectable levels of alpha-carotene, lycopene, or lutein.(pdf)
The fact that it's both an unpublished source, and one from a competitor with a clear COI, and from an advertising flyer, makes me think that it is inappropriate for use at the Wikipedia article.  Do other editors agree? --Elonka 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should be removed.  Regardless of what company the data originated from, an unpublished study who's conclusions are sent via an advertisement falls below the reliable sources standard. Shell babelfish 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I too think that this is an inappropriate source, for all the reasons given by Elonka and Shell. --TraceyR 22:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Competitor source

message: The paragraphDoubts have been raised about the benefits of Juice Plus by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the University of California Berkeley and other critics. Specific criticisms include: the product’s marketing being unsupported by research data, the product contains too little fruit and vegetable powder to offer significant clinical benefits, concerns that the effects can be attributed to the inclusion of added exogenous vitamins and micronutrients, and complaints that the products are excessively priced relative to their potential benefits.[7][27][32][30][33][25][4]implies that each of the points listed was raised by each of the references given. This is not the case. For example, the complaint about the price being excessive related to the potential benefit is not made by all referenced sources. As it stands the article is misleading. In fact some of the criticism e.g. "the product contains too little fruit and vegetable powder to offer significant clinical benefits" is a statement of opinion devoid of scientific research to back it up; the same is true of "complaints that the products are excessively priced relative to their potential benefits". Surely the criticism section needs to demonstrate the same rigorous approach to its criticisms that is expected of positive claims. --TraceyR 23:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to the above, I have a question about how to flag criticism based on opinion rather than fact.  E.g. if the statement that "the product contains too little fruit and vegetable powder to offer significant clinical benefits" is contained in one of the referenced sources (e.g. Sloan-Kettering or whatever), which itself provides no evidence to support this assertion, how should this be tagged in the article? Tagging it with  would seem to be incorrect, since there is a citation (however poor the source); would  be appropriate, since there is nothing to back up the original assertion? Any suggestions? Thanks in advance. --TraceyR 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More specific assignment of references to points of criticism