Talk:MonaVie

Article as a whole

I am reviewing this article and it is complete mess. Many statements are not properly credited; many stated facts are infact not facts; many of the referal sources do not exist; I have attempted to make corrections but the article simply gets restored to its original format. It appears as though there is a battle going on by two seperate parties of writers trying to "one up" the other. In the best interest of information this article should either be completely removed or written objectively and allowed to be edited as any other article. (Comment by Ott jeff1, an editor with one Wikipedia edit.)

I'm only surprised that the article hasn't already been protected. The editors who are maintaining the article are experienced, and understand the guidelines for writing Wiki material very well. The "other side" consists of new editors, some of whom appear to have a conflict of interest, and who are manipulating the article to remove material they dislike. Considering the nature of the legal suits against the company, it's reasonable to assume that people with an interest in the company are attempting to protect it -- contrary to many, many Wikipedia policies, rules and guidelines. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Piano non troppo. On the other hand I'm somewhat bewildered by the comment from Ott jeff whose contributions on the article to date have consisted solely of deleting content from the Introduction 2 times. I see clearly that no attempt was made by this user to correct misstatements of fact or faulty citations as they alleged, but I did notice that this user is editing here under a second user name -- Ott jeff1. Sockpuppetry is prohibited by WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that a "criticism" section be made in this Wikipedia article and most of this article be moved to that section while the rest of the article be 1) the Monavie products available, 2) regarding the business model, and any other relevant information without making the article seem like it is trying to SELL, or SWAY consumers from buying the product. From my understanding from my research into Monavie, it appears that they are changing their products to include daily vitamin requirements. As such, many of the articles used to debate the nutritional value will become outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoknight (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Distributor Earnings

Hi. I just edited the Distributor Earnings section. Someone had removed part of the section because the Hartford Courant source was nonexistent - someone had changed it along the way, I'm actually the one that found it about a year ago. I just searched and found it again, and replaced it. I also took out the stuff in the distributor earnings section that dealt with the business model of MonaVie, and put the business model stuff in the company overview. Finally, I put the bit about the amount of people that make a profit as the first line - it's about "distributor earnings", it should be first.

Thanks! 67.78.81.141 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

BBB rating

The BBB rating that someone keeps putting in the introductory material is not relevant to this article. I am deleting it, again. Moderators/editors, please block whoever is doing that.67.78.80.176 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

These [groups of] users who are undoing the removal of this information will back down once you explain why it is not relevant. Other information within this article states that Monavie is similar to a pyramid scheme, notes that it's nutritional value is disputable. However, the fact that the Better Business Bureau gave Monavie an A+ rating allows users who are reading this article to be more critical of the information that follows. Freedom of information and allowing users to develop an informed opinion about a product should be very much relevant to any wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.156.110 (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Better Business Bureau rating is, for one thing, paid for by MonaVie, and as an example is not listed under other articles about accredited businesses. Simply saying the information is important (to create a critical view?) is not good enough (WP:Relevance emerges). The information must be important to the definition of the topic, and the BBB rating that MonaVie paid for is not relevant because (for another thing) precedent shows that other accredited businesses do not list it as evidence of merit, even if they have complaints against them. One does not gather positive information about a business if they have complaints or scandals. I am removing the information again. Thanks. 67.78.80.176 (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Now this makes sense, when the relevance of information is challenged by another editor then the editor who added that information is asked to demonstrate why it is relevant. I was challenging your challenge since I didn't understand why it was 'not relevant', thanks for your explanation even though it wasn't necessary. I've been thinking about your argument that Monavie's A+ accreditation should not be listed given that "the Better Business Bureau rating is... paid for by Monavie", which is possibly (correct me if I'm wrong) based on the assumption that only companies which pay dues can receive an A+ rating. If this is your reason for taking down this information then it is not a valid reason. It appears that, as you said, the rest of the article is against Monavie and leads the reader to the conclusion that it is a scandal. So, as such, any information challenging this conclusion "is not relevant". I think it will be best to leave an administrator to decide whether this information should be put back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoknight (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Monavie is an accredited business through the Better Business Bureau with a current A+ rating, [13] despite earning a D- rating as recently as April 2, 2010. [14]" First of all, why would someone cite juicescam.com as a reference? Furthermore, I've had experiences with accreditations in my own workplace and know well enough that they tend to happen every few years, so if an organization had a D- rating in April, 2010 this just means that Monavie was re-accredited and has proven to have followed through with fixing concerns from the previous accreditation which might have happened years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoknight (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Someone explain to me why BBB ratings are relevant in ANY Wikipedia article? And Xenoknight, I didn't mean it's not relevant if it challenges it. I meant it's not relevant automatically simply BECAUSE it challenges it. And BBB ratings are not relevant because (1) it is a well-known fact that A+ ratings can only be received if businesses pay for it and (2) precedent in Wikipedia articles holds that BBB ratings are not included in the article. Welshamerican123 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And again, it is independent research to go and get the BBB rating - doesn't it have to be discussed in another article to be relevant? Welshamerican123 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Welshamerican123 seems to be correct. BBB ratings are not relevant in a Wikipedia article. You don't see BBB ratings in the entry for General Motors. From what I can tell, BBB ratings were not brought into Wikipedia article until September 2010... the same month that MonaVie got accredited and received its A+ grade. BBB ratings were not deemed by editors in April 2010 when it had a D-. If BBB ratings are to be included at all, historical context as to why they are being added at this juncture is equally or even more important than the BBB rating itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecheetahman (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that any positive information about MonaVie comes under instant attack on this page. I suspect many of the users editing this page are Anti MonaVie and would prefer if this page were edited better with clear non bias. If a user states that MonaVie has an A+ rating it quickly comes under attack with an attempt to discredit the info especially with biased sources like JuiceScam. I would like this page to be cleared of this Anti MonaVie bias so that users researching MonaVie can have a better source for receiving information about the company. If BBB ratings are not relevant to wikipedia then that argument of non relevance could be used to delete other subjects on the page. I could simply state its a well known fact and state my opinion and do it. This page needs logic to support such decisions not personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidR2010 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of BBB ratings should not be about positive or negative information about MonaVie. MonaVie's BBB ratings were left off of Wikipedia for years when it was rated D-. If BBB ratings are being deemed as relevant now, we should strive to present as much information about it as possible. Clearly, DavidR2010 believes BBB ratings are very relevant as this user has repeatedly put the BBB rating in the introductory paragraph to the article. However, this user had made edits to the article in April 2010 and did not believe mentioning the D- grade from BBB as relevant information at all, much less something to be highlighted in the introductory section. The inclusion of BBB ratings when it is convenient for Pro MonaVie users shows significant bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecheetahman (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents We've established that BBB grades can and do change. Yesterday, D, today, A+, who knows what tomorrow? Why not just add the BBB link at the bottom with the other external links, which will instantly give the reader the current grade. Regarding the usefulness of BBB links; it's not uncommon to include them on articles of some companies (though it arguably makes more sense to do so for localized business rather than a business with a geographically dispersed distributor sales model), the LA Times noted that paying for accreditation appears to positively influence grading. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that is the best course of action here in this case I will let you decide My concern is that the articles used as reference to say it had a D- do not exactly convince me for the main reason that the site is called Juice Scam but also There was no historical proof from the Better Business Bureau presented. I do believe that some positive MonaVie information should be presented in the main paragraph at the start to create a balance for the rest of the article. Some of the information is misleading and redundant but we will touch up on that in a discussion at a later date. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidR2010 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a MLM friendly site (MonaVie friendly, even - it recommends buying in) which acknowledges a C- rating as recently as May, 2010. When it jumps from a C- to an A+ in a matter of months, it does seem kind of odd... Also, curiously enough, MonaVie had a press release announcing their A+ status just this month... the same month that the BBB lists them as becoming accredited... huh. - Jonathon A H (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove the BBB rating Positive information will be included in the article when it is relevant. The BBB rating is an attempt to introduce positive information into the article because the article is full of relevant criticism. One does not include positive information to "balance out" a Wikipedia article. The BBB rating isn't notable, and articles that cite the BBB hardly do so simply to get the BBB rating. 128.62.176.229 (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC) (I am Welshamerican123)

‘’’Delete BBB’’’: First, the BBB info clearly does not belong in the lead section because the article lead is only supposed to summarize the major content of the article (see WP:LS); the BBB is not even mentioned in the article body, so therefore it definitely does not belong in the lead. And even if the BBB was already included in the article body, it does not merit sufficient weight to appear in the lead because it is not a predominant opinion nor is it a central fact that defines the product. Second, there is the question of whether the BBB should be mentioned in the main article at all. Clearly not, since no reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS) have written about Monavie’s BBB rating, let alone in such a way that would establish the notability of this detail (see WP:N. Furthermore, the BBB is a primary source, not a secondary source (see WP:PRIMARY). Lastly, there is the question of whether the BBB entry should be included in the external links section. This might be considered if the BBB met the WP definition of a reliable independent source, but in this case, it is highly arguable that it does. In fact, reliable secondary sources have written articles describing that the BBB ratings and accreditation can be unreliable and are influenced by corporate payment to the organization. [1][2] It looks like the edit warring over this issue is a result of Monavie advocates who are selling the product and trying to inappropriately counterbalance legitimate criticism from reliable secondary sources regarding the company’s unreliability and questionable business practices (this of course would be a violation of WP:COI. These critiques are so unanimous and unopposed that it would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT to try to counterbalance them with a reference to the BBB rating, as though that one lone potentially unreliable primary source merits equal weight with the many independent, reliable, secondary sources that are now cited. As it stands, the BBB rating would essentially constitute a minority or fringe opinion (see WP:FRINGE), even if the information was deemed to be reliable and notable. 174.89.176.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

• Agree. Moderators/editors/whoever locked the page, please remove the BBB rating! Thanks Welshamerican123 (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Moderators/editors you've made what appears to be a fine decision to lock this page, as it appears that a few editors are striving so diligently to Game the System. Congratulations and every encouragement to set a more balanced tone, worthy of Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seincire (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that I have been titled as a "Monavie advocate". It seems that this, yet again, is based on assumptions much like the issue with the accreditation. I will soundly believe that Monavie paid for the A+ rating once I have been provided evidence, without a doubt. The logic of Monavie paying for an A+ rating because another company apparently paid is as follows: A has B, A is similar to C, therefore C has B. If referencing secondary sources to prove the validity of a statement is true is acceptable on wikipedia then I will be cautious of information I read in any wikipedia article. The logic I do agree with is that perhaps the note about Better Business Bureau should be removed from the introduction, and perhaps moved to another part of the article. What was up with the Juice Scam website writing an article about the inclusion of the BBB shortly after it was added? I'm not going to start writing about my assumptions, but something does seem fishy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoknight (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to dispute Xenokight's logic above. A Reliable source has shown that it is possible to buy an A+ rating. The same reliable source cites that the only way to achieve an A+ rating is to pay for BBB accreditation. The source also showed that a BBB rating may not be reliably grade whether a company is trustworthy or not. Thus we should take two things into account: 1) it is possible that MonaVie did pay for a better grade (but they may not have) 2) Perhaps BBB grades should be left out of the article due to the unreliable nature of them. This is mentioned in Wikipedia's BBB criticism section

I believe the better question is why was the BBB rating added to the Wikipedia article around the same time that MonaVie released the press release that it earned an A+ rating? Why weren't BBB ratings added when there was an unbiased source cited above (one other than Juice Scam) that shows MonaVie to have a recently rated C- rating in the recent past?

I would like to extend the point that Ohnoitsjamie makes below. The BBB rating seems to reflect the company's ability to settle disputes with distributors. This is similar to Ford settling disputes with individual dealers, which is typically not of importance to the general consumer. If it is decided that BBB information should be included in the article, it seems crucially important this distinction is explicitly made.

Thecheetahman (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

TheCheetahman that is an interesting article but it still does not prove the BBB had given MonaVie an A+ because they were paid to do so. Also there is a flaw in your statement "The BBB rating seems to reflect the company's ability to settle disputes with distributors. This is similar to Ford settling disputes with individual dealers, which is typically not of importance to the general consumer." The flaw is that the general consumer are the distributors this is due to the fact that you become a distributor once you become a member with MonaVie and you sign on to the website to order the products. As shown here the title of distributor is the first rank upon membership http://media.monavie.com/PDF/IDS/IDS_Mid_Year_2009_Canada.pdf This is why the BBB grade is important because it does show the level of support between MonaVie and its Consumers. If you are the one ordering the products from the website you are the distributor. I believe this has also caused some confusion as to the statement of very few distributors making a profit. The majority of distributors are only customers and very few thus far have been business builders. It is clear there is a lack of education on the subject of MonaVie among the editors that have brought this article to where it is today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.101.93 (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the BBB is included at all (and I lean on not including it, the past negative nor the more recent positive), it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. For now, I'm going to move the current content to the more appropriate section. Let's try to get a consensus of if it belongs at all:

Poll: Should BBB ratings be included in the article?

Issues: BBB rating has been negative in the past, though coming up with a reliable source to document this may be difficult. There are also concerns about how relevant a BBB rating is, as it has been suggested that become a member tends to make ratings mo favorable. On the other hand, it is referenced in many other articles; then again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a tenable argument here.

• Do not include I think a BBB rating is fine if you're deciding who to buy a used car from, but I don't think it's particularly useful and evaluating a large company using an independent distributor model. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a question about your statement Ohnoitsjamie. Do you believe that the MonaVie product is stored within independent distributors homes in which it is sold from? If that is so then I would have to inform you that the majority of the distribution is handled by distribution centers run by the MonaVie company. Independent Distributors can sell the product however the majority of independent distributors within MonaVie could be compared to a Customer of Costco as in they refer other customers to become members of Costco and shop there the only difference is MonaVie is an online store. I just figured I would inform you of this fact as it does reflect that the BBB rating is helpful for people who want to know how well these distribution centers are managed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.101.93 (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Some one removed yet another part of the page earlier On that note about how MonaVie distributors aren't retail customers, I noticed that this part of the article cited in the Pyramid Scheme Allegations section was removed earlier: "In a 1979 regulatory action involving the firm, the Federal Trade Commission attempted to draw lines between legitimate and fraudulent pyramids. The ones that are legit focus on getting revenue from consumer goods sold to retail customers. The FTC did not, however, define "retail" in that case. That leaves plenty of wiggle room for guys like Orrin Woodward; he counts the vast majority of people in his pyramid, who seemingly try but fail to make money, as retail customers." Please re-input this information at the bottom - without it, the article really makes no sense. Source http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html 67.78.80.176 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not include for reasons stated above (mainly notability not established by secondary sources). 174.89.176.60 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How long is this Poll going for? I still have not seen anything convincing me yet that the BBB information should not be in the article or even in the lead for that matter. I have seen some attempts at vilification and Someone posted information in here about MonaVie being a Pyramid Scheme which does not sway me because Many Companies and Countries have a Pyramid structure. With that logic we would have to compare all subjects that are Pyramid in structure to an Illegal Pyramid Scheme. Can you guys try harder please? How much more time do I have to make a vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.101.93 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Include for reasons stated above, while omitting "despite earning a D- rating as recently as April 2, 2010" given that this was cited from a biased reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoknight (talk • contribs) 15:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Include —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.161.34 (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Include I don't really see a problem with the BBB info being in this article, It helps the public know that the company is legitimate and has a high standard when dealing with their customers. If the grade from the BBB changes then it can be changed in this article although I think it would have to come from the BBB website. The D- that another editor had mentioned seems redundant and cant really be proven with a proper source unless there is a back history of ratings that comes from the BBB itself. I also thought that the BBB A+ was a nice touch to the lead paragraph as it counterbalanced the criticism however upon further review I realize that the criticism of MonaVie doesnt belong in the lead either and should be put in a seperate criticism section after a thorough evaluation of the claims made in those statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidR2010 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do not include. The fact that the BBB ever gave these conmen any grade higher than a F is prima facie evidence that the BBB is not a reliable source and their ratings shouldn't be used for anything. 99.164.60.84 (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.183.49.240, 5 October 2010

{{edit protected}} Revenue listed is very dated. Current reported revenue for 2009 was $785MM. Please go to www.dsn.com and click on global 100 for a reporting of their revenue and ranking from the direct selling news association. Thanks,

76.183.49.240 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: The page protection expires in a couple days on Oct. 7, you can make the requested change then yourself, just remember to cite your source. -- œ^™ 09:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Clearly, there are a group of editors out there who are intention on keeping content about apparent controversy related to MonaVie in the lead. While it may be appropriate to point that out in the article, in an appropriate section, like Criticism, that group of what appear to be very biased editors needs to justify why their statment of convroversy belongs in the lead. Until such time, that content should be placed under a sub-heading. Other Wikipedia pages on MLM companies, ones which might also be suject to controversy, follow that format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seincire (talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A few suggestions for you to consider. First, post your comments at the bottom of the page, not the top. Second, dont forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes. Third, it is not necessary to start a new thread on the lead as it is already under discussion in an exisiting active thread. Fourth, do not focus on what you believe to be the bad intentions of other editors as this violates the assumption of good faith, a cornerstone policy here at WP (WP:GF). Lastly, take time to familiarize yourself with WP policies before flying off the handle. Had you done so in this case, you would have learned that your argument has no merit. WP:LEAD states the following:

"The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."

Criticism of Monavie is abundant in reliable secondary source articles, so much so that it defines the product -- this is properly reflected in the lead as it stands now. 174.89.176.108 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that wikipedia explanation of "Lead" is the reason why I have avoided challenging the Monavie lead. I propose a change to the lead, to include the information that Seincire added: "MonaVie has nine different products (six juice blends and three gel packs) with a wide variety of antioxidants, vitamins, and phytonutrients and an energy drink offered in both regular and light calorie versions." With the overview of the criticism section afterwards. If an editor would like to challenge the criticism against Monavie, the best approach might be to review the secondary sources themselves. Given that Monavie is a relatively young company, some of these referenced sources might be outdated, particularly given the possibility of product changes. Xenoknight (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead already describes the basics about what the products are. Saying that they have "6 juice blends and 3 gel packs...energy drink...regular and light calorie versions" is neither "defining" nor particulalry interesting/notable -- that is not a summary; just minor details. The lead is supposed to be concise so it must be limited to only the most relevant defining information as described in secondary sources. The lack of nutrients in Monavie has been a major point of contention and a basis for criticism, so it's not reasonable to suggest that the lead shoud say otherwise. 174.89.176.108 (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I begin 174.89.176.108 I have a few suggestions for you first. When you are writing in discussion on wikipedia you should be more careful of the statements you make. Let us look at your statement "The lack of nutrients in Monavie has been a major point of contention and a basis for criticism" The Wikipedia Definition of Nutrients http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient A nutrient is a chemical that an organism needs to live and grow or a substance used in an organism's metabolism which must be taken in from its environment. Now after reviewing the wikipedia page on Nutrients as well as reviewing the ingredients of MonaVie I realize I do not need to waste much time to disprove your statement all that needs to be said is Water is a Nutrient and Water is present in MonaVie. Your statements here would suggest MonaVie is lacking in Water which is not true so therefore your statement is false and cannot be used in this discussion.

I would also like to suggest to you that your statement "Saying that they have "6 juice blends and 3 gel packs...energy drink...regular and light calorie versions" is neither "defining" nor particulalry interesting/notable -- that is not a summary; just minor details." clearly is based upon your opinion and that it is not interesting nor is it relevant whether it is interesting. It is a fact and notable for the readers of wikipedia who are researching the products to know what products are available. DavidR2010 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a question for the Admins of Wikipedia about this statement in the Lead. "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as its health benefit claims have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities". I would like to know what health benefit claims the MonaVie Company has made and by what regulatory authorities they would have to be approved by. When I read through the sources of this statement I find it hard to come to this conclusion for myself as the only thing close to it I have seen is FDA warning letters sent to an independent distributor named Kevin and a website called www.acai-berry.com/. From these articles I reach the conclusion that these are merely independent distributors receiving warnings and I do not understand how it translates to what can be read as the actual MonaVie Company making these claims and being warned. DavidR2010 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

With it being hard to determine what does and what does not belong in the lead, especially items of controversy; perhaps 174.89.176.108 and those supporting the need to include the "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as its health benefit claims have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities,[2][3][4][5][6] its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage,[7][8][9] the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme,[8][10] and very few distributors actually make a profit.[8][10][11][12]" statement, might be willing to have the lead make a statement such has: "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as noted in the Criticsm section". That could be a good and reasonable solution for a variety of reasons. As a note to the Admins of Wikiepeidia, who may not be aware of the intricacies of what’s involved, moving that whole comment to the Criticism might be more appropriate because what it leads the reader to believe, as written, is not true! If we want to keep Wikipedia factually correct, than having that statement in the Lead is certainly dangerous, even if supported by cited references. As written the statement leads the reader to believe that no scientific studies have been performed. Which is absolutely NOT the case...there are over 70 scientific studies supporting the product and its components. Perhaps we can open up the article to put some of those in. The way the statement is written also leads the reader to believe that regulatory authorities are supposed approve such products and that MonaVie somehow got around that. Well, facts are, MonaVie applies with all government production standards. The section also leads readers to believe that the MonaVie CEO was the one pursued for false claims at a previous company, which is not the case. Further, the way the statement currently reads, it also leads the reader to think it is something illegal, with the statement of it being "similar to a pyramid scheme", something which many people understand to be illegal or synonymous with "scam". Facts are much legal precedent has been set to show that is not the case and in defense of the distribution model in general. Finally, the way the section is written, stating a very subjective amount as "few" distributors make money also leads readers to believe that everyone is supposed to make money in such businesses; while the average story of life clearly separates the successful few from the many who don't get much in life. With changes to make such edits constantly and quickly being "undone", it does not leave room to state alternate facts and clarify alternate views - such as MonaVie setting industry records with both the size and volume of bonuses being paid, at every level of the scale. With the Lead section as it is, claiming numerous and multiple citations, in support of what many may consider to be very leading verbiage and using citations which often come from highly editorialized, although sometimes well-circulated journals; it is understandable that the Wikipedia Admins and the poor average reader might be overwhelmed and mislead with the information as is. Thus, all that seems to add reason for making sure readers are made aware of the “controversy” at the outset of the article, but simply directed to a “criticism” section, to get those alternate views on the controversy. This might be much better than seeming to have Wikipedia party to the support of what many may suggest be paramount to defamation and something that could be causing great harm to not only a company, but also those who might benefit from it.20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You make some good points There definitely needs to be a new lead for this article as this current lead is clearly misleading. I am still waiting for the admins to come into this discussion and clarify why they have kept this lead here for so long especially when the references cited do not even justify its statements. After reading the references I feel the proper wording of these statements would be that a few MonaVie distributors have been the subject of controversy for making false claims and have been warned by the FDA.

The accusations towards the CEO of MonaVie Dallin Larsen are not backed up by proper evidence I would like to see some more proof that names him particularly of being at fault.

As for the statement that its business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme well lets look at the wikipedia definition of a pyramid scheme "A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than from any real investment or sale of products or services to the public. Pyramid schemes are a form of fraud" clearly this is not similar to MonaVie and I wonder if this statement is an attempt to mislead the readers that it is fraud.

Finally in the statement "and very few distributors actually make a profit." is this and attempt to persuade readers to stay away from building a business in this company? The facts are that distributor is the first rank in MonaVie and in my research of the compensation plan the higher rank you achieve the more you make as you are promoted from a distributor to a star and then star 500 and so on. The other confusion that arises is the fact that the majority of customers stay at this distributor rank as they are merely users of the product and not business builders.

Before we begin to build a proper lead paragraph for MonaVie worthy of wikipedia I would still like to hear some feed back from the admins. I would in particular like to understand how it is justified that these statements have been posted on this website for so long. I await the reply on this from the admins Thank You. DavidR2010 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the process here...? Will the Wikipedia Admins just weigh-in as part of the discussion, or do we have to do something? 198.8.67.3 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP Admins.... Revise the Lead and/or reopen for editing, please! When one begins to consider all fear insighting statements of "controversy" in the Lead, it would only makes sense that readers should, straight off the bat, also be informed of the other side of the "controversy", such as the facts that MonaVie has received many postive acclaims, including: Ernst & Young Entreprenuer of the Year, Fastest company to reach a commulative $1B in revenue (ever!), #1 Ranking for private companies in Food and beverage, as by the very reputable Inc Magazine. In the name of balance, those things need to be stated too....or the controversy needs to be moved to a more appropriate section.Seincire (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seincire (talk • contribs) 17:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The lack of a reply from the admins leads me to ask further questions about this situation.

1. Are the admins reviewing the content of this article as we have now debunked the lead as serious lies and they are rewriting the article?

2. Are the admins and opponents of MonaVie content with the article and have not shown up here to debate and continuously lock the article to preserve the lies until we simply go away?

3. Are the admins of this site receiving payment from a competing source that has reason to fear this company? Would This explain how the article is simply locked down to preserve the lies?

4.I would also like to ask the admins that if they are not impressed with MonaVie due to certain distributors making false health claims in the past to consider that if anyone of us were to sign up with MonaVie to discredit the company by spouting illegal claims until we were warned (as I suspect may have been the motive in some of these cases) Would this action of one individual reflect poorly on the company of MonaVie as a whole?

These are my questions for the time being and they are not accusations however if there is further silence I will be forced to assume that questions 2 and 3 are correct. I would also like to suggest perhaps this article is too sensitive at this time and should be deleted until after this war of misinformation is settled. DavidR2010 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't make ridiculous allegations about other editors you can't back up; doing so again will be considered to be a personal attack and can result in your account being blocked. My 2 cents; there's plenty of reliable sources to support the claims made in the current lead. I haven't evaluated every single source, but Newsweek, Forbes, and FTC reports certainly qualify as reliable sources. Page protection will continue until the edit warring stops. If someone feels that any sort of content-consensus has been reached on this talk page, used the {{editprotected}} template to request the change(s). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying however you are the only admin I ever see posting here would it be possible to have more admins come into this discussion. I will agree with you that Newsweek, Forbes and FTC reports qualify as reputable sources however have you reviewed that these reports support these claims? Do these sources truly support the claims in the lead do they prove that Dallin Larson is guilty of false health claims of another product. Do they support that THE MONAVIE COMPANY ITSELF!!!!!! has been the subject of controversy and not merely a small handfull of distributors making claims that are not scientificly proven! DO THESE SOURCES STATE THAT MONAVIE IS AN ILLEGAL PYRAMID SCAM TRULY WITHOUT A DOUBT????? DO THEY? WHY IS IT NOTE WORTHY THAT ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF DISTRIBUTORS MAKE A PROFIT? PERHAPS THEY MERELY ENJOY THE PRODUCT AND ARE NOT BUSINESS BUILDERS HOWEVER DO THE REFERENCES SUPPORT THESE CLAIMS? WHY HAVE YOU NOT REVIEWED ALL THE SOURCES?

I have not made any ridiculous allegations here against other editors I have only asked questions here in this discussion. Are the statments in the lead supported by the sources. I think its about time these questions were ANSWERED! DavidR2010 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)DAVIDR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, David2010, do you have any sort of connection with MonaVie? You seem to be quite passionate about the topic (in fact, it's the only topic you've ever contributed to here at Wikipedia). You may want to review a few Wikipedia policy pages. If I may: WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Consensus, WP:Edit warring. The latter two should be explanation enough for why this article was locked... Contrary to popular belief on the internet, capslock does not win arguments, and conspiracy theories are generally laughable... - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

David: Jonathan is correct. Yelling here is unlikely to get you the help you need in that there are over 3 million articles in Wikipedia and it is unlikely many editors or administrators are monitoring this particular talk page. I am a regular editor like yourself (i.e. not an administrator), so I suggest you consider reviewing or politely posting to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Location (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly new to wikipedia I plan on contributing to other articles as well however I would like the truth to be displayed on Wikipedia articles. My past or connections do not change the fact that after reviewing the sources of this article I find that the claims in this article are misleading and not supported by the references. I understand that this is the discussion page here for the article and the article was locked down so it could enter into discussion over why it was locked down am I correct? I appreciate the help you are trying to give me since I am fairly new to wikipedia. My questions are not conspiracy theories is that an attempt to undervalue them? As to the problems with this article it could be possible I have an answer thanks to the admins reply "I haven't evaluated every single source,"

Does this mean that these statements were not evaluated by wikipedia? If so then Is it not time for this articles statements to be evaluated? DavidR2010 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually think that one editor reviews every single source or statement in Wikipedia's 3+ million articles? If you would like to draw in interested editors to address your concerns, please politely post to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page or read Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Location (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My questions are not conspiracy theories is that an attempt to undervalue them? - No moreso than your insinuation that the admins either had to agree with you, or were biased and/or taking bribes from a competitor was an attempt to undermine their actions. I'm sorry, that does sound like a conspiracy theory to me. I could just as easily infer from your lack of response to my earlier question that you are, in fact, an employee or distributor of MonaVie... but it would be wrong of me to do so, wouldn't it? (Incidentally, your connections do play a part in how you should approach articles - please read the CoI link I posted earlier) Perhaps you should give them the same benefit of the doubt. -Jonathon A H (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the response of "I haven't evaluated every single source" from the admin. I will not respond to any further questions about myself as this is the discussion of the lead and not of myself. I ask now that everyone simply look at the point I am trying to make that the statements in the lead are not backed by the references.

Now that we have some editors in here let us discuss and evaluate the references used to support this statement "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as its health benefit claims have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities" Do the references support the statement that the MonaVie company itself has been the subject of controversy for its claims? If so then what claims has the MonaVie company its self made that were not scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities?

Using the references for this statement let us find the answer to this question. Its really simple this is all we have to do here. Oh and by the way http://www.acai-berry.com/ this is not the MonaVie company it is an independent distributor for your information It even says so on the top right. DavidR2010 (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Geez, I just read the section quoting Forbes, and for heaven sake if that isn't a POV *editorial* I don't know what is. I mean, the language alone... Why is this even a question? Barwick (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that Forbes Article is it appears to be a review of Orrins TEAM company and not of the company of MonaVie. So here we have another source not backing the claims of the leads statements. DavidR2010 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Consensus Suggestion....seeing as the debate on the opening revolves around the issue and desire of some to keep "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy", followed up by a few leading claims....I might suggest we look to some other pages and other really controversal issues for some guidence. For example, Abortion, clearly a very controversial issue, brings up the controversy issue in the lead, but only after giving ample space to define, describe and explain. In the 3rd paragraph, it says "The legality, prevalence, and cultural views on abortion vary substantially around the world. In many parts of the world there is prominent and divisive public controversy over the ethical and legal issues of abortion." Perhas a reasonable solution here would be do something similar.... Such as "Views on MonaVie vary substaintially. In some groups there are concerns of blah, blah, blah....and other factions fully supporting the blah, blah, blah" That would seem to give space for both sides of the story, in the Lead? Is not this an attempt to find consensus....Jamie....if you're an Admin, surely you can support a mechanism which, as they in any fair and well balanced form, give readers both sides of the story, up front... Seincire (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright now my findings after reviewing the references of the first statement in question I have searched for evidence within the references to support that the MonaVie company has made claims that have not been proven or approved by scientific regulatory authorities. Now when I did my search through the references for any proof of this statement I found that I could not find anything anywhere that showed what Health Claims the MonaVie company had made. It is just not there there is nothing from the Company at all. So the Conclusion is that "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as its health benefit claims have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities"

Is a False Statement that is not supported by the references provided. Now lets see what others findings are. DavidR2010 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No responses? Can nobody dispute this logic? I have already found one of these statements to be FALSE now this is a major issue as this is a company and real living people these statements attack. Ohnoitsjamie you have locked down this article to preserve these statements If anybody should try to dispute that the leads statements are not supported by the references it should be you. Ohnoitsjamie this is a very serious issue here and yet you say "I haven't evaluated every single source" what is the deal with this? DavidR2010 (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

{{tl:editprotected}} The Leads statement of "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as its health benefit claims have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities" does not appear to be supported by the references provided. There appears to be evidence of claims made on a website called acai-berry.com however in my search through the references provided I can not find any evidence provided of the actual MonaVie company making any health benefit claims nor any evidence that they have made claims that have not been confirmed or approved by any regulatory authority. As this statement indicates that the MonaVie company is making claims I request that the references provided for this statement in the lead paragraph be evaluated. And if there is no support of this statement found that the statement is deleted Thank You. DavidR2010 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the sources for this assertion and they clearly mention MonaVie making health claims:

• MonaVie is a product that contains acai (pronounced a-SAH'ee) berries plus other fruits, but its promoters base their health claims for it on acai berries, which reportedly provide 10 times the antioxidants found in red grapes and 10 to 30 times more than in red wine.[3]
• Two years ago, a friend who had become a distributor for a then-hot berry drink, MonaVie, sold me a bottle. It is made from a formula containing the acai berry and was certainly pleasant tasting. The berry - pronounced ah-SAH-ee - has only been available as a product for about five years, but it was being touted as the ultimate antioxidant juice that, as they used to say, can cure just about anything that ails you. [..] Anthony Gentile included a copy of an announcement of a "business opportunity" for selling MonaVie that listed outrageous claims for the product, from helping to control cholesterol to improving sexual function.[4]

The sources may be wrong, but that's another matter. to address your concern, I've reworded it from "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as its health benefit claims have not been scientifically confirmed..." to "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as health benefit claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed..." That removes the implication that the company is making these claims itself.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, Will. The rewording is accurate and it it backed-up by the sources provided. The statement is appropriate for the introduction and does not imply that the company is directly making those claims, and anyone who infers differently can read the relevant section further down the article. Location (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback the statement you have changed it to does not remove the implication the company is making these claims itself. If it did it would at least state who has made health benefit claims in the past. And then it would not be a worthy statement for the lead anyways now would it? I ask now that you delete the statement as it is clearly misleading to readers. Thank You. DavidR2010 (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't let Monavie whitewash this article. Even if corporate didn't make specific health claims themselves, they encouraged them and profited from them. That's why snake oil salesmen like this use MLM tactics instead of using in-house sales force. They know nobody would buy their crap if they marketed it honestly, so they happily profit when "independent" distributors market them dishonestly and then throw them under the bus when they get caught. 69.208.12.165 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have acknowledgment from 2 editors that the statement in the lead was misleading readers that it was the MonaVie company itself making these claims that were not approved or confirmed by regulatory authorities I feel we are getting somewhere. The rewording is not accurate however and Id like anyone who thinks it is to explain how as now it still reads that MonaVie has made these claims. To be accurate It must now state who has made the claims by using the references provided if not then you are continuing to preserve a false statement that still implies that the MonaVie company itself has made these claims and I must ask why it is so important that this false statement be preserved?

Remember also your statement still says MonaVie has been the subject of Controversy and this part of the statement still implies that the Company of MonaVie itself is the subject of Controversy. However what now is the subject of Controversy that the MonaVie company is accused of here if these statements did not come from the MonaVie company? This statement of "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as health benefit claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities," is still inaccurate you should really just delete it now that by using the references provided we have found there is no valid Controversy that the actual company of MonaVie is the subject of. DavidR2010 (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

@69.208.12.165 Im just here making sure that statements are supported by the sources provided as reference. I have just proven that one statement was misleading and these unbiased and neutral editors are in the process of agreeing with me. I would like Wikipedia to be a credible source of knowledge and the findings that I have just made seriously contradict that. If you have some really good evidence against the company of MonaVie to support your claims go ahead and use it once the article reopens for editing just as long as your statements are backed by your sources I wont mind. DavidR2010 (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright now Will BeBack what is the Controversy that the company of MonaVie is the subject of? DavidR2010 (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Monavie" refers both to a company and a line of products and it appears that you are intentionally equivocating on what you understand the term to mean depending upon what context suits your POV best. There is absolutely no doubt that the products (and therefore the company by direct association) are the subject of controversy. The references provided, which are numerous, support this assertion and are available for anyone to read. There is also no doubt that much of the controversy stems from claims that the products have certain health benefits. That assertion is also supported by the references provided. Claiming that the introduction is inaccurate or misleading does not make it so, and demanding that the statement should simply be removed suggests a huge conflict of interest. If you want additional opinions on this matter, I would again suggest that you try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Location (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

@Userlocationtalk not entirely sure what to call you. You state that "Monavie" refers both to a company and a line of products" What does this mean really? Are you saying that There is two MonaVies? what are you trying to say? Now in the first line it states that we are talking about the company of MonaVie "MonaVie is a beverage company distributing products made from blended fruit juice concentrates with freeze-dried açaí powder and purée through a multi-level marketing (MLM) business model" Do you deny that we are not setting up the article to be an article about the Company of MonaVie?

So there we have it the article is about the Company of MonaVie. This also creates a problem for WillBeBacks rewrite of the statement to say "as health benefit claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities," because the article still is on the subject of the Company of MonaVie therefore it still is a misleading statement telling readers that it was MonaVie making the claims provided in the references.

You should really just delete this statement it is a seriously false statement. DavidR2010 (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is clearly about a company and the products it makes. If that is not obvious to you after having read the article, then there is no wording change that will make this any simpler for you. I am sorry. Location (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I still do not understand your point you are sorry for what? Can you please elaborate? I just do not understand the point you are trying to make that is all and how it is relevant to this discussion. You have not made any points that disprove anything I have said here I mean of course the Article is about the Company and the company makes products. However that does not disprove anything Ive said if that is your attempt here? You state that I am "intentionally equivocating on what you understand the term to mean depending upon what context suits your POV best" So you state that I am taking the term of Monavie and using it to my advantage is this what your are trying to say?

I dont know about that the article clearly opens as a discussion of the company of MonaVie Im just copying and pasting from the article here this is what you call a POV?. "MonaVie is a beverage company distributing products made from blended fruit juice concentrates with freeze-dried açaí powder and purée through a multi-level marketing (MLM) business model" We are talking about the company here and then the next statement is "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as health benefit claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities," There is no change of subject here the rewrite of this statement is just word games. We are still talking about the company of MonaVie the subject never changes and the reader assumes it is the company of MonaVie making these claims and getting into trouble when there is no evidence supporting this in the references provided.

Maybe take a day or two to write it out on paper explaining what you are trying to say and then perhaps you can have your parents or some friends proof read it for you and then come back here in this discussion its alright. Id like to read what you have to say Thanks. DavidR2010 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, I made that change because it's small and it could address a significant issue. However for further changes editors here need to achieve consensus. I urge folks to work to a common solution that follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelelines. If that's unsuccessful, then folks can start working through the dispute resolution process, WP:DR. Warning: dispute resolution can take years so it's better just to come to an agreement.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone here know how the edit protected template is supposed to work? When I had used it I thought we would get a new admin to come to this article that has not been here before? I asked that.

The Leads statement of "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as its health benefit claims have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities" does not appear to be supported by the references provided. There appears to be evidence of claims made on a website called acai-berry.com however in my search through the references provided I can not find any evidence provided of the actual MonaVie company making any health benefit claims nor any evidence that they have made claims that have not been confirmed or approved by any regulatory authority. As this statement indicates that the MonaVie company is making claims I request that the references provided for this statement in the lead paragraph be evaluated. And if there is no support of this statement found that the statement is deleted Thank You.

I did not ask for any small change to be made if the statement was proven to be false.

I see that WillBeBack has contributed to this article in the past and I would like to know how to request other admins to come here that have not in the past in the interest of an unbiased evaluation. Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to get your parents or your friends to help you read the part where I twice previously instructed you to refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Location (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that before we use that we should let the other editors here discuss the lead first. It appears we have come to a consensus that the references are not supporting the statement in question why else would WillBeBack make a change to the statement (Even though small and still preserves a false statement). I will wait a few days and let the other editors here discuss the findings of this statement not being supported by its references.

Thanks for bringing that tool to my attention though How about you show us how it is used and call other editors here to discuss these findings? DavidR2010 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be hard to believe that those on the talk page who have recently been demanding changes to the article lead are not distributors of the product or otherwise have some affiliation with, or financial interest in, Monavie. They should be aware that such a conflict of interest (WP:COI) would not be well received by WP admin and that failure to comply with COI policy could be grounds for a block or permanent ban.

The current revision campaign is inconsistent with WP policy. These arguments are the POV of the editors and not the POV expressed in reliable published sources. The constant barrage on the talk page is bordering on disruptive; the edit wars and content blanking by the same editors(s) was most definitely disruptive and has led to the pga being blocked twice.

WP articles are constructed using reliable sources, as defined by WP policy. As it stands now, the main points in the lead, as well as the finer details of the article, are well supported by reliable sources. Below is a summary of some of the sources cited in the article, as well as a few relevant quotes that counter the arguments for revision proposed recently (a) in regard to Monavie being described as a pyramid scheme, (b) in relation to distributor earnings, and (c) regarding health claims.

• From Huffington Post: “MonaVie Juice: The $35 Per Bottle Pyramid Scheme: “So if MonaVie isn't actually selling a healthy drink, then what are they selling? Forbes Magazine lets us in on MonaVie's secret… In other words, it's a pyramid scheme. It's fruit juice in superior packaging. It's very likely a scam designed to make their president, one Mr. Dallin Larsen, wealthy.”[5]

• From Forbes Magazine: “Pyramid selling schemes are a dime a dozen…In the distributional art form known euphemistically as "multilevel marketing" and more crassly as a pyramid…It is a pyramid atop a pyramid…A YouTube clip shows a MonaVie distributor, who calls himself Dr. Lou Niles and is dressed in red scrubs, at a distributor-sponsored meeting, implying that MonaVie cures cancer.”[6]

• From the Interim Director of the Oregon Youth Authority: “Recently, I have had several people speak to me about employee involvement, including the recruitment of colleagues, into pyramid-like operations. In addition, the Department of Justice, the Ethics Commission and the Governor’s Office have heard that OYA employees are involved with pyramid-like operations such as Quixtar (aka Quickstar), Monavie, Amway and other “multi-level marketing” companies.”[7]

• From CTV News: "’A few guys at the top get very, very rich’, is the blunt assessment of marketing expert Lindsay Meredith, who says the people who make the big money in multi level marketing get in early. "The pay off is only if you are at the front of the line," Meredith said.”[8]

• From CNBC (Is MonaVie Endorsement Risky?): “The company freely admits the longshot odds. Its 2008 income disclosure statement reveals that 82 percent of distributors make an average of $2,032 or less. When you consider that it costs approximately $1,800 to buy the required one case (four bottles) a month to take part in commissions, it's all a wash. When you see that only 3.3 percent of people who distributed MonaVie in 2008 made more than $10,000, you can understand where there's a risk to Scheckter. Unrealistic expectations of selling this stuff are especially causing tension these days. I've met overzealous sellers who can no longer have conversations with their friends because they are so focused on getting them into their commission line. They often try to make conversation seem more natural by working in how the drink made them feel better in some way."[9]

• From Newsweek: A Drink’s Purple Reign (Devotees claim MonaVie cures their ills and makes them millionaires. But is it just hype in a bottle?): “But not everyone is drinking the Kool-Aid. Critics call MonaVie a "legalized scam" that benefits only a few kingpin executives. The product itself, they say, is an overhyped fruit drink that eludes drug regulation by the Food and Drug Administration by letting its distributors (as opposed to MonaVie itself) make the health promises… Larsen, for his part, realizes that his sales team can get him in hot water with the Feds. A 20-year-veteran of the multi-level marketing industry, he left a senior post at another juice company in 2002, a year before the FDA destroyed the company's "bogus products" that were being falsely promoted to treat "cancer, arthritis and attention deficit disorder." Last summer, the FDA warned MonaVie about medicinal claims on its Web site…”[10]

• From Men’s Journal: “Packaged in a high-end-looking wine bottle, MonaVie tested extremely low in anthocyanins and phenolics. Even apple juice (which also tested poorly) has more phenolics than this Utah-based company’s juice. Plus, MonaVie’s vitamin C level was five times lower than that of Welch’s Grape Juice. That’s not many nutrients, especially at $1.20 a serving.”[11]

• From Palm Beach Post: “Two years ago, a friend who had become a distributor for a then-hot berry drink, MonaVie, sold me a bottle. It is made from a formula containing the acai berry and was certainly pleasant tasting. The berry - pronounced ah-SAH-ee - has only been available as a product for about five years, but it was being touted as the ultimate antioxidant juice that, as they used to say, can cure just about anything that ails you…. Anthony Gentile included a copy of an announcement of a "business opportunity" for selling MonaVie that listed outrageous claims for the product, from helping to control cholesterol to improving sexual function…If you search the Internet, you can find a letter sent July 6, 2007 by the Food and Drug Administration to Mona Vie corporate headquarters…’What I like to know is how anyone can make these claims without any medical evidence? Can you tell me how they get away with this?’ Well, they don't. If you search the Internet, you can find a letter sent July 6, 2007 by the Food and Drug Administration to Mona Vie corporate headquarters…The FDA listed other problematic claims and concluded, ‘It is your responsibility to ensure that all products marketed by your firm comply with regulations’.”[12]

• Huffington Post (New Rules: No More Claiming Mona Vie Cures Cancer!)[13]

• Hartford Courant (Acai's Payoff: Are The Benefits Of This Popular Berry In Its Antioxidant Properties Or Its Profit Margin?)[14]

• Forbes Magazine: White Collar Crime: U.S. More Corrupt in 2010[15]

And incidentally, it’s not just distributors that are making illegal medical claims about Monavie. I found at least a couple of examples of the company making similar claims through the use of testimonials posted on the official corporate website. One essentially claims that Monavie played a role in recovery from brain trauma; the other claims that Monavie can cure/treat pain. The company refers to both stories as “miracles”.[16][17]

Some of the common themes in the articles above are that Monavie is a pyramid scheme; its distributors do not make significant revenue, despite promotional claims to the contrary; the juice provides limited nutritional value and the benefits have been overstated (to the point of illegality with respect to health/medical claims); and the company founder was a senior executive at a similar juice company that was previously shut down by the FDA just before Monavie was launched. Other sources show that the company has been involved in a spate of lawsuits. Among these were two extremely notable cases; a false advertising lawsuit launched by Oprah Winfrey and Mehmet Oz, and a false advertising suit launched by Imagenetix Inc (notable because of the inordinately high amount of damages requested – 2.75 billion).

• MonaVie sued for $2.75B (Laura Hancock, Deseret News)[18]

The same article establishes the notability of the legal dispute between Monavie and Amway, which was also discussed in the Forbes article by Lambert and Kneale.

Bear in mind the law of unintentional consequences WP:LUC that applies to editing an article such as this. If you improperly fight to have the article neutralized, the article might move in the opposite direction from where you are hoping to take it. 65.95.238.137 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I urge editors and admins to be very careful when writing articles about existing companies and living persons. For the sake of the Preservation of Wikipedia if I can tear apart the article and show clearly that it is only unsupported Slander then I fear it could be possible that much worse consequences can come from this article.

Wow everything you just mentioned seems to be from the POV of this site here http://www.juicescam.com/ would it not be fair to assume that this is where these editors controlling this article are coming from.

Wikipedia is not a battleground for editors to game the system this article needs more Neutrality and fact finding.

If Newsweek and Carolyn Susman of Palm Beach Post states that an FDA warning was sent directly to MonaVie Headquarters then perhaps you should put that in your lead statement that the FDA warned MonaVie directly according to Newsweek and use actual quotations from the article and then we can ask Newsweek or Carolyn to show us the evidence of this (You would have enough proof right there if you can do that but even still Xangos Article has no mention of its controversy with FDA warnings in its lead why dont you go add some there if you are unbiased). That is another issue here these statements in the lead are not quotations for the articles themselves used to support them Why not just quote from the articles instead of the brief POV summary of what they say. Is it not a POV that http://www.acai-berry.com is MonaVies website did MonaVie create it? It says in this article on wikipedia that it is MonaVies website however elsewhere in the article it states that www.MonaVie.com is the companies website is this not a contradiction that is confusing and misleading to readers?

Why not post actual claims from MonaVie that you had actually found and state here are the claims MonaVie is making. If it is a fact that they are a pyramid scheme as this article likes to try and imply then how about we find articles that support that with a legal case of them being found guilty of this. Right now you just have the POV of critics supporting this.

Everyone likes to bring up Mens Health Journals article that looks for 4 ingredients why not have a statement that says Miriam Pappo, director of clinical nutrition at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, says four ingredients make a juice nutritionally beneficial: phenolic acids (to prevent cancer), anthocyanins (to prevent aging), vitamin C (to aid in healing wounds), and beta-carotene (to boost the immune system). Does FDA and FTC back these statements.

Is this not a POV that only these 4 ingredients are important and did MonaVie ever claim to have alot of these 4 ingredients? Why dont you guys make a statement in the lead paragraph and quote from these sources and then have sources that prove MonaVie says and yet these findings conclude otherwise.

I think you guys are starting to understand my view point that you support your statements rather weakly If you can find ways to support them better go ahead.

How about the references backing that MonaVie is a pyramid scam in the lead ok here we go http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/nbty.shtm (What does this have to do with MonaVie? enough said.Nothing about MonaVie written on that website)

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/08/01/a-drink-s-purple-reign.html (I dont even see the word pyramid here at all.Big POV red flag there Heh.)

its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage, This just sounds like a POV its like saying he used to work there and a year after he quit they got in trouble with the FDA. Can you prove that he had purposely made false claims of another beverage where is the evidence he is guilty of this right now it just looks like an assumption. Big POV red flag there!

and very few distributors actually make a profit Do they in Xango or in Amway? Why not go add that to those articles lead statements. However I dont think anyone at the distributor http://media.monavie.com/PDF/IDS/IDS_Mid_Year_2009_Global.pdf level can make a profit in this company so it sounds really silly as it is but lets look at the supporting references provided as proof of this.

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/08/01/a-drink-s-purple-reign.html This article mentions income disclosure statements for 2007 the year is 2010 currently.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html If you pay attention and look closely this here is an article about TEAM and not about the Company of MonaVie.

http://articles.courant.com/2009-07-19/news/acai-marketing-suncon0719.art_1_monavie-acai-berry-antioxidants/3 another old article it doesnt mention where it gets its income information from it just says Last year, about 45 percent of the company's distributors earned an annualized average check of less than $1,600, while 37 percent took home about $2,000. About 2 percent earned an annualized average check of more than $29,000, according to a company statement. And just seven of MonaVie's 80,000 distributors took home the big money, more than $3 million. In a young company of 5 years old 45 percent of people beginning to see profits is pretty interesting to me and this is from 2008 apparently. It also seems better than the previous articles mention of income disclosure statements from 2007 that Fewer than 1 percent qualified for commissions and of those, only 10 percent made more than $100 a week sounds like growth to me.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700250138/Henry-Marsh-a-success-story.html?pg=3 In this we read that Newsweeks previous article is possibly incorrect as " Newsweek reported that only 1 percent of MonaVie's distributors make money; Marsh says it's more like 14 percent.

"I know we've paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in commissions," says Larsen." So now we have a problem with one of these sources not being a reputable source possibly as they contradict and for the sake of being unbiased I wont assume who is making the right statement here.

Its possible as well that much of the people signed up with MonaVie as distributors do not profit simply because they are drinking the juice and it is a source of confusion as when you sign up with MonaVie to order the products you are also given a rank as distributor.

Newsweek even states the possibility of this here "Meanwhile, most of the million-strong sales team is really just drinking the juice," http://www.newsweek.com/2008/08/01/a-drink-s-purple-reign.html

My findings for the statement "and very few distributors actually make a profit" I never found this statement even quoted anywhere and seems to me like it is a serious POV summary of the sources provided.

So many statements that are not supported raises quite a few questions about how such a POV summary can come from these articles and websites.

There is quite a bit of sources that are POV of critics and Hearsay about health claims made elsewhere that dont originate from the Company as the article misleads readers into believing.

If all I have to do is search the internet to find and FDA letter sent directly to MonaVie corporate Headquarters as Carolyn Susman says then where is it? I see a letter sent to Kevin Vokes that is about it.

Long story short how about you place Quotations from the actual articles you are using as references instead of the POV summary that is there you are using as your statements. Is it because you will find it hard to support your POV? go ahead and prove me wrong then. I would also like someone here to try and disprove what I am saying instead of just posting all the sources back to me and quoting the rules of wikipedia that does not solve the discussion. It only raises alot of questions when instead of discussing whether my findings are accurate you skirt around the issue and quote the rules instead.

Enough with the Gaming the System prove me wrong and I will be satisfied. DavidR2010 (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lets get this out of the way... are you now, or have you ever been involved with MonaVie? Do you have a Conflict of Interest here? Since you're accusing everyone else of POV, then perhaps you should make yours clear? Personally, I have no affiliation with MonaVie, or any of the sites you've mentioned. I've never sold it, nor have I ever written anything about it - positive or negative.

• The only place in the article where it states that MonaVie was warned by the FDA was a direct quote - just as you 'requested'. The article does, in fact, make it very clear that the FDA's issue was with a specific distributor.
• The article does not make any claim that the acai berry dot com (not going to help promote it) site is an official MonaVie site - in fact, I can't see where it's mentioned at all in the Wiki article.
• There is no need to compare this article to every other MLM article - what's reported in this article appears to be factual and well referenced - just because it's critical and doesn't fit your POV, doesn't mean it isn't notable or worthy of inclusion.
• If you have an issue with the date of a reference, then find an updated reference. Until then, a 2007 source is better than none at all. The article clearly states that the source is for 2007, and makes no claim of it being current.
• While the Forbes article may be primarily about Team, Monavie is referenced several times in the article, and the quotes appear to be in proper context (MonaVie is described in the article as being a 'pyramid scheme', and Team is described as being a Pyramid on a Pyramid - there is, however, less to support it being used as a citation for the distributor profits).
• ...That said, the other articles cited do support the statement that few distributors earn a profit... and no, it's not a direct quotation from the article, nor does it have to be. I think "Fewer than 1 percent qualified for commissions and of those, only 10 percent made more than $100 a week." can safely be interpreted as 'very few distributors actually make a profit'...

Anyway, I'll end with a few more Wiki Policy pages: WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:No original research, WP:Neutral point of view (since you seem to have some sort of misunderstanding as to what this is in the context of WP), and WP:Verifiability. As far as I can tell, most (if not all) articles used in this wiki article meet the definition of reliable), and while some may be used over-zealously, I can see no reason to dismiss them entirely. - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop asking for information about myself. I will just tell you that if I told you you would be disapointed you could not use much against me. I see that only as a way of trying to ignore me instead of discussing my findings. I am Just looking for some fact finding here and Cleanup of the article to make it a good standing article for wikipedia.

Its great that you agree with me that the FDA's issue was with a specific distributor. So how is "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as health benefit claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities" justified now?

"The article does not make any claim that the acai berry dot com (not going to help promote it) site is an official MonaVie site - in fact, I can't see where it's mentioned at all in the Wiki article."

The MonaVie company website is to the right of the article right under where it says there is 450 employees. And yet “the FDA warned MonaVie about medicinal claims on its Web site” appears in this section of the article here.

Misleading advertising and health claims

Bowden, Newsweek correspondent Tony Dokoupil,[8] and Palm Beach Post reporter Carolyn Susman[5] commented on the use of misleading promotional testimonials by MonaVie distributors in which the product was said to prevent and treat a variety of medical conditions. Dokoupil noted that “the FDA warned MonaVie about medicinal claims on its Web site” in reference to the Food and Drug Administration's action against MonaVie distributor Kevin Vokes in July 2007. According to an FDA Warning Letter, Vokes had promoted MonaVie as a drug in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by claiming that it was effective for treating inflammation, high cholesterol, and muscle and joint pain.[6] The FDA was ultimately satisfied with the company's response[8] after the claims on the offending website had been greatly dialed down.[5] In a 2008 article in Forbes magazine, reporters Emily Lambert and Klaus Kneale described MonaVie as a pyramid scheme and noted that a MonaVie video testimonial by distributor Louis "Lou" B. Niles implied that the product could cure cancer.[10] Niles, who claims in the video to be a doctor and an end-stage cancer specialist, is introduced at the distributor-sponsored meeting by MonaVie executive Jason Lyons.[citation needed]

I believe this article should follow the same standards the other MLM company articles follow. I dont think you see my point that the statement very few distributors actually make a profit is a serious POV. You dont even mention what I had to say about the other article that talked about the next years earning where they talk about numbers like 47% and 35% is that a very few? Also the next article contradicts the 1% claims so yeah big POV here that favours the view point of 1 source out of 3. And just because something is described as a Pyramid on a Pyramid still cant justify calling something a Pyramid Scheme unless it it can be defined as a pyramid scheme as stated here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

Ok how can MonaVie be similar to a pyramid scheme by this definition. A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than from any real investment or sale of products or services to the public. Pyramid schemes are a form of fraud.

So is the company of MonaVie a pyramid scheme? is there not investment or sale of products or services to the public. Has it been found guilty of being a fraud? DavidR2010 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I also want to comment on the last part of what Jonathan said "Anyway, I'll end with a few more Wiki Policy pages: WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:No original research, WP:Neutral point of view (since you seem to have some sort of misunderstanding as to what this is in the context of WP), and WP:Verifiability. As far as I can tell, most (if not all) articles used in this wiki article meet the definition of reliable), and while some may be used over-zealously, I can see no reason to dismiss them entirely. - Jonathon A H"

This is not at all about whether the sources used for the article are reliable I am not asking to have them dismissed entirely. To end all confusion on whether this is the case I am trying to make. The problem with the statements made in the lead is that the statements are extreme POV of the source articles. DavidR2010 (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

people please wake up here these warnings presented on this talk page are only here to preserve the POV of certain editors and admins I do not believe they have grounds to ban or block anyone (these arguments would have to be reviewed by many admins and editors in that case and I don't think they want that). Who agrees with me that there are many statements made in the lead paragraph and article about MonaVie that are not factual at all and are not supported by the references provided. DavidR2010 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

With it being difficult to continue this discussion as some have accused myself of having a Conflict of Interest and as I have read what that means I will have to state that I do not expect to earn any money or receive any kind of reward for any changes made to this article. However that being said I will say that Misrepresentation of the sources is very serious and due to the severity of these claims in the article against the company of MonaVie I will encourage anyone currently and actively connected with the company of MonaVie to come forward and join the discussion. Ignore the rule of Conflict of Interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules in the name of improving this wikipedia article. DavidR2010 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus: For an attempt to come closer to reaching Consensus is everyone here willing to agree to simplify this discussion? I have posted on the Neutral point of view Notice board for a third opinion. BruceGrubb had looked over the article and the sources thoroughly and gave his feed back.

His feed back was "Point 89 and 93 of the "Quixtar Inc. Plaintiff, vs. MonaVie, Inc., MonaVie LLC, John Brigham and Lita Hart, Jason and Carrie Lyons, Lou Niles, Farid Zarif, John Does 1-10," document pretty much spell out the CEO has issues with the FDA."

So for the purposes of simplifying this discussion is everyone willing to agree that this is the strongest piece of evidence against the company of MonaVie. That the article here relies solely on this source determining the weight of the POV of the statements made in this article?

If we could agree to focus solely on this source here in this discussion http://www.amquix.info/pdfs/monavie/2-08-cv-00209-db-02.pdf as BruceGrubb has suggested this is the big main Source that supports everything in the article. He didn't have anything to say about the other sources so it must mean that this is the only source here that supports the claims in the article.

I think This is the easiest and only way to achieve a conclusion to the edit warring here. DavidR2010 (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's you and your socks fellow MonaVie employees redlink pals here that are the cause of the edit war. And throwing around words like "libel" does your cause no good, unless you can provide (1) evidence of libel; and (2) counterevidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the lede accurately represents the sources. The assertions to the contrary appear to me to be falsehoods. All the disruptive single purpose accounts should be permanently banned, along with all future similar accounts. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Dlabtot (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I provided plenty of evidence and yet it is ignored what it boils down to here is from what I see the sources don't support these statements as I found that there is a confusion here of what TEAM is and what MonaVie is and what an independent distributors website is and what the MonaVie Companies website is and these lead to the POV of the article being extremely off and misleading to readers. Just keep an unbiased mindset drop all the threats and accusations and personal attacks and look at the sources with that in mind and you will clearly see all the problems with the article. DavidR2010 (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Threats and accusations"? When almost the first word out of your own mouth was "libel"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright I will agree to drop all threats and accusations if people here are willing to drop all threats and accusations of anyone who challenges this article. And I will agree to discuss this civilly if I can have my questions answered and an unbiased review of the article. Just answer my questions don't circle around them. I think I raise some valid points that nobody comments on at all they just ignore. Is the TEAM company the same as the MonaVie Company and if so how?

Is www.acai-berry.com the same as www.MonaVie.com if so then how? Just answer the questions. DavidR2010 (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

Do you solemnly swear on a stack of Whole Earth Catalogs that you have never edited wikipedia under any other ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If its not COI its something else. I can't guarantee I have not been on this website I may have had an account like 5 years ago I don't remember what I called it or if it was this site but keep those questions on my talk page. Im just beggining to think that the admins just ignore all the rules when it comes to this article why is that. What the heck is so special about this company that merits ignoring all the rules. Why all the hate towards it I dont get it at all can you maybe put some links on my talk page and just tell me whats going on with this company? DavidR2010 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I notice I am now unable to type certain words in here that accurately describe what these statements really are. Very Fishy that you have not been able to prove me wrong so you filter my words instead.

I have decided that since the admins will not remove the obviously unsupported claims made in this article that perhaps I should try another approach.

Since it is so necessary to the admins of wikipedia for this to be a negative review of the company of MonaVie. How about I try to help you find reliable sources that support your statements. I will be back after a few days of research looking for articles that support your statements. DavidR2010 (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010