Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 1

message: I don't think "What health professionals say" is NPOV in the sense that it does not add to the discussion of what JP is. The link is currently one of several which directly point to marketing language on the corporate distributors website. Wikipedia is not to be a marketing conduit and I think it should be removed. --24.33.149.248 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: "Eight studies on Juice Plus have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of the studies were funded and co-written by the manufacturer. Only 3 were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. [Several of the studies showed poor results] with regard to (a) the content and absorption of several key nutrients and antioxidants, (b) antioxidant effects, and (c) effects on homocysteine, LDL, and cholesterol levels. Other studies are in progress but have not been published. To date, the products that have been studied are Garden Blend and Orchard Blend (2 capsules of each taken daily in most of the studies), and Vineyard Blend (taken in combination with Garden and Orchard Blend in one study)." 
It is truly sad that someone would use this tool to state their own biased opinion and not use it for factual evidence to help others seeking the truth and facts regarding a particular subject. 
(unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)
----
While I can see that the article does not discuss JP+ in a flattering light, I do not agree that the article is an attack. I started this article as a research product into Juice Plus+, a subject of interest without any previous POV and it was interesting to see how a community developed (see the history) which established a compromise which, in my opinion, more accurately reflected the truth. I did not add the information, but it is important that only three studies were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. This is fact, not attack or judgement from which one may draw their own conclusions. I have found this article very informative and consider the subject matter noteworthy. --Tbbooher 13:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Opinions 

message: Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox.  
Perhaps we should protect the article since whoever is at (70.33.58.155, NET-70-32-0-0-1, locatable through Adelphia 70-33-0-0-Z12) is intent on vandalism. Feel free to quote more research and  published information that you feel should be in the article, but please stop undoing the serious research of others. Wikipedia requires "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable."  the current article meets these criteria. --Tbbooher 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Above 

message: What needs to be done in order to wikify? I am familiar with the term and meaning. This article seems to meet requirements already. Can anyone please comment. I will remove the notice in a week if no comments follow. Tbbooher 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikify means adding   these around a word so that it links deeper into another article. Yanksox (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. The article did link already, especially to external links, but scrubbing the article for more links can't hurt. I can prob do it this weekend. Tbbooher 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links I showed you, are links that link within Wikipedia. Yanksox (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got ya, thanks Yanksox the article should now be wikified. Tbbooher 21:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify 

message: If you would like me to I could add all sorts of text taken directly from the studies done on Juice Plus+ and we can go back and forth debating this on line and in this forum.  I can cut and paste with the best of them, and I know how and where to find all the research too.  But, does that really make sense and who would that serve?  Wouldn't this article serve the public better if it was a simple, clean and non-bias definition of the product? (unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)
:Please sign your articles and do not delete content. If you can add NPOV content to the article, please do so. If you have research to reference that provides independent insight, please do so. Testimonials are marketing language are not, by definition, NPOV. The point of the article is to present the truth in an unbiased manner. That might mean that the article does not positively promote a product. Statements like "direct and multi-level marketing" are true, that is the distribution medium. A statement like "independent marketing" is vague and left open to interpretation. As a research scientist my only interest is to understand the truth and preserve the truth in the article and prevent vandalism and the infusion of marketing language. The public is served by a complete description that references the scientifc community. So the Wikipedia community welcomes summaries of positive research which would add to the article. It would be wrong for someone to defame the product without reference. In any case, it is wrong to delete accurate and referenced content of others. Tbbooher 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article could benefit from more summaries of the scientific research with positive findings (if they are out there). Looking at the article history is interesting, it is a good thing there are many more positive people trying to represent reality and inform people than the vandal that seems intent on marketing the product described on this page. It is a good thing the cigaratte industry doesn't have someone to continually vandalize the section on Tobacco smoking and insist the article is short and only says positive things about smoking, ignoring any critical work in the scientific community. 134.205.133.251 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The difference is, that Juice Plus+ is proven to work. It's a whole food based supplement -- there are no articifical ingredients. More information is available on my web-site: http://www.askdrsears.com/html/4/t040500.asp. Dr sears 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know this product or company (Juice Plus, NSA, etc) but from looking at the history, there seem to be at least 6 authors adding building this article and a someone at 70.33.58.155 trying to delete their work. I have looked at the "contributions" of 70.33.58.155 and they consist of deleteing information and inserting marketing language. 70.33.58.155 Please don't attribute the consensus of the community to one person and please stop trying to destroy other's work. 69.143.38.167 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete Article 

message: If you would like to assign a name to my comments, you can use "Nick" but putting I.P addresses out there like that simply open things up to malicious type actions over the Internet.  I would think you would not want to be responsible for causing problems like that.  If you want to block my I.P. address go ahead and do that as I have nothing further to say about this article or anything on Wikipedia anymore anyway.  I did my best to provide some additional information and some edits, they were promptly deleted and nobody said a word about any of that.  Every attempt I made to add something of value was deleted and that was fine.
Nick (unsigned comment by 12.73.180.138)
Nick, contributions need to be attributable to either a registered Wikipedia username or an IP address. Rhode Island Red 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop posting my I.P. Address 

message: The opinions posted under the heading "Support From the Medical Community" do not represent the consensus of the medical community and are not NPOV. The individuals mentioned and quoted are all company spokespersons and have financial interests in the product. The endorsements are on the Juice Plus homepage which is already linked in the entry under "External Links". 
The following stement is unsupportable: "From this list, it is clear that the medical community stands behind the efficacy of the Juice Plus+® product. In fact, one can see the suport of not only the medical community, but also the definitive support of the international scientific community. Any criticism of the Juice Plus +® product must be understood in the context of the stature and education level of these professionals." Rhode Island Red 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Wikipedia user Rhode Island Red: I am a respected doctor with an international reputation. Moreover, I am the Wikipedia expert assigned to this project with the task of making this article more favorable to the marketing and distribution of Juice Plus+. Removing my content is standing against my medical credentials which I don't think you are qualified to do. Dr sears 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Expert opinions are NOT brought forth with claims of notability, but citations of sources and clear, coherent, and neutral statements of what is true. Yanksox (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To user Dr sears regarding the following threat you left on my talk page: "You are hereby warned. You are to stop attacking a certain product, which is protected by a company with considerable means." Please do not resort to threatening Wikipedia users. That behavior absolutely will not be tolerated and you will be sanctioned if you continue. Rhode Island Red 02:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To User: Dr sears 

message: Yanksox -- I don't like what I have seen with a certain 'expert' popping up and don't understand what contributions an expert would make besides referencing more research. The only reason for dispute seems to be one user, who wants more favorable marketing on the site and a self-proclaimed expert who also seems to be marketing the product. It seems that Rhode Island Red has carefully referenced his links and statements, I tried to scan for anything to remove that wasn't supported by research and couldn't find anything. I say we remove the expert tag, as far as encylopedia articles go, this seems large enough for a nutrition product. Perhaps it should even be merged into a larger article on suppliments in general. In any case, what good do you envision to come out of the expert tag? Tbbooher 02:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expected someone to pose as an "expert." There has been a massive revert war over this article and I applied the tag and am trying to get outside sources into this. I may request for a semi-block. I just wanted a third party in to aliveate this. Also, keep in mind, I'm not an almighty editor. I'm just a normal dude (and in others cases dudette) like everyone else. I'm not infallible. Revert the tag and apply edits as you see fit. I've been trying to act like a mediatator and I side with RhodeIslandRed. The IP and "dr. sears," are just people probably working for this thing. Yanksox (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert Needed? 

message: Does anyone know why NSA insists that Juice Plus is written redundantly as Juice ++ with the extra plus? Do they know this is redundant, or is there something clever here as in the C++ name? Or do folks pronounce the title Juice Plus Plus? It also seems the official name (per their web-site) is Juice Plus+® -- which also includes ® symbol. Clearly the word is a registered trademark, but they seem to insist (or continually write) that the trademark registration symbol is part of the name itself. This is odd. Even though Wikipedia is a registered trademark we don't ever write, "Today I was on Wikipedia® using FireFox® on my Windows(tm) box". This is perhaps more interesting and inciteful than redundancy as it almost implies a defensiveness or insistance that others know it is registered. The question here is  why? Is this another attempt to create a sense of legitimacy (as in "hey this is a real product registered with a government body") or a warning to anyone thinking of misusing their trademark? I am not too familar with the economics of the supplement world, but it seems pretty competitive that too the extent where getting a trademark is a sign of notability. Any thoughts? The answer of the actual legal name (and if it includes the registration mark) might be interesting in the article. Tbbooher 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that you are right in suggesting that it is to add a veneer of legitimacy. Distributors sometimes claim that JP is produced by a "patented" process (even though it is actually an unpatented "proprietary" process), and refer to how the US Patent/Trademark Office has recognized JP, or some such distortion of the truth. So, I think the exploitation of the copyright symbol in the product name is to make the product or the method of production seem unique and legitimate. I don’t know what to think about the Plus-Plus aspect, other than it is as annoyingly redundant as when people talk about “giving 110 percent” or refer to “ATM machines”, “PIN numbers”, and “salsa sauce”. Rhode Island Red 03:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info, that was the kind of information I was looking for. It is relevant to the page, since whatever the correct and legal name is should be displayed. In fact, Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. This is displayed at the bottom of almost all pages on the site. This matches the standard way trademarks are used, in reference areas instead of being added to the name. So is the ® part of the name (i.e. it should be included on the page in every reference) or is the name just Juice Plus+? No intent to slander here, just want to know what the correct name is. Tbbooher 12:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideosyncracies of Juice Plus+ Product Naming 

message: I am a bit leary of the latest addition to the page by Truthseeker which read “however, each batch is tested for the absence of pesticides, herbicides, yeast, mold, bacteria and heavy metals.” This statement should be referenced if it is to be included, since the bottle label does not contain information to validate the claim.. It seems unlikely that the product is actually free of such residues but probably contains amounts within acceptable limits. I modified it temporarily to “The products are claimed to be free of pesticides, herbicides, yeast, mold, bacteria, and heavy metals”, but I think it should be promptly removed if it cannot be adequately referenced.
Rhode Island Red 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 19 Edit 

message: A number of complaints about this article have been made to m:OTRS.  I noticed that many references listed in the article text do not appear in their full form in a references section.  I also noticed that a number of statements, especially in the controversy section mention a reference (i.e. "According to Consumer Reports) but then don't give enough information on the reference. These problems make it incredibly difficult for another editor to verify the material in the article.  If someone with knowledge of the references used in the article could properly cite them (or maybe even convert to the standard format), it would avoid someone coming along and cutting the article to a stub until it's properly citing its sources. Shell babelfish 16:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As requested, substantiating links have been provided for several of the articles in question (e.g. Consumer Reports). These links were already on the page but were listed in the references section. The links/references are now in line with the text which should facilitate verification. Please indicate if you think that any other links should be included. By the way, are the complaints to m:OTRS available for non-admins to view? Rhode Island Red 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's closer to the standard reference style which helps quite a bit in articles that have been questioned.  OTRS is only viewable to those with access (not all admins); the list can be found on this page. Shell babelfish 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Newly added link to article about Stephen Barrett is unnecessary. On the previous line, his name is Wiki-linked to a full biography that discusses his pros and cons. Also the link was mistitled. Rhode Island Red 13:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the artcile is not about Juice Plus, it is about Stephen Barrett. On that basis it is an ad hominem attack and therefore is not NPOV. As was already pointed out, Dr. Barrett's name is wiki-linked to his biography which included a complete discussion of his background. The link has therefore been deleted. And once again, please remember to sign your posys using 4 tildes. Rhode Island Red 15:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Julia, could you please explain what you mean by tangentials? My background in in philosophy, finance and math, which all have a meaning for that word, but I can't understand what you are trying to say or how any definition applies here. Also, it seems like you see Wikipedia as an advocacy platform, could you please read the Wikipedia policies to better understand what the goal and rules of Wikipedia are? Tbbooher 16:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are valid published counterarguments to Barrett’s claims, then those might merit inclusion but merely pointing out flaws in a person’s background or character is not a legitimate counterargument. The link in question does not contain a rebuttal of Barrett's claims about Juce Plus, it merely comments on his background. An ad hominem attack is when an argument is countered by attacking the person rather than the argument itself, and that would be the case if the link mentioned were included. As was pointed out serveral times already, the claims against Barrett's character and background are available for all to read through the linked Wiki page and that provides sufficient balance in this context. Wiki policy on linking also indicates that internal Wiki links on a subject, when available, are preferable to external links. The case against including the link is a very strong one and is supported by Wiki policy and commonsense. I hope you now understand the logic behind this issue. Rhode Island Red 17:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Barrett Reference 

message: Julia, once again you are reminded to focus on issues of content. Accusations of agendas and general basis serve no purpose at this point and it borders on harassment. You are kindly being asked to stop this behavior and to be civil. And please sign your posts using 4 tildes. Rhode Island Red 16:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harrassment 

message: Users posting comments should sign them using the 4 tildes name/date stamp. Posts that are not signed by this method cannot be accurately attributed to the originating user. This can lead to identity hijacking, and in general makes it difficult to follow the discussion. We have no way of knowing that the user  is in fact who they claim to be (i.e. Julia Havey) and there is another user posting on this discussion who has the same user name JuliaHavey. Those who does not sign their comments properly may notice that the originating user name has been added in by other editors. Please do not delete these atttributions as they provide important information for discussion readers. Rhode Island Red 20:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, several previous requests were made for the users 70.130.172.221 and JuliaHavey to sign comments using 4 tildes. If anyone is unfamiliar with the procedure they are advised to familiariize themselves by reading some of the Wiki FAQs for newcomers. Signing is an important part of Wiki protocol for the reasons explained already. Editors adding accurate IDs for unsigned comments is a protocol that has been followed on this discussion page pretty much since its inception. FYI, this is a tilde (~). Rhode Island Red 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing Comments 

message: An editor removed the link that Shell posted for Juice Plus Children's Research. Can someone explain why this is allowed? I am not adding it back but am requesting that Shell does. I am not allowed to make edits or it is vandalism, I am not allowed to disagree with an editor or it is "personal attack" but an editor can randomally change an article at will and slant it to suit their desires and it goes without warning? Again, let's point out that I have not changed this article since Shell's revision. So any hint of bias or slant is NOT coming from me. I am disputing as I was told to, in this forum.Julia Havey 16:05, October 15 2006 (unsigned JuliaHavey)
:The reference and other details on the JPCRF were there but were invisible becuase of a missing switch (close tag). Appreciate the notification but there is no need for hostility. Sometimes simple mistakes happen and they are best ironed out diplomatically. Rhode Island Red 21:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ID tags that were deleted have been replaced. Please do not delete them again. Rhode Island Red 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children's Research Link request for Dispute/opinion 

message: I am extremely unhappy with Juice Plus.  Its representatives befriend you on some common pretense.  My saying is that they pray for you while they pry on you.  Right off when they first approached me about the product,  I explained that I could not afford the cost and did not want the product.  They are persistant in their approach.  After they placed a $42.70 charge on my Visa for four months, next thing I know they sent me another shipment that I clearly did not expect, approve, or speak to them about.  And they charged another $40.72 against my credit card and would have continued to do so forever if I did not ask them to please discontinue the use of my credit card.  Angry at the misuse of my credit card, I packed up all the Juice Plus I had in my house that included the unauthorized shipment, and four bottles from the first order that were unopened.  I explained that since the use of Juice Plus my health has deteriorated and I need my money for medications and such for my illness.  This was not said in jest.  Current, I continue to fight Juice Plus for a refund. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.102.216 (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juice Plus