Talk:POM Wonderful

message: Is it 6,000 or 12,000 acres?  The Boston Globe gives 12,000 but other sources list 6,000.  Badagnani 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 14,000.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.167.62 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acres

message: In addition to correctly formatting the inline references, the introduction should be organized per WP:LEAD. --Ronz 20:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never liked footnotes in WP articles and prefer the links as we have them; it's one fewer click to get to the source. Badagnani 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are definitely some minuses to having the references formatted.  I'll get around to formatting them eventually if no one does before I get a chance.  Without the references being properly formatted, it's impossible to tell references from inline external links (which should be moved to the External links section) or from linkspam (which should be removed immediately).  Further, it's extremely hard to tell if the article is properly sourced, let alone written in a neutral and balanced way. --Ronz 22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We've worked hard on this one. Badagnani 22:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikified all the inline cites and added a reflist. Removed dead cites and added  templates (and left notes in the edit version so they can be retraced). Geoff (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify

message: This article seems to have a serious issue with WP:NPOV. The more I scrutinize the text of each section the more trouble I see. Many of the citations lead to product promotional pages. Does anyone know where all the research results are at? POM says there is scientific research backing many of the claims, and one of the attributes of science and the scientific method is the mandatory public nature of it. This 33 million in research results must be floating around somewhere for me and other editors to cite instead of relying primarily on promotional material (which seems to fly in the face of WP:NPOV)??? Can someone let us know?? Retran (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional Problem 

message: Seemingly somewhat related to the "Promotional" problem in this article there is a big problem with citations. I've followed up on a few citations which do not lead to a reference of the information at hand.
For instance, there was a sentence or two about POM being "the only vertically integrated 'player' in its field". This is a claim that requires some sort of expert citation, and there was a citation (see past revisions) to this Boston newspaper article:
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/12/10/pomegranate_sows_seeds_of_popularity/
Problem is, I cannot find where this news article details anything about POM wonderful's fruit procurement strategy, let alone a business analysis statement on its level of "vertical integration". I am not personally an authority to judge wheather it is or not based on this information, and this is an encyclopedia... an assemblage of notable information, not a place to produce new information or analysis (or promotion!). I am not going to even put the [citation needed] on this as its too suspect given the rest of the problems on this article that its a promotional statement. That's my two cents. If any editors feel differently on this particular issue pipe up on talk and/or justify your edits in comments.Retran (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: In revamping the text of the products section, I found it quite confusing the bit about "fresh pomegranates (which are available only when in season)" since its in the context of blended fruit products. That existing text seemed only re-emphasize the point that pomegranates are picked and process when "fresh"? Otherwise was the existing text implying that the juice blends and pomegranate juice products only available during harvest season?? I don't think that's the case as its an always available product. So my conclusion is that its promotionally re-emphasizing the "freshness" factor, in violation of WP:NPOV.Retran (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Products 

message: I have condensed the animal-testing section to ensure its not longer than the rest of the article sections (that would make it seem more notable). The controversy seems to have passed and I wonder how notable it still is, but none the less I kept it all and condensed it as best I could to the most pertinent and referenced facts, trying to be encyclopedic and not just "tell a story". Any editors out there lend a hand on this?Retran (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: since my proposal has not been contensted I am going to be bold and remove this section once again. If it gets reverted again by an anonymous user without proper explanation on this discussion page I will have to request semi-protection for this article. I will again assert that there is undue influence on this topic (Animal Testing). Despite my personal feelings are on the topic, and the fact I authored the current revision of this section, I feel its current inclusion clearly violates the neutrality doctrine important to Wikipedia's encyclopedic credibility. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to serve as historian detailing animal testing activities any particular company, as was suggested in a previous anonymous edit summary. This is a relatively small company at that, and a small article. As written this section gives me the impression of undue weight. Another important aspect here is to examine Wikipedia's Featured articles of similar companies (or any company) that has engaged in (or even currently engages in) animal testing. They don't even include mentions of it, for whatever reason. I assume its been hashed out already in discussion boards that its an activist topic that's best left to informational channels that are more suited to that purpose (ie: not encyclopedias)... things like blogs, social networking, etc. Retran (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To summarize, I am removing this Animal Testing section once again, and will request some administrative remedy if my change is reverted without discussion, especially if done by an anonymous or non-established user. (The "Edit summary" does not provide enough room to discuss any of the points I bring up, it's "tweet size" and these are "forum size" discussion points.) Retran (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I have removed the Animal Testing section, and added a summary sentence in the intro paragraph of the Research section: "POM Wonderful has sponsored research which in some cases involved animal testing but has not engaged in the practice since June of 2007.". If anyone disputes this change, it's best to discuss it here before submitting a change. If another anonymous or unestablished user reverts this change I will do my best to request administrative action (semi-lock protection) on this article for the sake of its credibility. Retran (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal Testing