Talk:Juice Plus/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

I found a way to combine all the marketing links down to one link to the juice plus homepage. If marketing language establishes an important part of the discussion, then it should be written into the article. --Tbbooher 03:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"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)

---

Instead of defining what a product is and what it is supposed to be used for, like you might see in an encylopedia, it has become a very opinionated and controversial document. (unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

---

I don't see anything controversial about it. Please clarify what you see as controversial. (unsigned comment from tbbooher)

---

The bulk of the "biased opinions" comments have been addressed in the edited version, although I don't agree that it lacked credibility in the first place. If reputable medical, health, and consumer advocacy groups are critical of the product, then including this information does not undermine credibility. --Rhode Island Red 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

The user at IP has repeatedly vandalized the page and ignored warnings. Their changes have not been constructive but rather involved the insertion of unsupported and non-factual promotional messages and removal of whole sections of information that were unflattering but factually accurate and essential for providing a complete background on the subject. Given this user’s unwillingness to follow protocol and etiquette, and their lack of constructive contribution, they should be blocked from making further Wikipedia edits. Rhode Island Red 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is only vandalism when the negativity and criticism are taken out? It is not vandalism when the positive comments about the product are taken out? Please, be a little more realistic and balanced here. How about a clean article that simply defines what the product is for people and stop all the criticism and attacks? What a new concept that must be to the people attacking me here. (unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

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)

Wikify means adding [[ ]] these around a word so that it links deeper into another article. Yanksox ^(talk) 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

The links I showed you, are links that link within Wikipedia. Yanksox ^(talk) 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Got ya, thanks Yanksox the article should now be wikified. Tbbooher 21:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reapplying the expert tag to get at least one expert opinion and evaluation since there was been content dispute.Yanksox ^(talk) 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I am a board-certified doctor who has practiced pediatric medicine for more than 30 years and written over 30 children's books. I have also been nominated a fellow in my profession. Moreover, I've consulted as an expert on more than 100 television programs such as 20/20, Donahue, Good Morning America, Oprah, CBS This Morning, CNN, NBC's Today Show and Dateline. Not only that, but I am very familiar with Juice Plus+, in fact I conducted an extremely exhaustive and scientific study resulting in over 500 file folders on the subject. My research proves that the phytonutrients in Juice Plus directly bolster one's immune system causing a definitive improvement in health. Not only has Juice Plus+ been a critical factor in my recovery from colon cancer, but after taking Juice Plus, I haven't even had a common cold or needed my glasses anymore.

I am willing to lend my considerable and respected expertise to cleaning up this site and, consequently, will remove this page's flawed reasoning and present this product in a much better light. However, before I begin, I need assurances that my professional opinions will not be changed and that the article will be locked to prevent vandalism. Once assurances are received on this talk page from Wikipedia leadership, I will clean up the article. Dr sears 01:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already had serious questions about your status "doctor." You're requests appear to be outrageous and this is a little too much. Your "expert" opinion, is too bias, and not that of an expert, in my opinion. Yanksox ^(talk) 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why must you keep using this forum to attack a product instead of simply defining it? Why is there so much one-sided bias opinion in this? Why all the use of buzz words, like "only through direct or multi-level marketing". Why put a negative slant on the company and the product? Why in every section is a negative comment or slant thrown in, no matter what the title is? Why is all the criticism left in, the adverse effects, the point by point attacks about product claims, but when something positive about the product and why people should try it is put in it's deleted? This is nothing but an opportuity to attack a product and is not a fair, non-bias article. It would serve the public better if it was a simple definition of the product. Now that might be useful to people. Is Wikipedia a place to attack people, products, idea, etc? (unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

Here are the many bias, attacking, slanting and manipulative examples throughout the Juice Plus+ article (You refers to the author):

In the initial paragraph: "only through direct or multi-level marketing" Instead of saying it's sold through independent distributors (which was a simple edit and was deleted), which is a lot less negative today than mentioning multi-level marketing, which we all know carries a bad stigma today. You chose to use multi-level marketing to get your first dig in there.

In the Product Labeling: "Juice Plus products do not contain certified organic ingredients." What exactly does this mean? When I go to the grocery store and buy an apple, it's not certified either. This is thrown in even into the section that should be a simple ingredients/product labeling section to attack and/or slant against Juice Plus+ again. The product labeling does not make this statement. Again, an attack.

In the entire Adverse Events Profile: This is an extremely bias, one-sided reporting of a few people (which I don't even know to be true) compared with 10's of thousands (if not more) taking the product and seeing incredible results. Why are you not allowing both sides of this to be heard? Why are you attempting to deprive other people of the possibility of some help with their health?

In the Research section: You had to add in "Most of the studies were funded and co-written by the manufacturer" because you feel this sheds some bad light on the product or the research. Who else would be willing to fund all this research? And, if a company didn't fund the research on their own product they or their product would be much better off, why?

Criticisms, Product Claims and Counterclaims is entirely negative and an outright attack, but you think it's not?

The links contain not only "Critical Commentary" but other "Critical Commentary."

Could this article be anymore of an obvious and bias attack on a product?

(unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

---

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)

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)

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)

The Wikipedia community has no idea who you are in reality. You are entitled to post information regardless of your true identity, but it is no less likely to be edited simply because you claim to be an authority. I refer you to the following page regarding Appeal to Authority. Rhode Island Red 00:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is another fine example of the high-caliber of this entire Wikipedia Web site, this article, and the people working on it. Very impressive, based on facts for sure, not at all speculative and for sure it's totally worth reading. A company has a name for its product and you question why they want it spelled and identified correctly? Using a plus symbol is somehow a distortion of the truth? Oh, I see, it's annoying so it has to be some sort of conspiracy. I can see you are a highly-credible bunch! This whole article clearly comes from an agenda to bash a company and its product, for whatever reason, and anyone who says it's not would have to be completely blind and/or part of the bashing effort. (unsigned comment by 12.73.180.174)

For what it's worth, the words "Juice Plus" alone cannot be a registered trade mark. But a logo using those words including the + symbol can be (and they can have some variations of it), with the ® does show its status as a registered trade mark. This has nothing to do with what industry it is used within, it is standard registered trade marking. Wikipedia is apparently not a registered trade mark which would use the ® symbol. If it is, they should learn what's required to protect it and how the name is supposed to be used, but I doubt it is. (unsigned comment by 12.73.183.192)

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)

FYI, here is an example of what I mentioned before about false claims that Juice Plus is patented. A Juice Plus handout allegedly distributed at an autism conference contained the following false claim: “Need More Credibility? Effective October 1997, it (Juice Plus) was granted a US Patent!” [1]. Another website shows a synopsis, allegedly prepared with the assistance of the chief biochemist at NSA (John R. Medeiros,) which states “JP is clearly the front runner in its patented processing and scientific research.” [2] Rhode Island Red 15:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I looked at Truth Seeker's edits more carefully and realized that many unsupported claims and product promitional statements had been added as well as important sections removed. I reverted back to the previous version. Given the history of vandalism of this page and the revert wars that have ensued I suggest that Truth Seeker consider discussing proposed changes on this page before making such changes.Rhode Island Red 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I feel that the inclusion of: Research Resources

http://juiceplusresearch.blogspot.com/ Juice Plus Research Blog Includes independent chemical and nutritional analyses of Juice Plus products.

on the Juice Plus article is unnecessary. It is NOT a research site, it is a blog written by a person with an agenda against Juice Plus and anyone who promotes it. The author gives "golden apples" to anyone who does not support Juice Plus and "rotten tomatoes" to anyone who does. The comments about these people are liablious, the person posting them remains anonymous but it clearly being protected by editor Rhode Island Red who has edited every positive comment about Juice Plus OFF of Wikipedia and expanded on if not posted the negative commentary.

I think if allowed to continue brings the credibility of Wiki into question, this article is clearly NOT unbiased and to allow this "research resources" blog link to stay on Wikipedia, according to my attorney, opens Wikipedia up to being named in a liable suit against the cloaked blogger. (Julia Havey) October 9th, 2006 (unsigned JuliaHavey)

The link was included because the site contains a very exhaustive collection of full-length original research articles and commentaries on Juice Plus. This site is invaluable for Juice Plus research so its inclusion is justifiable. Although the site also contains some satirical commentary, I did not see anything on the site that can be fairly termed libelous. Libel must be proven through the courts, and merely saying something is libelous does not make it so. Legal threats (i.e. Havey stated: “according to my attorney, opens Wikipedia up to being named in a liable suit…”) are prohibited according to Wikipedia policy regarding (No Legal Threats). In accordance with this policy, “if you do choose to take legal action, please refrain from editing until it is resolved”.

I have not single-handedly edited this article, as suggested by Havey, and the deletion of spam and other content has been the result of consensus achieved with several other editors who have contributed to this page. Virtually all of the contributions that were reverted were blatant acts of vandalism (i.e. removal of content) or insertion of clearly inappropriate non-scientific, unreferenced promotional messaging.

The deletion of the extra links to the Juice Plus homepage that Havey inserted into the Research Resources section was justified. The first link listed in the External Links section is to the Juice Plus homepage, and the text clearly states that it contains “excerpted research abstracts”. It serves no purpose to include additional links to the same site under the Research Resources section. The Juice Plus site does not contain original full-length research articles and the excepted research abstracts that it does include are not in their originally published form. There is no way of knowing whether the distributor of this product accurately transcribed the details of those research abstracts, and therefore, they cannot be deemed to be reliable. There is certainly no point in linking to these versions when relaible, full-text versions can be linked instead. Furthermore, the Juice Plus homepage only includes research that was funded by the manufacturer/distributor of Juice Plus, and omits several important studies, conducted by independent laboratories, that conflict with the promotional claims made about the product.

Upon reviewing the past contributions made by Julia Havey, a history of consistent spamming, vandalism, self-promotion, and personal attacks against Wikipedia editors is evident. The latest legal threat is yet another behavior that flouts the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia. Rhode Island Red 16:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red has been the most visible, frequent almost a full-time job "editor" of any/all Juice Plus article activity. The blog in question is NOT as Rhode Island Red argues "The link was included because the site contains a very exhaustive collection of full-length original research articles and commentaries on Juice Plus. This site is invaluable for Juice Plus research so its inclusion is justifiable." This blog contains ONLY negative research and is therefore biased, against Wiki's policy I would assume. It is NOT invaluable and the fact that it's main reason for existing is to paint Juice Plus in a negative light and it's use of liablious, cruel and mean spirited "satire" is reason alone to not allow it as a "invaluable" research site.

Research is NOT satire and there is no place for satire on a legitimate research site.

The Wiki credibility is at question if they allow a site that is extremely satirical to be listed as a "Reaserch Resource". To state that it opens Wiki up to Liable is not a threat, it is a statement, an observation and a point worth making. I have no intention of suing Wiki, but there is a clear case that could be made if they only allow negative and satirical content on this, or any other article.

As for my "history" of consistent spamming, vandalism, self-promotion, and personal attacks against Wikipedia editors is evident, NO Red, that isn't acurate, my first day with Wiki was an eventful day, I was unaware of the rules, but I am now. I did not put a link to a commerical site for a distributor or for my financial gain, the link was to the corporate site that offers actual research. My article created for myself, was copied exactly from another authors article, simply putting my information on it. I had no idea I did anything wrong, especially when the fact that the article I mirrored is still live, exactly as it was the day I created mine using it as a quide. So, commericalism and promotion are clearly allowed, if not encouraged, but now I realize you just have to have someone else do it, or even use a fake name...my henious act was to be honest and use my own name when doing an article on myself.

And personal attacks, only when placed on the defense. Wiki specifically says "don't bite the newcomers" because obviously, newcomers do not know your etiquette or rules.

You and I aren't strangers Red, you have gone on numerous website support boards, threads etc...and whenever a positive comment about Juice Plus is made, you go on the attack and write hours of commentary stating your opinion, unless of course there are two people out there with the cloaked identity of Rhode Island Red with a strong opinion against Juice Plus and anyone who promotes it?

But you are unbiased. Right.

Here is the real issue, doesn't the link in question, http://juiceplusresearch.blogspot.com/ Juice Plus Research Blog Includes independent chemical and nutritional analyses of Juice Plus products, actually belong in the category just above it,Other Critical Commentary? Because it contains satire, it is NOT a "research" site and, it is important to note that thanks to Rhode Island Red's diligent, but not single handed stellar editing, EVERY SINGLE RESEARCH link on this "invaluable" research site is ALREADY listed on WIKI! The ONLY reason that "they" are fighting to KEEP this link on Wiki is so that their satire is viewed. and that, is NOT unbiased!

And, while we are at trying to keep this article Fair and balanced, WHY are: Other Critical Commentary

Juice Plus: A Critical Look Commentary by Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch A critique of Juice Plus from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Juiced Up and Dried Out A critique by the University of California Berkeley Juice Plus—and minus Additional critique by the University of California Berkeley Consumer Reports: How product testimonials bend the rules (Jan 2006) Consumer complaints with the Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Division regarding misleading Juice Plus testimonial advertisements featuring Dr. William Sears.

repeated? All I tried to do was to put JuicePlus.com in the research section and I was told that I could not do that because the links were already provided, well, these links are all provided in the Claim/Counterclaim area, so if we are to only allow repetition when it is in regard to those sites against Juice Plus, how is that unbiased?

I feel like I am fighting a lost cause because Red is the one who will edit this page and make the decision, but atleast I get to state the facts, wheter you all listen or not. (Julia Havey) October 11, 2006 2:48 PM CST (unsigned JuliaHavey)

Its important that we focus on the content of the articles and not on the contributors. When I have time over the next few days, I'm going to covert the article to our standard reference format, which will eliminate duplicate links and also seperate links used as references from external links provided as further reading.

You might want to read our neutral point of view policy - we cover all significant points of view in an article. Since there are reliable sources criticizing Juice Plus, their side needs to be included. I agree, however, that a blog (generally not considered a reliable source) is misleading when labelled as research and should be part of the "Other Critical Commentary" section instead. Shell ^babelfish 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is completely untrue that the blog site that was linked includes ONLY negative research. All of NSAs sponsored studies are included and the list of full-length research articles on the site is exhaustive and unique. I see no inherent reason why the site’s inclusion of a few satirical comments would preclude its value as a research resource. I have no interest in engaging in tangential arguments, but I am interested in seeing that this Wiki page has the best possible information. I see no compelling reason why the Wiki community would be better served by the removal of the link. I see no problem in moving it to Other Critical Commentary but I think its greatest value is as a research resource library. Perhaps accompanying text to that effect should be included. Rhode Island Red 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in addition to being a blog, the site has an obvious bias, regardless of whether or not it contains both positive and negative research. While it may be acceptable as an external link, we cannot pretend that it does not display that bias, nor can we elevate it to a research site given its questionable status. Shell ^babelfish 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see, given the Neutral point of view rules and the need for sources to be "RELIABLE" how this blog can be allowed on the article at all. No one knows who this blogger is, but it is clear his agenda is to smear anyone and everyone associated with Juice Plus, and that, as I have been saying undermines the credibility of Wiki and is counter to the very mission statement of Wiki Foundation. Knowledge, not agendas is what they want to have available to all mankind. The research mentioned on this blog are all mentioned in the Wiki article, so there is nothing new for the reader to gain by being routed to this blog other than to read the tangenitals of the author, and those are perhaps better left alone. (Julia Havey) October 11th 15:43 (unsigned JuliaHavey)

Like I said , I see no problem with moving it to the commentary section. Rhode Island Red 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the issues raised by Shell about the obvious bias of this blog, it isn't even worthy of a mention on the 'Other Critical Commentary' area. It is a satirical site at best and a very inflamatory one. Having it on Wiki will make others feel that they can make satirical sites and post them on other articles to be distruptive in an attempt to further their personal agenda. One only has to read the rantings of "truth seeker" about people who promote Juice Plus. He makes fun of a very prestigious Breast Cancer specialists's speaking "ums and uhs" and calls chiropractors "medical school rejects". This is NOT a reliable source and has no place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, one would have to question why a nonbiased editor would fight so adamantly to keep in on Wiki, given that it's "invaluable" research is quoted on Wiki already. It would lead one to think that the editor actually desires that the satire itself be readily available to Wiki visitors and since that information is clearly NOT appropriate for on a Wiki article the only way to get it in is to piggy back in under the guise of a "research resource". (Julia Havey) October 11, 2006 20:42 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

The reason it can and should be included is one of the policies I pointed your towards earlier. Please review WP:NPOV. You may not like their point of view, but its policy for us to include it. Again, please avoid commenting on other editors and limit your discussion to the content. Shell ^babelfish 02:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Only a fraction of the research on the site in question is even discussed on the Wikipedia Juice Plus page. The site includes full-text versions of every research publication and many additional published commentaries that are not provided on the Wiki page, so it cannot be reasonably argued that the content is redundant or without obvious value. Shel suggested that the link should be moved to critical commentary, which seems like a reasonable compromise. Shel also offered to cleanup the links and referencing which is much appreciated. Rhode Island Red 02:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggested it be moved Red, Shell concurred.

From the policy 'in a nutshell', Shell: "All Wikipedia articles and other user-facing content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." WP:NPOV I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly, you are saying that the blog in question can remain, even though it is extremely bias against Juice Plus and contains inflamatory satire.

If that is the case, then in keeping with this policyWP:NPOV , and your interpretation of it, where the Juice Plus article has a section that has been allowed to remain that is called "CONTROVERSIES", an editor can start a section that references "AGREEMENTS" or "UNANIMITY" (the opposite of controversy) to discuss favorable opinions, studies or mention blogs that offer other viewpoints on Juice Plus? or even Satirical commentary against those who bash it? Say offering a say a Red Rubber 'Chicken' award to anyone who says it isn't a good product and Golden Apples to those who do?

and where links are applicable, an editor can start a section after "other criticial commentary" called "Other Complimentary Commentary" and divert our Wikipedia readers to sites that contain information on Juice Plus, unbiased information, or biased for it? (Julia Havey) October 11, 2006 23:45 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

NPOV means that we do not write with bias, not that there aren't biased opinions of the article out there. Since there are people critical of Juice Plus, its important that we include their information as well. Typically we try not to have a Criticism section - its better to incoporate both sides through the entire article if possible. If you have further external links that would be beneficial to the readers, please let us know. Everyone might also want to look at WP:EL - the guidelines for external links and make sure that we're following them - including trying to add as much material to the article itself as we can. Shell ^babelfish 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Julia Havey suggested that the link be moved and Shel and I both agreed, the link is now included in the Critical Commentary section. Rhode Island Red 15:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph about the study presented at FASEB. Please use a primary reference instead, i.e. provide a link or URL to the original research FASEB abstract. Rhode Island Red 17:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading and inappropriate to include a section titled "unanimity" because unanimity of opinion about the product does not exist. The opinion of most independent experts conflicts with the promotional claims. Rhode Island Red 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To Julia Havey -- The latest link you added has no research value whatsoever. It includes only product promotional bolierplate identical to that of NSA. It seems that you are trying to stubbornly prove a point rather than contribute good quality content to the Wiki page. In my opinion, your contributions are destructive and do not serve the interests of the Wiki community. It should be noted by all who read this discussion that Havey is a seller of the product and serves as an NSA/Juice Plus spokesperson. Financial conflict of interest in itself should not necessarily preculde someone from contributing, as long as their contributions are NPOV and unbiased; however, that does not seem to be the case here. Rhode Island Red 18:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Red, the benefits blog mentions thing about Juice Plus that are NOT listed on Wiki. It is a blog just as the "research" blog and if that one is appropriate, there is nothing about this one that is not. And, like all blogs, it gets updated with new cutting edge material daily.

There are NO links to a sales page for me, I have no monetary stake in the listing at Wiki, other than to make sure that it remains nobiased, accurate and FAIR.

And, I do NOT serve as a spokesperson for NSA, that is a false accusation. I am a distributor for the product, but so are 100,000 other people. (Julia Havey) October 12, 2006 13:37 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

As I said before, the content at the JP benefits blog site is duplicative of NSAs promotional spiel, which is already linked on the Wiki page, and in fact the blog links back to NSAs Juice Plus site. The other commentary on the blog has little to do with the product. It strikes me as hypocritical that you would crusade against personal attacks yesterday, but then turn around and purposefully create a site devoted to personal attacks today. What you had originally asked for was that the Juice Plus Research blog be moved into the commentary section. We obliged you. Now, please limit yourself to constructive contributions or we may request that this site be blocked to further edits. And would you please sign you posts using 4 tildes. Rhode Island Red 18:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop the incivility towards each other. As I've said before, one of Wikipedia's policies highly suggests you avoiding commenting on the other contributors but instead, focus your discussion on the content to avoid incivility and personal attacks. I am working on a major rewrite of the article to correct the references, avoid using tertiary sources for research and comply with WP:NPOV. Hopefully we can agree to wait a bit and see what I can come up with or at the very least discuss concerns with the article and how we'd like to see it changed instead of being nasty to each other and reverting the article. Shell ^babelfish 19:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The newly added section "Equanimity" was not well organized or presented, did not follow the flow of the article, and was inappropriately titled. The purpose of this page is not to present highlights of every study ever conducted or every comment ever made, as this would make the article far too long and unfocused. A simpler alternative in this case is to list the links at the bottom of the page. One of the links offers little of value (i.e. no scientific commentary and promotionally focused), but I agree that the Juice Plus Children's Research Foundation, which is run by NSA (the company that markets Juice Plus), is an interesting topic and perhaps should be discussed in more detail. Thoughts? Rhode Island Red 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Give it a go Shel. Rhode Island Red 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Shell, please make sure that if the "research blog" that is a front for demeaning satire is included in the revamp, that a blog offering an alternative view, http://www.juiceplusbenefits.blogspot.com/ is also included.

As pointed out, I fought to remove the site containing personal attacks, but I lost and it was decided to allow it to remain but moved to a more appropriate area as I offered as an alternative. Since that is the case, it is only inkeeping with Wiki policy that the other blog be included. It does offer links to other research and text of quite a bit of research. What's the phrase? What's good for the goose, should be good for the chicken, or something like that?! (Julia Havey) October 12, 2006 14:34 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

Shell, I am assuming you did the changes to the page? I think it is fair, unbiased and exactly what wiki is intended to be. The former page was inflamatory and incited many arguements. This page, if left alone, can stand exactly as it is. Thank you for being fair and seeing both sides have merit. (Julia Havey) October 12, 2006 16:36 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

In addition to completely updating the references, I've tried to incorporate the positive and negative together instead of splitting out critical sections (see WP:NPOV for more discussion of this and how to avoid it). Some statements with no reference were removed, especially those that said "some critics think" - if there's a reference that says this, please put the statement back in and just note the reference. You don't have to use the format I used, its perfectly find to just note the source and enclose a link if you have one.

I ran into a serious problem while doing this. It turns out that the blog critical of Juice Plus contains serious copyright violations - they have made available the full text of all the research studies listed on their site, including one photocopied from the journal itself. Since Wikipedia policy is that we do not condone copyright violations and do not link to sites which include them, I've had to take out the link to the blog and the links to the research studies it hosts. Those studies I was able to find provided online by their Journals are still linked - the others require payment to view the full text. I did make a list of all the studies listed by the blog and put any not used as references under "Further Reading" so we didn't lose any of that content.

Please feel free to update, provide references for those few things still left that didn't cite a source, but please don't completely revert the article - it took quite some time to update the references :) And again, if you disagree with someone's changes, please discuss them here instead of just reverting - it might help if everyone took a look at the dispute resolution process. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 21:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Shell, I am assuming you did the changes to the page? I think it is fair, unbiased and exactly what wiki is intended to be. The former page was inflamatory and incited many arguements. This page, if left alone, can stand exactly as it is. Thank you for being fair and seeing both sides have merit. (Julia Havey) October 12, 2006 16:36 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

Shel, thanks for the effort. I think the organization is now more “Wiki-like”. The discussion of research now strikes me as a bit unfocused and random so I will take a stab at a few edits over the next few days. Let me know what you think. One point that I think should be changed ASAP relates to the following statement that was added:

“In response to this claim, Dr. Samman noted that this was the standard manufacturing process for the product, and cited studies on similar products with corresponding conclusions.[7]

The italicized portion strikes me as misleading. The studies cited by Samman were not related to the claim regarding the addition of exogenous vitamins, as the current sentence implies. Also, the current wording does not make it clear whether Samman confirmed or denied the claim that the product contains added micronutrients. I have made the following change: “In a published response to this claim, Dr. Samman confirmed that micronutrients are added to the product.” Rhode Island Red 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the major edit is unfocused and random, what it is, is unbiased and not screaming CONTROVERSIES, CRITICAL COMMENTARY and leaning with a serious negative slant. Given that most of the edits were handled by Red in the first place, thus his barnstorming STAR award, the site must be continually monitored to make sure that it does not again slant towards a bias. For example, what is wrong with what Shell wrote?:

“In response to this claim, Dr. Samman noted that this was the standard manufacturing process for the product, and cited studies on similar products with corresponding conclusions

It is what the man said, a direct quote. However, Red's change:

“In a published response to this claim, Dr. Samman confirmed that micronutrients are added to the product.”

Makes it sound like a witness stand confession...he confirmed something was ADDED....ohhhh, reads like it is wrong, bad or suspect that something was added.

AND, Red's revert of adding this link back on after Shell removed it:*Questionable Research by the Juice Plus Children's Research Foundation is not necessary, there is already ONE link to MLMWatch, WIKI doesn't allow numerous links to the same site, again, WHY is Red doing this? He has an obviously slant/bias and should not be allowed to edit this page at all from this point. I am happy not to edit this article further if it is left alone and remains unbiased.

Reverting to Shell's original major edit/comment was and is much more unbiased.

It think we must question WHY editors to this article insist on slanting it negative against Juice Plus. WHY they can't leave a fair statement alone. I certainly look forward to seeing Red's further tangenitals, with great anticipation. (Julia Havey) 21:15, October 12, 2006 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

Shel, I've added some additional details on the research and tinkered with things a bit. You can see that when the research gets discussed in detail, things get a bit busy. That's why I had tried to keep it simpler in the previous versions. But I don't mind if we go this route and blow out the details of the research a bit more. As for Samman's comment, I felt it needed to be tweaked because, as it stood, it was unclear whether Samman was actually confirming or denying the claim made by Watzl and Bub. As for the MLMWatch link about the JPCRF, it clearly belongs on the page because it is a legitmate and citable commentary. The discussion of the JPCRF should not read like a one-sided endorsement, given the facts. Also, the other MLMWatch link is not to the front door of the site. It directs to a specific article on Juice Plus, so it is entirely justified to include an additional link to the JPCRF article. Julia needs to stop making personal attacks. It is unacceptable. Rhode Island Red 03:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement claimed to be a direct quote: "Dr. Samman noted that this was the standard manufacturing process for the product, and cited studies on similar products with corresponding conclusions" is not a direct quote from Samman, it is a direct quote from Shel. No reason whatsoever that it shouldn't be changed. In fact, the exact quote in the article was the following "...the manufacturer acknowledges that some micronutrients are added to restore the levels of micronutrients lost during processing and to ensure uniformity in the final product. These micronutrients are beta-carotene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E and folate." It was important to correct the ambiguity especially since NSA does not disclose this very important information on the product website. Rhode Island Red 03:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Shel, I added a few new sources where needed but don't know how to integrate them in the format you used. Would you mind taking a few minutes to clean those up? Thanks Rhode Island Red 05:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not making personal attacks. I am stating FACT. Red is extremely diligent and "awared winning" when it comes to editing the Juice Plus page, but his history when scrutinized, shows clearly that every edit he makes clearly leans towards a negative slant. Samman's comments were not unclear, they weren't "against" Juice Plus. Given Red's history of biased editing against Juice Plus I think his continued edititing on this page reduces Wiki's credibility. The mission statement and purpose set out by the Wiki Foundation is to provide unbiased knowledge to all mankind. It is unacceptable to have an editor intentionally slant an article. MLM watch stands for MULTI-LEVEL Markeing Watch...they are an organization completely against the business model of Juice Plus, NOTHING they write about Juice Plus is going to be positive. Wiki must remain nuetral, that's the rules. For every negative comment added, a positive one should be as well, to keep the article unbalanced. The problem is, whenever anyone does that, their comments get added out. (Julia Havey) 07:30, October 13, 2006 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

As for the http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm link about the , it clearly belongs on the page because it is a legitmate and citable commentary. The discussion of the Quackwatch should not read like a one-sided endorsement, given the facts.(Julia Havey) 08:30, October 13, 2006 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

Couple of things I'm noticing. Both of your have extreme views of Juice Plus, which is making it very difficult for you to edit the article neutrally. For instance, Phode Island Red's edits, tend to place negative connotations on each piece of information, while Julia wants to put a positive spin on each fact. Learning to write factually and even more important, to write for the other side is important. I introduced a few more studies to the main body and reported their positive outcomes in an attempt to balance the wealth of negative information pointed out from other research studies. Unfortunately, the article once again reads like a condemnation of the product, which isn't what we're going for here. I understand both of your points of view, but you're both going to have to give a bit. We do not need to point out that Barett may or may not be correct; people can read his Wiki page if they're interested in him, so that external link doesn't belong here. We also do not need to cherry pick details of research studies so that those with good results look useless and those with negative details look stellar - I read through those studies yesterday and that's just not the case. There is a spot between the two extremes - we just have to work it out. Shell ^babelfish 15:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Shel, it is difficult to discuss the research by randomly presenting isolated findings without putting them into context with the entire body of research. The way I see it, there are 2 ways to present the research findings. One is to discuss particular studies individually, report their key positive and negative findings, and then discuss any obvious weaknesses or conflicting data – this is the standard for scientific analysis, but will make for a very long Wiki page. The other it to organize the research by subject such as “nutrient absorption”, ”antioxidant effects” etc., and then present a summary of the overall findings of the studies collectively (i.e. which studies showed positive/negative findings). I took more of the latter approach in the earlier versions of the page. What should be avoided is giving poorly-designed, non-controlled studies equal weight to well-designed, controlled studies. Anyhow, food for thought. Rhode Island Red 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, which is why I had noted that the research at the Juice Plus Children's Foundation gave no criteria and was being done by survey - we do want to inform the readers since the term "research" can be used rather broadly. I like you suggestion of grouping study findings; it might simplify things a bit and when reporting the overall picture of say "antioxidant effects", we can note if a study didn't follow typical controls. It is getting a bit unwieldy trying to discuss all the ramifications of each one. Shell ^babelfish 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at retooling it over the next few days. Let me know what you think. It really is stretching the truth to include the JPCRF under "research" since they are yet to publish any and show no sign of doing so in the future. However, I don't mind it being included as long as the relevant concerns are also presented. Rhode Island Red 21:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Shel, a few edits are needed on the references added yesterday. If you have a chance, please consider changing the journal for Bloomer to: “Med Sci Sports Exerc.” and change the article title so that it is in sentence case rather than lead caps (ditto for several others). In scientific referecing, quotation marks are not used for article titles, so consider removing unles it is a Wiki-thing. For Watzl & Bub, change from “American Society for Nutritional Sciences. The Journal of Nutrition” to just “Journal of Nutrition”. Ditto for Samman’s reply. Drop “The” from journal title for the Nantz reference. Thanks for your efforts. Rhode Island Red 21:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Shell, you will see that I have not done any edits to what you originally did regarding the body of the article, it read neutral to me and I accept it as you did. (I only added a link to counter the presitige Red's edits hold Dr. Barrett in. If a court of law found him not to be credible, I think that is relevant to point out. For that matter, MLMwatch as a Wiki page, but Red quotes it at length and offers links to it, but when it comes to duplication of information on the questionable "expert" Dr. Barret, he sticks to the rule book.)

But, as you will see, Red goes through it with a fine tooth comb changing a few words here and there and that, as you pointed out, again give the feel of a slant or "Phode Island Red's edits, tend to place negative connotations on each piece of information,", but you are wrong, I don't want a positive slant put on the article, just a nuetral one. I haven't changed anything so that I do not conduct a cheerleading campaign and tout my opinions of the product. I am happy to let what YOU did stand, but as you pointed out Red's edits tend to place a negative connotation in EACH piece of information that he edits.

How long is this going to be allowed to continue? I have stated my name, making it clear that I have a connection to the product, Red whoever uses a cloaked identity to mask his agenda, which is very clear from his edits.

This entire debate started when I asked you to stop his hijacking of this article. Your own comment "Phode Island Red's edits, tend to place negative connotations on each piece of information," shows clearly that I am right about his bias. Again I will state that allowing him to continue to edit this page undermines the credibility of Wiki and goes completely against the principles it was built upon. (Julia Havey) 10:20 October 14, 2006 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

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)

In your opinion, sir. What authority makes you the final word on what can and can not be appropriate?. It wasn't mistitled, it was a critical look at Stephen Barrett (Julia Havey) 09:35 October 13, 2006 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

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)

And, respectfully Red, the blog that you so vehemently protected and tried to keep on this article was nothing but an "ad hominem" attack on anyone who endorses Juice Plus. Why is it that you stand on the rules when it suits your agenda, but otherwise you run renagade and post what suits you? Your tangentials are showing. (Julia Havey) 10:25 October 14, 2006 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

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)

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)

Red, thanks for much for sharing your logic lesson with me. It is much appreciated. I can now completely see why it is not necessary to further point out the lack of credentials of Dr. Barrett. I looked at his article and it spells it out quite nicely. Thank you, knowledge is always a wonderful thing. (Julia Havey) 09:17 October 15, 2006 (unsigned comment by 70.130.172.221)

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)

I am focusing on the issues. Your edits consistently attempt to bias the reader against Juice Plus which is NOT the purpose of a Wikipedia article. The accusation of agenda and bias to serve a purpose when they are influencing what should be unbiased editing. I will not stop making sure that the principles and rules of Wiki are adhered to in this case. I am being quite civil. (Julia Havey) 09:15 October 15, 2006 (unsigned comment 70.130.172.221)

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)

Believe it or not, not everyone knows every nuance of WIKI etiquette or what the heck a "4 tilde" is, or cares. Taking the time to post my IP address seems like an huge waste of time to try to make a petty point. I have posted my name, I have "signed in". Julia Havey (unsigned JuliaHavey)

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)

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)

ID tags that were deleted have been replaced. Please do not delete them again. Rhode Island Red 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not hostility, I asked a question posed. The link was down, as it has been in the past and only the negative link remained. It is not hostile to ask why and asked to have it changed. I am to assume there is a mistake, but as for the tildes or lack there of, that is henious? or a simple mistake? JuliaHavey 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that the Wiki article for Juice Plus frequently quotes MLM Watch, Quackwatch, and perhaps others that are all part of

http://www.quackwatch.org/wgsearch.html

which is the network of 21 websites created, maintained and the expressed OPINION of a Dr. Stephen Barrett. Given his questionable background, should he be the given such credibility on WIKI, to where his opinion is quoted and quoted and quoted, frequently linked to and referenced. Also, I have been made to realize that we are NOT suppossed to post "spam" or links to commerical sites and all of the Dr. Barrett sites solicit "donations"; Many sites earn a sizeable revenue from donations, especially if they are sited as reputable on a source such as Wikipedia, these links are on ALL pages that WIKI sites as a reliable source!

http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/donations.html http://www.mlmwatch.org/ (we accept donations in top right corner)

so having numerous links in one article to this "Dr. Barrett" man's site may not be in keeping with WIKI policy of "spam"?! and it may also bring into question why an editor may keep citing or adding as many links to these sites as possible, perhaps there is a business, personal or financial link between the two, and that would be self-promotion. This is not an act of hostility, but a call for dispute of the elevated level of esteem that one person's opinion is given throughout this article. IT is NEVER cited that MLM watch IS Dr. Barrett in the article--makes it read as though other credible sources are also disputing Juice Plus's benefit when it is all the work of ONE man. 70.130.173.61 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Barrett’s articles were not given undue weight. They were quoted once each and they are but 2 of 29 different references. The vast majority of citations in the article are from published research papers, and those that are not are all from legitimate sources, and that includes Barrett. Neither do Barrett’s opinions stand alone; they are in line with many other sources quoted. There is no basis for claiming that Barrett was in any way favored. Furthermore, Barrett’s MLM Watch website is held in sufficiently high regard by independent sources, the author is sufficiently notable, and his comments on Juice Plus have never been contested. Ad hominem arguments were already explained. It is inappropriate to attack the source rather than the argument. Furthermore, there is no valid basis to consider MLM Watch a spam site. As was suggested to you earlier, if you can find a credible source that refutes the bulk of Barrett’s or any other cited source’s claims, then suggest them.

But if investigating and scrutinizing the background of every source quoted in the article were the way to go, then in fairness we would also have to discuss that John A Wise (reference 11), a senior executive and stockholder of NAI, authored 7 Juice Plus articles, or that the authors Kiefer and Prock (reference 13) are key European distributors and are spokespersons and lecturers for JP, and that the authors of two other studies, Bamonti and Panunzio (references 17 and 18), are spokespersons for Juice Plus on NSAs European websites. Perhaps we should also discuss how NAI authors Wise and Morin were senior executives at the failed vitamin company United Sciences of America before it was crushed by the FDA for fraudulent practices and forced to declare bankruptcy. Would it really help the article to include all of this background information on cited sources?

And no matter how it is couched and candy-coated, the unfounded accusation that I have financial ties to a quoted source is most definitely a PERSONAL ATTACK. Once again you are advised to stop this unacceptable behavior. (unsigned Rhode Island Red)

Only 2 of the 29 references come from the site you're questioning. Please note that there are also multiple links to health and nutrition journal websites to take readers directly to the article we reference - this is accepted procedure. Are there any Wikipedia policies you feel would preclude using the MLM or Quackwatch sites as a reference? Shell ^babelfish 03:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked if it was "spam" since they request donations and have "sponsored" links on their site. I read that others, as well as myself have been reprimanded for having posted a "spam" or "commerical" link. Since the MLM sites and Quackwatch have revenue based features, I was asking for comments if that fact makes them "spam"/"commerical".

The journals are not commerical sites and do not solicit money from the reader. And many of them are "negative" to Juice Plus, I am not questioning whether or not they or their content are appropriate.

I am, obviously, not a Wikified expert and therefore not abreast of all of the rules and am therefore asking. Note, I did not remove a link and learn later.

I did NOT attack anyone; and I can prove that. To show my case, let's just go with my personal experience; my first day on Wiki posted a link to my own page before without knowing it was against the rules; it was taken down as spam ,and self-promotion and I was given a warning. For all I know, Red could be Dr. Barrett, Dr. Doolittle or Barbara Walters, I have no clue who he/she is, the fact is, links and references have been posted (in this edited version it may only be 2/29 but before Shell's edits, they were there more often) and when I posted JuicePlus.com in the article text, it was taken out and the reason was given that it was repeatative; in my opinion MLM Watch and Quackwatch both listed in also repetative, as they are the same site, same donation link, same author. I think it is a valid point to note that reason Wiki must not allow commerical links/self-promotion is so that a person can not earn money from what they do here and since identities can be concealed, the policy must be protected in all cases, for all editors, NOT one in particular.

Shell, you told me that these two links could not be used as the later was a duplicate:

http://JuicePlus.com - this link already exists in the External links sections and need not be duplicated. http://www.juiceplus.com/nsa/pages/ClinicalResearch.soa - Again, its a duplicate link to juiceplus.com

My point is:

http://www.mlmwatch.org/04C/NSA/crf.html

http://www.mlmwatch.org/04C/NSA/juiceplus.html

should therefore also be considered duplicate links, as they both go to MLMwatch.com even though the later is titled "Juice Plus, a critical look"

Call me a ninny, but I don't see how the JP links are duplicate, but these aren't?

70.130.173.61 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) 

There is a large difference between links to material used as a source (i.e. the References section) and links in the External link section. The references are given to specify the documents used in writing the article - this is to meet our policy on verfiability and is further detailed at WP:CITE. External links are used to direct readers to additional material available on the subject, for instance, an official website or homepage is often linked from articles; full details on what should be linked and what should be avoided can be found at Wikipedia:External links. Shell ^babelfish 04:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Julia, you were called out for spamming because you put a commercial link to your wesite on the Coca-Cola page. Citing a source like Barrett that is relevant to the JP article is not spamming. A relevant site for information that also engages in commercial activity or accepts donations is not precluded. Rhode Island Red 04:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To 70.130.173.61 please do not add redundant time/ID date stamps to JuliaHavey's posts. It makes it unclear who is doing the posting and when. Thanks. Rhode Island Red 04:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Red, I have been called for Spam every time I put a link in this article: This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links will not be tolerated. The next time you insert of commercial content and/or links into a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rhode Island Red 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC) JuliaHavey 12:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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).