Talk:Juice Plus

"not statistically significant" or "significant"?

The article currently states, with respect to a study conducted in Austria (Lamprecht):

"Subjects who took Juice Plus had lower TNF-α levels than the placebo group at later time points in the study (week 16 and 28) but overall the effect was not statistically significant."

According to a report in Flewnews ("Business News for the Food Industry"):

"It was shown that the physiological parameters in the treatment group could be improved to a highly significant extent (p < 0.001) in comparison with the placebo group."

In the abstract of the presentation to which the Flexnews report refers [here] the author of the study states:

"The TNF-α concentrations at wk 16 (P < 0.001) and wk 28 (P < 0.05) were significantly lower in the JPC (i.e. Juice Powder Concentrate) group than in the placebo group."

In the absence of the study data, can anyone explain this apparent contradiction between the article and the author's presentation? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you consult the cited supplemental data to Lamprecht's study. The analysis of variance for the TNF data clearly reported non-significant p-values for the effect of treatment and the treatment x time interaction, hence the overall effect of Juice Plus on TNF was not significant (as is stated in the WP article). Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How odd then, that the author claims that TNF-α concentrations at wk 16 (P < 0.001) and wk 28 (P < 0.05) were significantly lower! Unfortunately the reference provided permits access neither to the study nor to the supplemental data, without a subscription to the journal cited. Would you please give the relevant data here? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It’s not odd at all that the data was misrepresented, considering that the original study was funded by NSA, and that the abstract you quoted from previously was published by the European Nutraceutical Association, which is funded by NSA and is run by two NSA Europe executives (Gerald Tulzer and Peter Prock). The ANOVA results for TNF reported in the supplemental data document by Lamprecht were as follows: Treatment effect, p = 0.256; Time effect, p = 0.008; Treatment x Time interaction, p = 0.092. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"...the European Nutraceutical Association, is also funded by NSA and is chaired by NSA employees Gerald Tulzer and Peter Prock ...". This quotation, from the notably negative JuicePlus Research blog, matches almost word for word RIR's statement above. Is this just a coincidence, or are the blog owner and RIR the same person? If not, is this just "sloppy or an honest mistake" on RIR's part? --TraceyR (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I got some information from the Juice Plus blog and confirmed the gist of it through other relaible online sources. I pointed out already that Tulzer is a Juice Plus advertising spokesperson, sists on the JPCRF advisory board, and that he is affiliated with or runs a Juice Plus distributorship in Austria. You don’t seem to be denying these facts, nor are you denying that Prock of the ENA’s executive board is also an NSA executive. The entire issue is moot at this point, since no one is proposing using any of the ENA’s documents in the article. This discussion has strayed way OT. The Talk page need to focus on specific content issues instead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I did the GA review a few months ago. This is an example of the concern I had with the article. Much of the text here interprets the journal papers, presenting details of the papers rather than the main point one might expect from the abstract. Here, RIR is correct, the last figure of the supplemental materials contains those numbers. The same figure, however, also notes that JPC value for plasma TNFα differed from the placebo at weeks 16 and 28 (the last two points), P<0.05 (t-test). Focusing on relatively minor details of the paper treats the papers as primary sources, and is a form of original research. Wikipedia is not the place to do original scientific literature review. Also, there should be some sort of link to the published journal papers to make it easier for readers to find them; this was mentioned at the time and it's still lacking for most of the papers. Gimmetrow 21:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall that you ever expressed that particular concern when you did the GA review, but nonetheless, the issue here is straight out of Statistics 101. If data is analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the effect of Treatment and Time x Treatment interaction are non-significant (as was the case in Lamprecht's study), it is not allowable to subsequently do a t-test to determine a significant difference at a particular timepoint; that's cheating...very basic stuff here. Had they found a significant effect of Treatment or Time x Treatment interaction, they could then use a post-hoc analysis (such as a t-test) to determine differences at individual timepoints. In other words, if the overall effect of treatment is non-significant (as determined by ANOVA) across all days of the study, it cannot possibly be significant at any particular timepoint in the study. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you are right or not about your analysis of the paper, it's your analysis, and it's not an obvious analysis to the man in the street. Most external commentary on this product is negative, and many papers state criticism up front in ways anyone would understand. If the article sticks to those it can avoid problems with original research and undue weight. Gimmetrow 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathematics is a language just like English, though not as many people understand it. It is not just my interpretation that the study showed no significant main effect of Juice Plus on TNF for the duration of the study; that is what the study’s ANOVA reported. The man on the street doesn’t write articles for WP nor would he necessarily understand many of the more technical ones, which are written by experts in their fields. The article mentions what the study showed for TNF: decreased levels at later time points but overall the effect was not statistically significant. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But it does so by emphasizing something, and not the way the paper authors did. The abstract says "concentrations of both CP and TNFa at 16 and 28 wk were lower in the JPC than in the placebo group (P < 0.001)". Following that here by "but it was not statistically significant" is an issue of presentation which occurs so often in this article that it establishes a tone and reflects a POV. And why does this article not say anything about CP based on that paper? Again, Wikipedia is not the place to publish original scientific literature review. Gimmetrow 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We don’t base our discussion of Juice Plus research on what was written in the abstracts. If abstracts held that much weight, then there would never be a need to publish full articles. There are many details in research studies that laypeople aren't readily able to understand. So when citing published scientific research, WP typically relies on editors with relevant expertise to accurately report what the studies said, not merely in words but with respect to numbers as well, and not merely based on the study’s abstract. When discussing what Lamprecht’s study reported with respect to TNF, it would be an error of omission to not mention that the overall effect of Juice Plus was not significant. It is not selective reporting to include this important detail; rather, it would be selective reporting to not include it. The ANOVA result is not a POV; it is a fact stated in the study. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you choose to present a negative result from the study, and not report the CP result? Your failure to report what the study reports represents a POV. How you chose to report what the study reports represents a POV. What facts you select from the study represents a POV. Can you not see that? Gimmetrow 01:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

An assumption of good faith would be reasonable before letting fly with the POV comments. The section in which the Lamprecht’s study is discussed is the Immune Effects section; there have been relatively few Juice Plus studies that examined immune effects, and one of NSA’s previous studies reported that JP had no effects on TNF (which is already discussed in the WP article’s Immune Effects section). The TNF result was one of the 3 immune parameters that were examined in Lamprecht’s study. Juice Plus had no effect on the other 2 (as is reported in the WP article’s Immune Effects section), and the ANOVA data showed that it had no significant effect on TNF either. The immune results from the study are represented completely and accurately, so it seems quite unreasonable to suggest that this is selective reporting or POV pushing.

With regard to CP, it is not an immune parameter; it is an antioxidant parameter, and therefore does not belong in the Immune Effects section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the CP result not cited anywhere? Gimmetrow 02:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I already explained that the most salient information in the Lamprecht article is the data on immune effects, which have only been examined previously in 2 others studies, including one on TNF, which was also examined in Lamprecht’s study. The CP data is an antioxidant effect, and Lamprecht’s is only one of about a dozen or so studies that have looked at antioxidant effects of Juice Plus. The Antioxidant Effects section of the WP article already includes a fairly exhaustive review of those studies. The gist is that some of these studies (some of which were poorly designed and directly criticized by secondary sources) showed positive effects and many others showed no effects, including previous studies on CP. Does it change the overall gist of the Antioxidant Effects section if the score between positive and negative articles changes from 6 vs. 7 or 7 vs. 6? No, the antioxidant effects are still contradictory at best. Does citing Lamprecht’s data in the Antioxidant Effect section substantially change the overall tone? No. Is it an important enough omission to warrant an accusation of POV-pushing regarding the TNF data? Clearly not. There's no reason why it couldn't be mentioned is some context, without giving it undue weight relative to the other antioxidant studies, but not having it in there yet is not a big issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As I read through the article, results favourable to the produce are usually qualified with something like "but this wasn't significant" or, in general "the study was worthless". Is the Lambrecht study double-blind placebo-controlled? If so, then it would seem to me a neutral WP article wouldn't imply that only worthless studies had results favourable to the product. But if every study must be listed with its weaknesses, why are not weaknesses also reported for other studies? Should not the WP relate the caveats with the in vitro antioxident study, for instance, to give it proper context? So how does this relate to TNF data? The WP article only reports unfavourable results from a double-blind placebo-controlled study, and reports them without nuances reported in the journal paper. Call that what you will. Gimmetrow 03:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This thread began as a challenge of the TNF data. I provided justification for the articles discussion of Lamprecht’s data on TNF and immune effects, and you don't seem to be arguing that my justification is not valid. But now you are digressing into a vague complaint about overall tone of the entire article, an opinion which differs from that of many other people who have contributed, and you are not citing any specific examples or actionable details. Quite frankly, I find these types of discussions counterproductive. You seem to be an experienced editor and probably already know that the Talk page is not supposed to be used for general discussion about a topic, and this thread is about TNF in particular. Comments need to focus on specific suggestions about specific content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing this WP article. The coverage of papers is inconsistent leading to a bias. I provided specific examples. This point cannot be explained without discussing the way this WP article covers multiple papers. If you do not wish to discuss this WP article, I suppose it's your choice. Gimmetrow 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made it abundantly clear that I am willing to go to great lengths to discuss specific content issues pertaining to the WP article. If you have any specific suggestions regarding the TNF data and the issue of statistical significance, then it would be appropriate to outline them under this thread. Discussion about other content should be started under a new thread. You might want to review WP’s talk page guidelines. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't wish to discuss the specific content issues I have raised, it's your choice. Gimmetrow 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I share Gimmetrow's concerns re selective citation (which is tantamount to misrepresentation) and interpretation rather than reporting. I am also shocked that RIR is in effect accusing Lamprecht of misrepresenting the data because NSA funded his study.

A cursory check on Gerald Tulzer via Google refutes RIR's statement that Tulzer is an NSA Europe executive. In fact he is a pediatric heart surgeon, is head of the Department of Pediatric Cardiology at the Pediatric Heart Center in Linz, and is on the teaching staff at the University of Vienna. He is, or was until recently, president of the European Fetal Cardiology Work Group and president of the Austrian Pediatric Cardiology Society. According to several sources, he recommends Juice Plus and has spoken at NSA conferences. --TraceyR (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is “selective citation” supposed to mean in this context. There is no misinterpretation in this case. The numbers in the study speak as loudly, actually louder, than the written words, and the statement in the WP article about TNF merely reports what the study indisputably showed. There was no significant effect of Treatment or Treatment x Time interaction and the effect of Juice Plus on TNF over the duration of the study was non-significant…that’s what the study’s data explicitly says with mathematical precision. I don’t know for certain that Lamprecht tried to bury the ANOVA results in the supplementary data section because he was paid by NSA, but if we had to speculate, it’s certainly a possibility, but who knows, maybe he was just sloppy or just made an honest mistake. Regardless, his ANOVA results speak for themselves and they are not being misrepresented in the WP article.

This is way OT, but Juice Plus spokesman and ENA board member Gerald Tulzer has a clear conflict of interest when it comes ot JP. He not only “recommends” Juice Plus: he is a company spokesperson, he appears in many of the company’s brochures and magazines, he has a video advertisement of for Juice Plus on the company’s sales website, and he is on the executive board of the Juice Plus Children’s Health Study (formerly Juice Plus Children’s Research Foundation). From what I have gathered, he also runs a Juice Plus distribution company called OKO-BRAN in Linz, Austria, which is also connected with Gerald’s brother Wolfgang Tulzer.

But the point here is not to define Tuzler's precise connection with Juice Plus; this seems like another red herring to me. We were discussing the reliability of a document from the European Nutraceutical Association. You asked why it might be that the document seemed to conflict with what Lamprecht reported in his published study. I pointed out a perfectly plausible explanation: (1) the ENA has received financial compensation from NSA (2) ENA board member Peter Prock is a Juice Plus/NSA exec in Europe (on that point you did not argue, so I suspect you confirmed it) (3) Tulzer is a spokesperson, lecturer, and distributor for Juice Plus, and (4) board member Ingrid Kiefer published one of the studies on JP. This all seems pretty straight forward, but quite OT, and I don’t think we really need to debate it any further. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I find your smear tactics with respect to any acknowledged expert who does not share your (documented) negative view of Juice Plus distasteful, to say the least. Please learn to moderate your tone, or, better still, desist from imputing lax methods or lack of integrity (or both) to reputable scientists. When your NPOV is legitimately questioned, you can seek shelter behind WP "assumptions of good faith"; they are defenceless here.

By the way, it is you (and the JuicePlus research blog) who claims that Tulzer is an NSA Europe executive, so, when this is shown to be incorrect, you suddenly consider it to be a red herring; but in the same breath you still insist that he is a "company spokesperson". Like you, he is entitled to his own opinion about Juice Plus. He obviously takes Juice Plus, thinks that it is a good product and recommends it; that doesn't make him a company spokesperson; even appearing in company promotional literature doesn't make him that. You, presumably without having tried it, think that Juice Plus is second-rate and devote a lot of your (I hope spare) time trying to convince the world to share your personal view. One can only speculate (in private) about your motivation. --TraceyR (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And I resent you are referring to this as a smear tactic and that you are wasting space on the Talk page venting about non-pertinent issues. The ENA is clearly an NSA-associated entity, given that it is funded by NSA and run by people who sell and promote Juice Plus; the evidence was provided and yet you seem unwilling to accept this fact. But the issue is not worthy of any further debate here; you have, once again, derailed a content discussion into an OT rant and speculation about the motives of WP editors. No one is even proposing that the ENA document should be used in the article, so further discussion of this topic is inappropriate. And whether or not Tulzer likes Juice Plus is entirely irrelevant to this article. I’ll remind you again, please focus your comments on specific content in the article and refrain from aimless ranting and discussion of other editor’s motives. Such behavior constitutes misuse of the Talk page. You stated that you should keep your speculations private – that would clearly be appropriate, so please do so. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statement about Lamprecht verbatim:

"I don’t know for certain that Lamprecht tried to bury the ANOVA results in the supplementary data section because he was paid by NSA, but if we had to speculate, it’s certainly a possibility, but who knows, maybe he was just sloppy or just made an honest mistake."

I think that this amply justifies the term "smear tactic". It's up to you whether you choose change your approach or simply resent someone pointing it out. As for wasting space on the talk page, that is really rich coming from you! --TraceyR (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As I already have pointed out repetedly, what I take issue with is your insistence on engaging in OT discussions, contrary to WP guidelines on proper use of the Talk page, and your constant speculations about the motives of WP editors. Please don't escalate this matter to the point where administrative intevention is necessary. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"...bury the ANOVA results in the supplementary data section"? Really? The data is reported in the paper, not just the supplemental online info. Anyway, if this article points out weaknesses in this result, it should also point out weaknesses in the other results this WP article mentions. Maybe it's just sloppiness or an honest mistake by the writers of the WP article, but this inconsistency really needs to be corrected. Gimmetrow 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that the bias on this article is simply a result of sloppy editing or an honest mistake, not when we are looking at hundreds of edits with one clear POV. I find it interesting that since Gimmetrow said these biases need to be corrected not ONE edit has been made. clearly the most active editor on this article who would jump at the chance to clean up something contrary to his POV is too busy to make any changes that would sweep a little of the bias away? 12.17.192.66 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not jump to conclusions. People have jobs and lives outside WP. Gimmetrow 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it’s because Gimmetrow’s opinion is nothing more than that…an opinion (no offense intended). It is not a command and no one needs to feel compelled to act on it. Vague allegations about “bias” don’t belong under this thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.54.66 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure RIR will respond when possible, and we'll take it from there. Gimmetrow 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As yet unreferenced source re Juice Plus

My attention has been drawn to an independent, objective source about Juice Plus (here) , which could be used in the article. It is, as far as I can judge, from an impeccable and respected medical authority in the USA. If anyone has time to check it out and then add a reference to it, please feel free. I'm a bit busy elsewhere at the moment. --TraceyR (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? The site is registered to NSA and that alone would seem to disqualify it as a reliable source of information. More importantly, the small bit of content that deals with Juice Plus is unencyclopedic and doesn't seem to provide anything of value for the WP article. It's also a sponsored link on Google, which essentially means that this is advertising; it reads like advertising too. And FYI, Rosenfeld was a speaker at the Juice Plus national distributor's meeting a couple of months ago, but I assume you know that already. Hyperbole like "impecabble and respected medical authority" obscures the fact that this is nothing more than a company-sponsored advertisement. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

An objective observer would realise that Dr. Rosenfeld is, by any measure, independent, objective, a respected scientist and a recognised authority in his field (cardiology); this fact is recognised by Vogue magazine, Fox etc, where he is a regular contributor. I was not aware that he had spoked recently at an NSA meeting (what you care to assume is your affair, but please keep to the subject), but why should speaking at a distrubutors' meeting disqualify him from being cited as a source here? He is by all accounts a popular and well-known public speaker. Honi soit qui mal y pense. --TraceyR (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

An objective observer would wonder why an objective, respected scientist would write material that sounded so much like a press release. When I first saw the link posted here, I didn't do a lot of research into Dr. Rosenfeld because, quite simply, his text read like marketing fluff, and the link to clinical research is a link to the main JuicePlus web site, which is obviously not new information to anybody here.

So, we have a web site owned by NSA, but that doesn't actually identify itself as affiliated with them. It has text that reads like a press release. And it only links to information that has already been discussed here before. I was honestly confused about why it was even mentioned here.

The reviews of one of his books are interesting. Judging by the number of pro-chiropractic people who are unhappy with Dr. Rosenfeld, he clearly isn't one of the sorts of people who loves every new piece of quackery he hears about. Bhimaji (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"he clearly isn't one of the sorts of people who loves every new piece of quackery he hears about"

...on the other hand...[1][2][3][4]Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't help to link to four separate article which all refer to the same acupuncture story, nor is it honest to insinuate that he loves quackery. That's cheap.

His opinion, coming as it does from a respected authority (a fact which no-one disputes), ought to carry more weight than that of e.g. small-town dieticians, merely quoted in newpapers, which are already cited in the article. The fact that he considers Juice Plus to be good cannot be used to deny mention of his opinion in the article - unless, that is, only negative views are permitted. --TraceyR (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What do you mean that "it doesn't help"? Four independently written articles about a single event doesn't seem unreasonable. The articles all claim that Dr. Rosenfeld exhibited a serious lack of judgement. Are you saying that the talk page should be limited to a single article critical of a potential source? I genuinely don't understand what's wrong with four articles.

Regarding whether Dr. Rosenfeld is a respected authority or not - I'm not disputing that, and I'm not not disputing that. I haven't had the time to read up enough on his background.

This whole situation is really rather ridiculous to me. TraceyR, the web site you linked to is run by NSA. They own the domain name. Nowhere on the site do they reveal that the site is owned by them.

It's normal for independent and respected people to endorse certain products. Normally, the product supplier is up-front about this and puts the endorsement in their promo materials.

In this case, NSA is hiding their involvement in this site. Doesn't this seem wrong to you? Why won't NSA put their name to this PR web site? Why make it look like independently published editorial material?

To quickly summarize: I don't think that obfuscated and/or misleadingly sourced promotional materials are appropriate citations. Links to fake editorial materials do not belong on Wikipedia, even if the author is trustworthy. Bhimaji (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. TraceyR, this is all very straightforward and we shouldn’t digress form the central issues at hand. The article is an advertorial posted on a website registered to the manufacturer (National Safety Associates).[5] There doesn’t seem to be any relevant, notable information in the article, nor anything that would help to describe the product beyond what’s already written in the WP article. More importantly, this article simply does not meet WP standards as a reliable source (cf. WP:RS, WP:QS, WP:IS). There are also issues related to WP:REDFLAG, WP:UNDUE and extremist and fringe sources but WP:RS alone would preclude this article being cited.

WP:RS: “Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources”

WP:QS: “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.”

"Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience, should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject. Use of these sources must not obfuscate the description of the mainstream view, nor should these fringe sources be used to describe the mainstream view or the level of acceptance of the fringe theory." [6]

As an aside, you were incorrect in stating that I posted 4 links ([7][8][9][10]) to the same article about Rosenfeld. I can only assume that you didn’t read any of them because they are in fact 4 different articles: two written in 1999 and one each in 2002 and 2006. The two 1999 articles (one written by Posner and one by Posner & Sampson) describe Rosenfeld’s first account of the China acupuncture story in Parade magazine in 1998, and the other two articles focused on later incidents where Rosenfeld repeated the dubious acupuncture claims after the original story had been debunked.

Chiding me for the number of links I posted, particularly when based on a false assumption, does not help to improve the quality of the article; it is off-topic and not in keeping with the guidelines on proper use of the talk page. It also borders on harassment so please try to tone it down a bit. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There you go again Rhode Island Red with your own false assumptions! Nowhere did I claim that you had posted four links to the same article. If you had read carefully what I wrote this would have been clear to you. And what an extremely low harassment threshhold you have.

I agree that NSA should have made its involvement with this website clear and that for this reason it is, by the wikipedia definition, a questionable source.

I still find it distasteful when editors try to discredit people, who cannot defend themselves here, by smear tactics (see the mentions of quackery above). Of course it is the editors involved who cheapen themselves in the process, but it does wikipedia a disservice - something an editor who obviously knows the wikipedia policies inside out ought to be aware of. This is definitely "not in keeping with the guidelines on proper use of the talk page". --TraceyR (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your concern here should be with the quality of the article, not sopaboxing about what you perceive to be character slurs against Rosenfeld, nor chastising other editors for behavior that you alone deem to be against the spirit of Wikipedia. It seems as though we have reached the end of another unnecessarily tedious debate. Case closed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Case closed? I don't think so, since you are not the sole arbiter of what is written here. I'm surprised that you, Rhode Island Red, were not observant enough to have noticed the copyright note at the foot of each page of the website referred to here; there was no need to play the web detective with whois. I didn't see it, nor, it would seem, did Bhimaji, otherwise I don't think that he would have made the statement "So, we have a web site owned by NSA, but that doesn't actually identify itself as affiliated with them", when it is there in plain text for all to see. It's a case of "they have eyes but see not" in my case, I'm afraid.

Unfortunately you are still slurring others (insinuating that my concern is not the quality of the article) and breaking the wikipedia rule (assumption of good faith). Since my concern is with the quality of the article, I still think that this source is worthy of mention. --TraceyR (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the copyright notice you are referring to, please? I see:

Copyright © 2008 Isadore Rosenfeld, M.D. All Rights Reserved.

One page has:

Copyright © 2008 Isadore Rosenfeld, M.D. All Rights Reserved. Link courtesy of NSA.

...but that refers to a link, and there is indeed a link to the NSA web site. I saw that notice the first time I looked at the page.

If three people looking at the site multiple times failed to note who was behind it, and the big, obvious text makes it look like it's not affiliated with NSA, then it's still misleading.

There's a broad range of hiding - small print disclaimers is at one end; whois info is something that is obscure to most people. I suppose the other end is sending a private detective to the address listed on whois and trailing the person to see where they go to work. Around major product launch dates, big companies often buy domains names through intermediaries, but they have an actual legitimate reason to do that.

The simple fact of the matter is, the web site is intentionally misleading, and intentionally misleading sources are something that should be avoided.

Also, TraceyR, I still am unclear about what was wrong with RiR posting four articles. RiR's mis-interpretation of what you wrote is understandable to me - I still don't see any reason that four links was an unreasonable number.

You may be right that RiR was too presumptive to say "case closed", but unless there's some new information, I don't see what else there is to discuss about this topic. Bhimaji (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t claim to be the arbiter; I was merely summarizing the conclusion of our discussion. When all 3 editors involved in a discussion reach the same conclusion – i.e., that the article in question does not meet with WP:RS -- then it seems perfectly reasonable to say that the case is closed. TraceyR stated quite clearly that she considered the source to be questionable, echoing what Bhimaji and I have been saying since the inception of this thread. Was that not sufficient indication that there was nothing left to discuss?

As Bhimaji pointed out, the detail at the bottom of the page says that the link to the Juice Plus website is provided by NSA, not that the site/domain are owned by NSA (and like Bhimaji, I also noticed this the first time I visitied the site). The WHOIS data is the only source that confirms NSA as the site's registrant. I also agree with Bhimaji’s comments to the effect that NSA’s ownership of the site has been hidden. But I don’t see that this would be any less of a questionable source even if NSA had their name displayed prominently at the top of the page. Testimonials on a company-owned website do not constitute a reliable source for commentary. And once again, I reiterate, there seems to be no relevant/notable content on Juice Plus in the article. No one has even proposed adding any specific text to the article based on this reference. What is there left to argue about? It’s a dead issue as far as I’m concerned.

And TraceyR, you have been repeatedly cautioned about harassment and misuse of the talk page. You seem unable or unwilling to focus your comments on specific article content rather than other editors. We have the right to a harassment-free experience here on Wikipedia. This will be the last warning you will get from me -- if the behavior continues I will bring this matter to the attention of WP admin and request remedial action. I’m serious -- once and for all, please stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Tone of the discussions

As a reminder, could everyone please stick to discussing the article, and not the contributors? Thanks, Elonka 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

I'll start off by saying that I have been somewhat skeptical of Juice Plus and what the makers of Juice Plus claim the product to do. However coming across this article, I feel disappointed at the seemingly negative point of view this article takes.

Let's take the introductory section for instance, it mentions the "considerable controversy" to a claim the manufacturers have made. It talks about the "conflicting and controversial results" that studies of Juice Plus have produced. It talks about "deceptive claims" and "critics arguing." Then there is then section 4 titled "Criticism." It seems to me much of the article could be titled "Criticism."

So what about Neutral Point of View? I would rather get the same information, without the negative slant. Air.light (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Introductory section (and the article in general) mentions controversy/criticism/etc. because the secondary sources that have written about Juice Plus have focused prominently on these issues. This does not reflect a non-neutral POV in the article; it just reflects the prevailing opinion of the many published secondary sources that have commented on the product. The fact that this opinion is negative does not in any way contravene WP:NPOV. This issue has been discussed several times before, so you may wish to review past discussions in the Talk page archives as well as WP's NPOV policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps with you having been so involved in this particular article, you've read it so often that it just seems to have a neutral tone to you?

I have already read a bit of the past discussion and have seen that this has been discussed before. Perhaps it has been discussed so much because the tone is so slanted. It seems quite clear to me. I don't mean that it shouldn't mention controversy and such, in fact I agree with much of it, I was using that as an example by how often it is mentioned and focused upon. It seems to me like whoever wrote it has a definite opinion on the subject.

Looking at section 2.6 of the NPOV article, it says:

"Tone A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently dispassionate tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be implied through either the biased selection of facts or how they are organized.

"Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased and proportionate representation of all notable positions. This does not mean that all views should get equal space, nor that they should be presented as equal: Minority views should not be presented as equally accepted as the majority view, for instance, and views in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all"

It doesn't seem to me like this Juice Plus article fits the Wikipedia guideline of tone in the articles. Air.light (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy states, Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased and proportionate representation of all notable positions

RiR is claiming, ... the secondary sources that have written about Juice Plus have focused prominently on these issues

Those statements are, in my opinion, consistent. If RiR's assertion is correct, then the article's POV is reasonable. Bhimaji (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was also surprised by how overly negative this article is. An example of where only the negative information is presented is the gummies. Yes, it is 85% corn syrup and 10% gelatain (hence the gummy format); however, a full day serving for children (6 gummies) is 36 calories. It might be helpful to show how that compares to the sugar content of other children's supplements or to note that the majority of supplements and prescription meds for kids have a high sugar content in order to make it palatable. Perhaps the article could also point out that those 36 calories provide 247% RDI of Vitamin A, etc. Since the Nutritional content info is available on the right (with both corn syrup and RDI info) I wonder why just the corn syrup and gelatin info was pointed out in the article.

As a side note, I have a Gummie container beside me, and it has a very long list of ingredients which are not included in the nutritional information panel on the right. What is the source of the discrepancy?

I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect a supplement to have independent research that supports its claims. Even if it started out as independent, the manufacturer would be sure to give it support if only to license the reprint of their findings. Do we know of other supplements that have completely independent research to support their claims? In light of that, perhaps it's not helpful to discuss the findings of NSA-funded research and instead point to the general wiki article on the value of supplements.

Something I was hoping to find in the article was the origin of the product (the story of how it came into being). I see in the Talk page that a JuicePlus representative has volunteered that information. Could that not be verified? SDStace (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)SDStace

I don't think that it is normal for research paper authors to get licensing royalties from the subjects of their research. That seems like a significant conflict of interest. In most cases, it is my understanding that the journal that published your paper is actually in control of republishing rights. JAMA's policy, for example, states:

Permission is never granted for use of JAMA, the Archives Journals, or American Medical News for endorsements, implied or otherwise, of products or services, or to use content as part of advertisements or advertising supplements.[11]

You do not need permission to discuss or cite research - copyright law is not absolute.

I have no idea if what I read is accurate or not - I can't find any citations now. However, I've read in the past that some magazines exist for the sole purpose of saying good things about movies. You pay a lot of money to subscribe to them - the only subscribers are studios and ad agencies who want nice things to publish. Getting paid extra for positive results would bring up an enormous conflict of interest even if there wasn't actual pre-publication sponsorship.

The other issue with sponsored research is that, even if it's 100% honest and accurate, it can still be misleading. The questions being asked can be the strong points about the product; the questions being ignored can be the downsides. Bhimaji (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Chambers Study

Tracey R, the distinctions you are attempting to draw regarding the Chambers article are unnecessary. It is not necessary to specify that what was tested was an extract.. It is impossible to measure in vitro antioxidant activity without first making an extract. You can’t simply throw powder in a test tube. The text in question already described that the test is in vitro, thereby distinguishing it from the in vivo studies, which was the concern you initially raised. The fact that methanol was used as the solvent is also trivial and it is not necessary to mention it.

If you have any specific expertise in conducting in vitro antioxidant assays, then perhaps you can make a justification for why the methanol detail is important enough to warrant inclusion in the article. It is already mentioned in the study’s methodology and anyone who is interested in the techniques used can read the details in the article itself. Also the addition of “‘Juice Plus fruit’ and ‘Juice Plus vegetable’” is redundant and confusing since the same sentence already states that the products tested were “Juice Plus Garden Blend/Orchard Blend”. Lastly, “vegetable” is used in the singular form as per the original author’s statement and is grammatically correct; there is no need to change it to the plural form. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this field at all. When I read, 'methanolic extract', it makes me wonder what is normal, and what that means. It does not in any way enlighten somebody who is outside of the field. I think many non-experts will read "extract" and think that this means the test is insufficient or inappropriate in some way. Why aren't you testing the real stuff?

So, I think that this detail really shouldn't be included in a non-specialist summary. Or, if it *is*, we need to include a *lot* more information about all the other studies as well. Along with links to information that explains the meaning of the various testing methodologies. Bhimaji (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This test was poorly conceived, since it compared the antioxidant capacity of dried juice concentrates with a given fresh weight of fruit/vegetables (i.e. much of it water); the conclusions it draws about portion size are therefore meaningless. Perhaps this should be pointed out in the article. --TraceyR (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Did you not read the full article? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Post it here. --TraceyR (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a fairly easy way to fix this. Tracey, do you have a source that indicates that the test was flawed, or is that your personal assessment? If this is a personal assessment, it would fall under original research. Wikipedia isn't the place to interpret results, we summarize information from other sources. So, unless there's a source which criticized this study, the information doesn't belong here, but perhaps would be appropriate for a journal which could then lead to it being included here. Shell ^babelfish 11:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not having seen the study in full, all I have to go on is the abstract

Evaluation of the antioxidant properties of a methanolic extract from ‘Juice Plus fruit’ and ‘Juice Plus vegetable’ (dietary supplements) Received 11 August 1995; accepted 9 October 1995. ; Available online 19 March 1999. "The antioxidant properties of methanolic extracts from ‘Juice Plus fruit’ and ‘Juice Plus vegetable’, which are sold in capsule form as dietary supplements, were evaluated using a range of established in vitro antioxidant assays. The values are compared to representative extracts from equivalent amounts (by dry weight) of selected fruits and vegetables prepared by the same method. Although there are some differences between the results of each assay, in general Juice Plus performed about equally to the fresh fruit and vegetables on a dry weight basis. This implies that, based on in vitro assays to measure antioxidant potential, one capsule of ‘Juice Plus fruit’ or ‘Juice Plus vegetable’ (weighing 1 g) is equivalent to about 10 g (fresh weight) of fruit or vegetable."

It talks about "equivalent amounts (by dry weight)" and "one capsule ...(weighing 1 g)" being "equivalent to about 10 g (fresh weight)". Since the drying process is proprietary, was 'the same method' really the same? If not, how were the samples for comparison prepared? Did they use the same varieties of fruit and vegetables? How and when and where were they grown and harvested? How long were they stored between harvest and processing? Were the same quality controls and processing parameters in place? There are so many variables that a true comparison is almost impossible. But let's see the study and then we can see further. --TraceyR (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It would have been reasonable to actually read the full study before trying to dismiss it as "poorly conceived" and "meaningless". I don't see how any of TraceyRs latest questions about the study are relevant to the WP article. This was a straightforward study and the results are accurately described in the WP article. What exactly is the editorial objective here? I see no point in discussing this further unless there is a clear editorial objective, and at this point it seems that TraceyR’s intent is to have the study removed or qualified as inferior in some way, based on her personal assessment that it was a meaningless and poorly conceived study. I certainly would not support that, and I don't agree at all with her assessment that the study was flawed. TraceyR’s expertise, it would appear, is avaition; not nutrition or biochemistry, so it's hard to give much credence in this case to a non-expert criticizing a study they have not even read. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be more responsible of Rhode Island Red to address the points raised, rather than speculate as to my motives and put words in my mouth. He/she seems to have access to the study, so surely it is possible for the points just raised to be answered.

It is perfectly justified to criticize the study as being poorly conceived and the results as meaningless, since it is not possible for a study conducted in England to have access to the same suppliers of the same varieties of produce, harvested at the same time and processed in the same way as those used in Juice Plus and then draw the conclusions that Chambers et al came to.

What did Chambers et al do, give a lab assistant a shopping list and send him/her off to the local store to buy a quantity of apples, oranges, cabbages etc and use those in the study? Without knowing where they came from, what varieties they were, at what degree of ripeness they were picked, how long they were stored, how they were transported, at what temperature(s), etc. etc.? This is elementary stuff. All of these factors, and no doubt many more, can have a significant effect on the antioxidant capacity of produce. One doesn't need to be a chemist to be aware of these things; they are common knowledge in the information age. Study protocols should go to great lengths to ensure that all possible variables are either removed or controlled for, so that results are a reliable as possible. Was this done? If Rhode Island Red isn't prepared to be constructive here, perhaps someone else who has access to the full study can answer these questions. --TraceyR (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to criticize the study. However, what you're talking about sounds like original research. You ask if the study took appropriate measures to ensure the accuracy of their results. Questions like these are precisely why papers go to peer reviewed journals.

If this study is insufficiently designed, then the peer review process is supposed to catch that. It sounds like you're trying to second-guess that process. Bhimaji (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that there are any points that remain for me or anyone else to address. Not only have the key points (i.e. those relevant to WP policy) already been addressed by 3 different editors, the basis for the criticism makes no sense to me whatsoever; it struck me as gibberish. This is a very simple situation and doesn’t require any soapboxing or indignant retorts. If you have a secondary reference that backs your assertion that the study in “poorly conceived” and “misleading”, then by all means provide them. If not, then further discussion will serve little purpose. This thread began after TraceyR claimed the importance of including information about methanol in the discussion of the Chambers study, and when other editors disagreed, TraceyR's argument devolved into a blanket dismissal of the entire study as being poorly conceived and misleading. Aside from the fact that I strongly disagree with Tracey’s reasons for criticizing the study (at least those that were decipherable), her claims constitute original research because no secondary sources support them; furthermore (a) TraceyR has not even read the article, which would seem a minimal prerequisite before dismissing it as unreliable; and (b) TraceyR has no apparent expertise in assessing the reliability of scientific publications. Unless there is something new to add to this discussion, such as suggestions for specific text to be included or modified in the article, I see no reason to continue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The point here is the credibility of WP. It does no good for Rhode Island Red to resort to this sort of attack ("gibberish", "soapboxing", "indignant retorts", "(un)decipherable"). It is a question at least of WP:Reliable source. Since it seems highly unlikely that this is a reliable source, why doesn't RIR come clean and answer the simple questions posed above?

Let me put the questions again:

1. Did the study use the same varieties of each constituent fruit and vegetable as are used in Juice Plus? (otherwise different antioxidant profile/quantities possible)
2. If so, did the study use the same quantities of each constituent fruit and vegetable as are used in Juice Plus? (otherwise different antioxidant profile/quantities possible)
3. If so, where they harvested at the same degree of ripeness as those used in Juice Plus?(otherwise different antioxidant profile/quantities possible)
4. If so, were the constituent fruits and vegetables treated in the same way as those used in Juice Plus? (otherwise different antioxidant profile/quantities possible)
5. Were they stored under the same conditions and for the same length of time as those used in Juice Plus? (otherwise different antioxidant profile/quantities possible)
6. Were the same processes used and temperature/pressure/ambient atmosphere conditions used when juicing the produce as are used in Juice Plus? (otherwise different antioxidant profile/quantities possible)
7. Was the same dehydration process and temperature/pressure/ambient atmosphere conditions used as in the production of Juice Plus? (otherwise different antioxidant profile/quantities possible)

These are straightforward questions, which are relevant to the question of the report's conception but which RIR has so far not been able or willing to answer. If no assurance can be made that the study was comparing like with like, this should at least be noted in the article, so that readers are aware of the situation. --TraceyR (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You ask some interesting questions. I look forward to seeing the reliable and citable sources you find that answer those questions. Bhimaji (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

TraceyR, I and others have done our best to offer reasonable guidance on this issue but it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Since you still have not proposed any content to add or revise, I have no interest in indulging in further discussion on the matter. It is noteworthy that your point of contention keeps shifting, from initially arguing for the inclusion of methanol in the study description, to later arguing that the study is “poorly conceived” and “misleading” (even though you haven’t even read it and the contention qulaifies as WP:OR), to this most recent argument that the source does not meet WP:RS when it clearly does; and throughout, you have failed to propose anything actionable. I wish you luck in assuaging your curiosity offline. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I find TraceyR's suggestion that the peer review process for this publication is insufficient based on insufficient detail in an abstract to be laughably ridiculous. The abstract leaves out important details about the methodology used in the research? Yes, it does...if it answered every question, then they wouldn't bother to publish anything beyond the abstract.

I also noticed that TraceyR's reservations about the study changed and shifted. I chose to ignore that - I tend to assume good faith for a long time. In this case, I can see that TraceyR has a different standard of evidence than my own. The way I deal with this is to simply argue against a lack of logic regardless of its root cause, and to scrutinize sources to my own standards.

If I only have access to a study's abstract, I may sometimes question whether it is applicable to the topic. I can't imagine attacking a study's methodology sight-unseen merely because it was possible that the study authors screwed up. Bhimaji (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Tracey, please try to read what people are saying to you and make sure you're understanding why what you're doing here isn't part of the Wikipedia process - you've been here long enough to know better. First, RIR doesn't have to do or answer anything - this is not his article and that was not his study. Second, your questions about the study have nothing to do with the article - if you are curious about the study, you need to do your own research - reading the entire study itself would be a really good first start. If you do this research and can come back with reliable citations that would indicate the study was flawed or misleading, then your comments have something to do with the article. Otherwise, this isn't the place for your speculation - this talk page is only to discuss the article. In no case would we "warn readers" based on your personal feelings or speculation about the study, please read WP:OR and make sure you understand the policy. If you have any other questions or don't feel that things have been explained well, I would be happy to discuss any of these points with you. Shell ^babelfish 08:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I am puzzled that "questions about the study have nothing to do with the article", since the study is cited in the article; this is about how it is cited. The recommendation to "read the entire study" is also odd, since I have already stated that I do not have access to it. I even asked editors who do have such access for help in this matter. This has not been forthcoming. I'm also puzzled by Bhimaji's claim that I suggested that "the peer review process for this publication is insufficient". Nor have I complained that the "abstract leaves out important details about the methodology used in the research". Nor did I recommend that the article "warn readers". Given this evidence that my comments are (a) not being read and (b) are being misrepresented, it is all the more irritating to be advised to "read what people are saying" to me.

Here are the reasons again:

• Since the authors of the study could not have had access to the same method (although they claimed in the abstract that this was the case), scepticism about how the study was conceived and carried out is fully justified.
• Since the authors could not have had access to the same produce, scepticism about whether their results were meaningful is fully justified.

Of course, without access to the full study, my hands are tied. I used to think that it was part of the Wikipedia process for all editors to help to achieve the best possible article quality, but, as Shell says, I have now been around long enough to know better, certainly as far as this article is concerned. --TraceyR (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Couple of points to help clarify this:

• It is not the responsibility of other Wikipedia editors to provide the study or any other materials used as sources to you. If you wish to research the study or research other sources that have discussed the study, its something you are welcome to do, but you cannot expect other editors to do it for you.
• Again what you're saying is that in your opinion the study results are not meaningful. If you can provide a source that agrees with your opinions, then its possible to either a) include that in the article or b) discuss whether or not the study should be removed. Until such time as you have something more than your own opinions, there is nothing to be done.

Also, to clear some other things up, its not helpful when you dismiss other editors points claiming they aren't listening to you either because that's certainly not the case. Several editors have explained multiple times what the problems are here, you seem to not hear what they are saying and argue about how they word their responses instead. Shell ^babelfish

TraceyR: You have skepticism about how the study was conceived and carried out. You have skepticism about whether their results were meaningful. The peer review process is a review by people in the field but were not involved in the study. They are supposed to be skeptical about the things you are skeptical about, and only accept papers that back up their claims. When you say you want to read the entire study to assuage your doubts about these issues, you are saying that you want to do what the peer review was supposed to do. If, after reading the paper, you believe that the methodology was flawed, then you are essentially disagreeing with the reviewers.

If, after reading the full paper, you find what you believe to be flaws, you will need to find a reliable source that backs up your position. To do otherwise would clearly be original research. Bhimaji (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree by and large with the comments about the peer-review process and WP:OR. As a postscript, I don’t think it hurts to apply some scrutiny to primary references, which is allowed (if not encouraged) according to WP guidelines; but the GLs also recommend that expert opinion should be sought. As an expert in the topic matter, I don’t see anything at all wrong with the study, at least not with regard to the limited amount of text about in the WP article. I thought that maybe one or two of TraceyR’s questions were interesting and potentially relevant (e.g. to which fruit and vegetables was JP compared); others were not even remotely relevant (processing methods). I think had TraceyR taken a different approach to this issue, she might have found that other editors would have been more willing to entertain some of her questions, even if it was strictly for academic interest and to help her satisfy her curiosity. However, the sweeping off-base judgements (e.g., that the article is “poorly conceived”, “misleading”, and somehow not compliant with WP:RS), failure to read the full article before dismissing the study, and the subsequent antagonistic responses, don’t gibe with me at all. This does not foster an atmosphere of goodwill and it leaves me with no great desire to go above and beyond my responsibilities as a Wikipedian and answer her OT questions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect to processing methods being "not even remotely relevant" (as mentioned in the posting above,dated 16 October 2008), the following study Nutrition Journal 2004, 3:5doi:10.1186/1475-2891-3-5 makes interesting reading:

"Apples contain a variety of phytochemicals, including quercetin, catechin, phloridzin and chlorogenic acid, all of which are strong antioxidants. The phytochemical composition of apples varies greatly between different varieties of apples, and there are also small changes in phytochemicals during the maturation and ripening of the fruit. Storage has little to no effect on apple phytochemicals, but processing can greatly affect apple phytochemicals".

Another investigation (Ninfali P, Mea G, Giorgini S, Rocchi M, Bacchiocca M. Antioxidant capacity of vegetables, spices and dressings relevant to nutrition. Brit J Nutr. 2005;93:257-266.) reported that

Steamed vegetables retained about 80% of the phenolic and ORAC values of raw vegetables; boiled vegetables retained only 30% of antioxidants.

Why are the processing methods considered irrelevant here? --TraceyR (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you frame your question in a way that relates to a specific suggestion for new text in the article, then I might be able to provide an answer. But bear in mind that we have already covered this general issue in detail in the preceding thread, and much of what you had discussed was inconsistent with WP:OR, so I hope you don’t intend to beat a dead horse.Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a flogging a dead horse but a new point: that a major contributor to the current tone and content of the article (Rhode Island Red) who considers himself "an expert in the topic matter", dismissed as "not even remotely relevant" a major aspect of the previous discussion (i.e. the processing methods used in a study cited in the article). This view is now shown not to be shared by published experts in this field. This can now be borne in mind by other editors when assessing future edits. --TraceyR (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm only interested in discussing specific suggestions regarding text in the article (which as you know, is the purpose of the Talk page)but it appears that you don't have any. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Here's something interesting to read and think about in context of this article and discussion Wikipedia:MEDRS. Shell ^babelfish 19:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the relevance of Wikipedia:MEDRS in this case, since the article is not about a medicinal product. This is a common misconception. Inasfar as it is regulated by e.g. the U.S. FDA, this is because it is classed as a food, not a drug. This mistake is perhaps understandable, since, as far as I know, it is alone among nutritional supplements in having had a significant number of clinical studies conducted into its effectiveness on human subjects. This misconception is not restricted to editors here, of course: Some of the secondary sources (e.g. MSKCC) also make this mistake and go barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. --TraceyR (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure at first how to respond to that; it may not have been your intent, but it comes off as a wonderful bit of wikilawyering and acting as an apologist for the product. However, I'm just going to assume I'm reading that horrible wrong and deal with the issue raised. Articles dealing with substances, techniques, inventions, etc. that make any sort of medical (loosely interpreted) claim are likely to fall under these guidelines. Whether or not the FDA calls it a drug has little to nothing to do with how we treat articles on Wikipedia. I'm sure you're aware that the Wikipedia community has developed policies and guidelines over time that are believed to be best for the project; few, if any of these, will have a basis in classification by government organizations or some other such real world advisory or supervisory committee.

On to what this means for the article - I've been working with a number of editors whose primary specialty on Wikipedia is scientific or medical articles and have gotten a crash course on this area of Wikipedia. In reading through a few more of these related guidelines and seeing how articles are being handled elsewhere, I've become concerned over the strong use of primary research in the article. I believe that statements drawn solely from primary research should be removed from the article in favor of sources that summarize or report on these studies.

And while we're discussing these issues, its become apparent that while RhodeIslandRed tends to push against the product, Tracey, you have developed a push towards the product. Please remember that Wikipedia isn't really the place for strong feelings or advocacy; if you're not able to remain neutral on a subject and "write for the enemy" because of feelings about the subject or other editors involved, its best to step back and take a break from the subject. Also, just because you can find a study that contradicts a general principle at Wikipedia doesn't mean that this overrides community consensus - I'm sure we could find a study to say just about anything we wanted if that were the case. And this exact problem is why Wikipedia:MEDRS is so important to this article; use of sources which summarize and weight methods for us should be used instead of making those judgments ourselves. Shell ^babelfish 17:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Overly negative tone to article

I removed the prominent opinion of critics in the introduction. These contrary opinions are already well represented in the article. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because they are prominnt opinions, they are included in the article summary as per WP policy. Please do not blank this content again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not prominent opinions, they are YOUR opinion. There is a clear difference. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

They are in the article. They belong in the summary. If you wish to make the argument that they are RiR's opinions and, thus, do not belong in the article at all, please make that argument. Bhimaji (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The criticism doesn't define Juice Plus. Juice Plus is a highly profitable product (although I don't sell it) with many happy users. The idea that there is a prevailing sense that Juice Plus is negative, and deserving of excessive criticism, is false. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To Patriot Missile33 -- please stop edit warring as it is unproductive. It is considered a breach of protocol and etiquette to ignore other editors and arbitrarily delete content, particularly in this case where the rationale for deletion is non-existent. In accordance with WP guidelines, the article's lead was constructed so as to accurately encapuslate the content of the article. Today, you deleted content from the lead once again, and you did so without replying to or acknowledging Bhimaji's and my previous comments. Your edit has been reverted again and if you continue on this path, you may blocked from editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have chosen to not heed my warning and have gone ahead and deleted the content again without explanatio here on the Talk page. I am going to revert your edit one more time, and if you persist in this beahvior you will be reported to WP admin and most likely blocked for edit warring .Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

i see nothing wrong with including the fact that there are differences of opinion regarding the claims of juice plus. they seem to be cited. if you dont like them please give a better reason than 'it has happy users'. for what its worth i think the article shows that there are those who love it (sellers and buyers mostly) and those who dont (possibly competitors and scientists). that is going to be the case for most products like this. --Brendan19 (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anyone, Rhode Island Red. From Wikipedia NPOV rules: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." As I said before, the criticism does not define Juice Plus and any attempt to do so gives unjust weight to a minority opinion . Patriot Missile33 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You have continued to edit war without responding to comments on the talk page - you just did it again. That looks a lot like ignoring. Reverting before talking is rude and uncivil. Please stop it.

Are you arguing that the views of scientific researchers should be completely ignored in an article's lede because they are a minority compared to the buying public? Encyclopedias are not supposed to be based exclusively on what the majority of people believe. The criticism of juiceplus is not a fringe viewpoint among experts in the field. Bhimaji (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The controversy and criticism of Juice Plus is far from a minority viewpoint -- it is in fact a majority viewpoint according to the sources cited in the article, all of which meet with WP:RS. Aside from that, ignoring discussions on the Talk page, blanking content without just cause, repeatedly engaging in edit warring, and failing to include edit summaries are all actions that are very much at odds with WP policy. You have been reported to WP admin as a result. Now please stop edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions ertainly differ as to the 'reliability' of some of the sources, e.g. at least three citations of the highly controversial Stephen Barrett and/or his MLMWatch invective, so there isn't a consensus that all sources cited meet with WP:RS. Several others have very little to do with the subject of the article, e.g. some of the OJ Simpson sources, which appear to be there simply to create a suggestion of guilt by association. Patriot Missile33 is not the first editor to remark on the negative tone of the article, so maybe one day the message will begin to get through. I'm not holding my breath on that one though. --TraceyR (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

TraceyR, although you are arguing that sources cited in the article do not meet with WP:RS, we have been down that road before and it has been consensually established, consistently, that the sources cited meet with WP policy. Please review the archived talk pages and avoid resurectting previously resolved issues (e.g., MLMWatch). The WP:RS argument is, however, quite irrelevant to the issue of blanking content in the article lead and edit warring. If you wish to raise new issues related to WP:RS, please remember to make your comments and suggestions for content changes specific; generalized complaints (e.g., "overly negative tone to article") aren't constructive. Also, if you do try to make a new case about WP:RS, please start a new thread with the title of the specific sources you are questioning. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, if you check back to the subject of this thread, you will see that it is not about edit warring and the blanking of content. The blanking was in response to what Patriot Missile33 sees as the overly negative tone to article. It is you who are off topic. --TraceyR (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

TraceyR, instead of making “I just don’t like it” arguments:

(1) Identify the specific content with which you take issue (assuming it has not already been discussed);

(2) provide the reason(s) why you take issue with the content, citing WP policy where relevant;

(3) explain a reasonable action that you believe should be taken to resolve the content issue;

(4) if necessary, build consensus for your position, and if you can’t, respect the outcome and move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, I fail to see the relevance of WP:I_just_don't_like_it; it seems way off topic to me. Please stick to the subject or start another thread. --TraceyR (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Merely opining that “the tone of the article is overly negative” is a form of “I just don’t like it”. It is vague and non-actionable. If you have a suggestion to make that will help to improve the article then please proceed to explain it according to the 4 steps I outlined above. If you aren’t willing to do that, then you are misusing the talk page. This is not a place for idle banter or the airing of ill-defined grievances. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There are actually 8 referenced sources in this article regarding O.J. Simpson, I'm not kidding, you can check it our, 8. Is this how you build a wall of references to build an imaginary "majority." I see these tricks on other articles too, good hack job. It must have taken the editor of this page a long time to do it. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead doesn't even mention OJ Simpson, so this is no justification for repeatedly deleting content from the lead section. You really must stop doing this. Such behavior is unacceptable. If you have issues with the references pertaining to OJ Simpson, start a new thread and state your case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is you, Rhode Island Red, who thinks that this thread is about the lead. The subject is "Overly negative tone to article", so the OJ Simpson references are on topic. Since Patriot Missile33 started the thread, perhaps he, not you, is the best judge of what he wanted to discuss. --TraceyR (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I keep waiting for you or Patriot to articulate your suggestions, if you have any, for improving the article. As I keep pointing out, merely saying the article is “overly negative” is not an actionable comment. The content on OJ Simpson represents a small fraction of the overall content of the article and even if there are problems with the OJ content (which neither of you have provided any evidence to back up), that wouldn’t justify a complaint about overall negative tone. OJ is not even mentioned in the article’s lead, so this potential issue is not a justification for the deletion of text in the lead and the edit warring that has been taking place. If either of you wish to raise an issue about the sources cited regarding OJ Simpson, start a new thread and make your case already. Please review WP:TPG and pay particular attention to the following points:

• Communicate: ...It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Explaining an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus.
• Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
• Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal).
• Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.
• Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.
• Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article.
• Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.
• Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article.
• Keep headings on topics related to the article. It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article you wish to discuss. Do not write "This article is wrong" but address the specific issue you want to discuss. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have remarked here upon this article's negative tone, including, most recently, Gimmetrow, Air.light, SDStace and now Patriot Missile33. Perhaps particular attention should also be paid to the following point in WP:TPG :

• Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion. (Emphasis added)

I rather suspect that well-intentioned editors, who wish to improve this article by removing the perceived negative tone, are giving up due to exhaustion and frustration in the face of the wikilawyering they are immediately and persistently subjected to. This could be why they rarely remain to make a positive contribution and why this subject continues to be raised but is never dealt with effectively. It would be interesting to hear their views on this subject here. --TraceyR (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What is exhausting is having too read through long meandering threads like this one that don’t contain a single actionable suggestion for improving the article. You still seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the TPG. It is not for airing vague ill-defined grievances. If this continues, an admin warning may be called for. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the history of edits to this article, I doubt that any of my suggestions are going to have much of an effect. I suspect my opinion is meaningless in the face of someone who thinks there is nothing wrong with 8 articles regarding O.J Simpson referenced. I could accuse someone of being in extreme violation of NPOV guidelines but what would that do? Nothing. Regardless, this article is a joke. I would like to encourage other people can edit this article too, you may get some idle threats but I promise no one will bite you. :)Patriot Missile33 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Lede

The previous thread appears to have changed topics. The article lede is no longer being discussed, but PatriotMissile33 continues to edit war without discussing or responding to questions about the lede. If you have a problem with the lede, please discuss it here before edit-warring about it. Bhimaji (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you charge me with Edit Warring, Bhimaji. Rhode Island Red has already reported me twice even though I haven't broken the 3 revent rule. I agree with TracyR, the uninviting attitude of some of the editors on this page creates a real hinderance on the editorial content of the article. I like to stick to the content of the article while I'm dealing with low blow charges of Edit Warring.Patriot Missile33 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Three reverts [12] [13] [14] in 10.5 hours. You did violate 3RR.

I await your comments on the article lede. Bhimaji (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead is biased like most of the article. Why does the criticism get to be so prominent? I look at other articles and I don't see this. This is the Juice Plus article, not the Juice Plus criticism article. The critical opinion is not the majority opinion. Can someone tell me how I can challenge the neutrality of this article? I want it to appear at the top of the article like I see on other pages. 174.153.177.28 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead section merely highlights/summarizes what's written in the main text of the article. If it does so reasonably accurately, then it is doing what it's supposed to do. If your issue is with something else in the article, then a new thread should be started where your arguments/questions can be discussed.

I’m not quite sure what you meant when you said that "critical opinion is not the majority opinion". As far as we've been able to uncover, most of the secondary sources that have written anything notable about Monavie have focused on negative attributes; as a result, this does in fact constitute a majority opinion. Editors who have worked on the article and participated on the Talk page in the past have repeatedly encouraged others to present notable, reliable secondary-source content that may be more favorable to Monavie, but so far, no one has come up with anything.

The purpose of WP is to accurately present notable information about a subject, written by reliable secondary sources, regardless of whether it's positive or negative; the article has done that IMO. WP is not intended to give majority opinion and fringe minority opinion equal weight, or to create artificial balance between “positive and negative” information. The article would be biased if significant "positive" or (or “negative”) information was being omitted, but that's not the case. These points and other pertinent discussions are addressed in detail in the Talk page archives. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Article protection

Since I'd prefer not to have to block a boatload of editors who know better than to edit war, I've protected the article until such time as the disputes are worked out here. You might want to consider some form of dispute resolution to involve outside opinions if you can clearly decide what the issues are here. Shell ^babelfish 03:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no content disputes; user conduct issues, perhaps. Page protection solves the problem for now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have a content dispute, then stop reverting the other editor. Otherwise, figure it out using dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Shell ^babelfish 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifcally, I meant that I have no dispute that now that the page has been protected. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so what you mean is the page got protected on the version you approve of - that does not mean that your version is "better" or "approved", that's simply the state it was in when I hit "protect". You still need to discuss your differences and work out a consensus on how to handle the issue. Shell ^babelfish 21:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that the action stopped the immediate problem of deletion/edit warring. Although I do approve of the current version (and explained why I do), I fully recognize that page protection is not an endorsement and I'm prepared to discuss whatever content suggestions arise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify again, you said that we should consider DR “if you can clearly decide what the issues are here.” The issue that led to the deletions (and subsequent edit warring) concerned the article’s lead section. Bhimaji opened a thread to discuss the topic and so far no one has commented on the text in question, but the door is open. If there are specific content issues that go beyond that, they haven't been clearly articulated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I know Red has been editing this extremely negatively slanted article since at least 2006 so I'm sure Red is cool with the protection. I feel like it just facilitates the continued negative slant. Phizer or any other big medicine companies couldn't have written this article any better. 174.153.177.28 (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I could be wrong, I don’t think the page protection was meant to last indefinitely; just until the edit warring and tension subsides and people start communicating again with level heads. Taking potshots at me doesn’t help the situation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, indefinite simply means "until the problems have been resolved". Oddly, it seems that the page protection caused the discussion to cease - if Patriot Missle33 and TraceyR chooses not to discuss the issue at this time, that's fine but when the page is unprotected, reverting again having declined to discuss will be looked upon very poorly. Shell ^babelfish 04:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I get dragged into this, since I was not involved with edit warring. I was commenting here, not reverting. I just happen to agree with the opinion of other editors that this article has a negative tone. Is that a crime these days? --TraceyR (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize TraceyR; your edit was to correct a typo not to enter the revert war. I'm sorry I didn't remember that earlier when commenting. Shell ^babelfish 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions can be valid or invalid. If no one is willing to cite notable content, reliable sources, and WP policies that back up the opinion that the article is “overly” negative, then it would appear that the opinion is invalid. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's taking things a bit far. Please remember to assume good faith of other editors and remain flexible when trying to arrive at a consensus. Shell ^babelfish 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I don't think you have seen much discussion on improving this article because anyone who wants to improve the article is stiffled by Rhode Island Red. I'm sorry but I edit on a page regarding a cult and I know the other people who are editing the page are cult members because I see some of the IP addresses and they are from the same town as the cult. Should I assume good faith? Rhode Island Red has CONTROLLED this article since atleast 2006. I don't want to be personal, I want to be 100% about this article but there is a huge elephant in the room and it can not be ignored when discussing the prospects for consensus. You might as well protect this article forever because you're not gonna see much improvement going on, just a ridiculously slanted article with 8 referenced articles regarding O.J. Simpson. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So you've worked here on Wikipedia before and came back under a different user name? If so, you should know that if you try to work productively on resolving the dispute and another editor is problematic to resolving it, there are many forms of dispute resolution that can be used to move things along. If you can make specific points of improvement rather than generalizations and are unable to work it out through discussion, using RfCs can bring in additional editors to help achieve a consensus. Continuing to harp on a particular editor without giving things a try isn't going to do anything to help the article. Removing information from the lead (which simply summarizes the body) really doesn't resolve the issues you're mentioning nor is edit warring an accepted practice. Shell ^babelfish 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Leaving cults and personal attacks aside for the moment -- your edits, and the reason for page protection, had nothing to do with the text about OJ Simpson, but if that’s an issue that you think need to be discussed, simply start a new thread and make your point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are we discussing whether people have the right personalities for consensus? That seems like a rather pointless topic. Why don't we talk about the actual specific substantive problems with the article? RiR does not own this article. However, if new editors are going to spend all their time arguing about how bad the last three years of the article have been, and virtually no time proposing actual textual changes, they're going to find that the article doesn't change. Bhimaji (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the point. Thanks Bhimaji. :) Shell ^babelfish 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why it is so frustrating. I didn't edit under another name, I am a long time reader, new editor. Did any of you look at the editing history of this article, maybe look back a few years. You may think my point is minor and want me to stick to specifics but this is a GENERAL problem. This article is poorly written and biased, period. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By "GENERAL problem", you mean that it is a problem present in most, if not all, article sections, and most paragraphs within those sections? How do you propose fixing this? I haven't seen a "more positive tone" button on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, a more positive tone is something you get by making textual changes to sentences and paragraphs within the article.

Let's say that everybody here looks back a few years. Let's say that they agree with you that RiR is the person responsible for making the article terribly one-sided. What would we then do? We'd make changes to the text, wouldn't we? Why don't we stop arguing about who did what, and instead focus on making the text better. Bhimaji (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative medicine

I intend to remove the above category from this discussion page (or vice-versa). One reason is that the main article is not assigned to this category; another is that Juice Plus+ is a nutritional supplement, i.e. neither a medicine nor an alternative medicine (whatever that is supposed to be). This category assignment is incorrect on both counts. --TraceyR (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you might want to leave a note on the talk page of the Wikiproject who's banner you intend to remove since its very unlikely they will see the note here. By the way, whether or not this is legally classified as medicine has little to do with whether or not it would fall under the purview of that particular project. Shell ^babelfish 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is quite reasonable to classify the article under WikiProject Alternative medicine. The manufacturers have sponsored several studies on Juice Plus that would seem to place it well within the scope of this Wikiproject (e.g., studies on the effects of this dietary supplement on cardiovascular function, immune function, general illness, and vascular function in insulin resistant adults).

Recapping the edit history on this issue: the article was first classified under Project Alt Med on Nov 17, 2008[15] by Sticky Parkin (talk) who gave it a B-rating. The Project Alt Med classification (and B rating) was removed by TraceyR (talk) (with an edit summary stating that “supplements are by definition not medicines”), and then it was restored by Bhimaji (talk), whose edit summary stated “dietary supplements are explicitly listed as a category of alternative medicine in Wikipedia”.[16] As far as I can tell, TraceyR did not reply and the classification stood without further comment for the next 9 months.

I just checked into the validity of Bhimaji’s last comment on the issue; his claim was in fact correct. The entry on dietary supplements is categorized under WP Project Alt Med.[17]. This certainly seems to undermine the core of TraceyR’s objections to the Project Alt Med designation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

WP Project Alt Med can think what it likes about dietary supplements; their legal status remains unaffected by a WP project's categorisation. The law is quite clear that such supplements are food, not medicine. In many Western countries, including the USA, it is illegal to claim that a given food can be used to treat a given disease, irrespective of what clinical studies have shown. This is my "core objection", one which some people don't and others refuse to understand. Perhaps WP Project Alt Med needs to review its position. As for why I didn't pursue the matter, that should be obvious from a previous thread (keywords: "exhaustion" and "frustration"). Fortunately I have a life outside of WP where I can choose the people I deal with. --TraceyR (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, inclusion under the WP Project Alt Med category is not based on whether a subject satisfies the legal (i.e., FDA) definition of “medicine”. Most (if not all) of the topics listed under this category are not FDA-approved. Disputes about the classification of dietary supplements under project alt med goes well beyond the scope of this discussion and should be addressed elsewhere. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Bhimaji (talk) is correct in stating that “dietary supplements are explicitly listed as a category of alternative medicine in Wikipedia”. However, Juice Plus seems to be the only instance of a dietary supplement which has been thus categorised. It seems perfectly reasonable to remove this category in order to bring the article into line with articles about other supplements. This is not a "dispute about the classification of dietary supplements under project alt med" (as Rhode Island Red (talk) would have us believe, but a discussion about the categorisation of this article. --TraceyR (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here, this isn't a category, its a Wikiproject baner. If you take a quick look through Category:Dietary supplements you'll find quite a number of them have the Wikiproject banner on their talk page. As I think has been said, since the Wikiproject developed a consensus that these articles should fall in their scope, you need to take this kind of discussion there so that the folks who came to the conclusion have the opportunity to discuss your suggestions. Shell ^babelfish 23:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Tracey, the correct solution is to include any other supplement articles in the alternative medicine category. That's how things are done here. I don't know why they aren't categorized properly, but they should be. Brangifer (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I was curious (and I have AWB) so I checked the category in question; only about a quarter of the articles were missing the Wikiproject banner on their talk page - they aren't now. Hope that helps. Off to do some WPBiography :) Shell ^babelfish 01:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Challenge neutrality of article

I want to put the tab at the top of the article to challenge the neutrality of this article (

) but I don't think I can because the page is locked. I have many issues with the article. Why does many of the links not connected to actual articles I can read? I don't know if these articles are saying what is claimed and I find that concerning. Why is the history of the OJ Trial relevant to Juice Plus? Why all the references to OJ? Why does the articles lead have so many negative critiques of Juice Plus? I'm sure I could find a million articles where people have something negative to say about Obama, does that make these article noteworthy? Should 1 million negative articles on Obama be referenced. This article should be no different. If someone who has editor privileges to this page, I would appreciate the

at the top. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindly refer to WP:NPOVD:

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I addressed a few of the issues I have with the article that are actionable. I also wonder why there is a lengthy paragraph regarding Stephen Barrett's opinion? This man has been discredited in court dozens of times (http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html) for saying the same type of things he said about Juice Plus.Patriot Missile33 (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a press release from a highly biased source. It is vague and imprecise about the actual *legal* case. It tries to imply that the judge determined all the things in the press release, but it doesn't actually tell you what the judge *really* determined. The first sentence of the press release references Barrett's lack of board certification, but omits the rather important details that board certification is not actually a requirement, and was not very common at the time that Barrett took the exam.

Perhaps Barrett has been discredited, perhaps not. The article you've presented is not evidence of him being discredited. Bhimaji (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you post the canlyme.com article on the Stephen Barrett page, since it's more relevant to that article, but the editors over there will quickly reject it as a non-reliable source, as they have in the past. You should read the archived discussion on his bio. Barrett's reputation has stood up to considerable scrutiny. If you have issues with the text about OJ, you might consider opening the discussion by starting a new thread with a descrptive title and explaining what the issues are, and we can take it from there. It sounds so far like like you are questioning a few sources rather than the neutrality of the entire article. Please also consider looking through the Talk page archives because many of your issues may have been discussed already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to discredit Barrett. If he were an authority on the subject of nutrition, his opinions would possibly be reliable enough to cite. He isn't. He is a retired psychiatrist! So why are his self-published opinions considered reliable enough for this article? Sure, he has convinced a few politicians that he's important, but I hope that WP's standards are higher than theirs. He's neither a nutritional expert nor a marketing expert, so he's not reliable as a source of criticism of Juice Plus nor do his views on marketing strategies carry any more weight that the next person's. --TraceyR (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tracey, he is considered enough of an authority on nutrition that in 1986 he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. Even if he wasn't an authority, his opinions are very notable and are used at Wikipedia as notable mainstream skeptical opinions, which NPOV requires to be presented in articles. All significant sides of a story should be presented, and that is one of them. If there is still a problem with any presentation, then attribution can be used. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

But Barrett's opinions are just that, opinions. He has no qualifications in this area - honorary membership of any body is no substitute for having done the work and earned a qualification. I'm surprised that people seem to have been bamboozled into respecting his opinions in an area in which he has not done anything to deserve such respect. --TraceyR (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tracey, by now (you do have 3354 edits to your name) you should understand that whitewashing articles from notable criticisms by anybody published in RS is not allowed. (Read WP:NPOV and WP:LUC, especially the "consequences" mentioned there.) Your opinion of Barrett is not shared by mainstream sources, and your constant attempts to remove criticisms makes one wonder if you might not have a COI regarding this subject. Are you a Juice+ distributor? You have been involved with this article for some time, including a failed mediation attempt, and you need to seek to collaborate, instead of rejecting all opinions you don't like. If they are published in RS, then they are fair game. Some RS will be to scientific facts, some RS will be to news reports, some RS will be to notable critics, and that's the way we build articles here.

As to your statement ("This should be an article about Juice Plus, not NSA, not marketing methods, not spokespeople, not murder trials ... just the product."), this article, like all articles at Wikipedia, is about anything related to the subject that is published in RS, including opinions and criticisms, even if they only tangentially mention Juice+. Some of the sources you are attempting to remove speak very directly about Juice+ and are thus significant additions to the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people are obviously finding it difficult to differentiate between criticism of a product and a marketing method. As for Brangifer's blatant WP:POV comments above:

The rules for WP:LEAD require that significant content be mentioned in the lead, and criticism of the deceptive MLM marketing methods has certainly been a high profile issue. Juice+ is definitely not alone with this type of problem. The whole MLM dietary supplement industry is defined by deceptive marketing. The reasoning is pretty simple. The law almost requires it. If a product has good evidence, it is allowed to make health claims, but if it doesn't, the claims it makes (and they will be made!) are morally "illegal", but are usually worded in such a way as to fly under the radar, IOW they are intentionally and carefully designed to deceive.

they should disqualify him from further participation in this discussion. I have seldom seen such an indiscriminately libellous attack on a whole branch of industry. Objectivity obviously flies out of the window when emotions take over. I can only sugggest that he take a step back for a day or two, reconsider what he has written and return when he has cooled down a bit. This is a place for reasoned discussion, not the (revealing) airing of personal prejudice. I shall refrain from further comment on the previous 'contribution' and await a more measured response. --TraceyR (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

POT! Are you implying by your attack (BTW, having a POV isn't wrong) that you don't have a POV (one that others here agree causes you to violate our NPOV policy by deleting content)? That's why I keep pointing you to those policies. Just read WP:NPOV and WP:LUC, especially the "consequences" mentioned there. I think you'll find that sticking to the topic and following those policies will help you to stay focused. I have deleted one of your previous comments as a blatant violation of both WP:TALK and WP:POINT. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, Brangifer, instead of just pointing others to the policies, you should also read them and edit accordingly. For example, in WP:Talk, it clearly states: "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (WP's emphasis, not mine). You deleted a comment without seeking permission, in violation of the very article you suggested that I should read.

And also, of course having a POV is not wrong; it's the comments fuelled by the POV that are frowned upon. Given your extreme views on the subject, declared above, I doubt that you could be objective about an MLM article. In my experience it is rare for such views to be aired publicly, so perhaps we should applaud your frankness.

You also seem to find it hard to differentiate between discussion of a proposed change and the implementation of such a change. You accuse me of violating 'our' NPOV policy by deleting content; please back this up with the evidence of this deletion. The only recent deletion has been here, on this talk page, by you, in violation of a basic rule of WP. --TraceyR (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Re -- TraceyR's previous comment, as follows:

"Perhaps, Brangifer, instead of just pointing others to the policies, you should also read them and edit accordingly. For example, in WP:Talk, it clearly states: "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (WP's emphasis, not mine). You deleted a comment without seeking permission, in violation of the very article you suggested that I should read."

This comment, like the one before it that Brangifer deleted based on WP:TPG and WP:POINT, has absolutely nothing to do with the article's content and contains no directions for making improvements. It borders, at least, on being a personal attack. Equally importantly, the statement is clearly contradicted by said WP policy (i.e., WP:TALK) which TraceyR misreported; namely the WP:TPO subsection of WP:TALK states the following:

"Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:…Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)."

So can we please skip the presonal attacks, be more careful to not misrepresent WP policy, and just stick to discussing article content and how to make improvements. Thank you.Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red and Brangifer, you both obviously know a great deal about WP policy but regrettably abuse this knowledge to try to maintain your stranglehold on this article, rendering it a travesty of what an informative and encyclopaedic article should be. Several editors without a history of editing this article have expressed their feeling that this article has a biased, negative, non-neutral tone. Since this indicates that the article really does not comply with the requirement for NPOV, your energy and efforts would be better expended in trying to correct this state of affairs, rather than defending it at all costs. It is depressing to witness this refusal to accept that the concerns expressed by such independent editors might be genuine and that they are acting in good faith; your reaction is to go on the defensive immediately, rather than to engage with them to try to understand their reasons for commenting here. Unless you do this, this article will never improve. Is it naīve to imagine that this is what you want, even if the vast amount of time you invest leads to the opposite result? I'm sure that there is some WP procedure for getting an independent assessment of the neutrality of the article - I'm sure you know the processes and how to invoke them better than I do. I think that it's time to get this done. --TraceyR (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no justification for these repeated personal attacks. Please be civil, cooperate with other editors, and respect WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope Brangifer reads your last comment RIR. I'm a new editor to this page and I certainly feel like there is a real lack of cooperation on this page. I believe we have at least 2 editors that would like to challenge the neutrality of this article. Still no note at the top of the article though...Patriot Missile33 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As a new editor here on WP, you should consider familiarizing yourself with basic policy and guidelines, beginning with the the 5 pillars of WP. The proper procedure in this instance is not to insist on slapping up a banner to issue a neutrality challenege, but rather to simply present sound reasons with specific suggestions for text/references that should be included/deleted to improve the article, and where necessary, a reasonable rationale based on WP policy. So far you have not embraced this approach; the only specifics you have mentioned to support your claim about the article's overall lack of neutrality is the OJ Simpson text (arguing that it should be deleted), which consists of only 6 lines, and the reasons why this information merits inclusion have been explained in considerable detail. If you still insist that the article lacks neutrality, there are other mechanisms beyond the Talk page that you might consider to resolve your grievance, but if you haven't made a decent effort to resolve it on the Talk page first, you probably won't have much luck. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the POV tag. This is simply evidence of a greater problem with this article. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OJ Simpson and Juice Plus

Patriot Missile33 (talk), I opened this thread so that you can discuss the issues that you alluded to regarding the OJ Simpson references in Juice Plus. Based on my assessment, OJ's role as a spokesperson for Juice Plus, and the subsequent controversy about the veracity of his testimonials for the product, are highly notable and have been commented upon by many reliable sources, only some of which are cited in the article. Is your concern that there are too many references? The reason for your dispute is unclear to me so far. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the OJ Simpson story, as related at length in the 'Criticism' section, contains no criticism of Juice Plus, it would seem to be irrelevant and Rhode Island Red's assessment incorrect. Sure OJ is notable; he was a popular celebrity. He also promoted many products; are they all automatically bad because of what OJ later did (or did not do)? I suggest that the OJ story be deleted unless it can be shown, by supporting sources, to be critical of Juice Plus. Otherwise it's just one editor's opinion supporting a POV. --TraceyR (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument that no sources were “critical” of Juice Plus for using OJ as a spokesperson is a different argument from that which Patriot Missile33 (talk) was alluding to (ie, too many references). There is no question that sources included in the article were in fact critical of OJs testimonials for Juice Plus, and if I’m not mistaken, we have discussed this previously. The overview of the story, as outlined by the sources cited in the article, is as follows: Simpson was paid to be a spokesperson for Juice Plus; he gave testimonials that Juice Plus essentially cured his arthritis and that, because of Juice Plus, he no longer had to take anti-arthritic medication. These testimonials blew up in the company’s face, not only because Simpson was charged with 2 counts of homicide in one of the country’s most widely publicized murder trials in history (which led to the company's termination of Simpson’s endorsement deal), but because he negated his testimonial for the company by swearing under oath that he was too incapacitated by arthritis to have committed the murders and that he had continued to take a variety of potent anti-inflammatory drugs for his condition.

These details are cited as evidence of the unreliability of testimonial evidence regarding Juice Plus, as noted by the following two sources cited in the article:

1. From Juice Plus – A Critical Look:[18]

"The unreliability of testimonials was dramatically illustrated by the case of former football star O.J. Simpson, who was charged with stabbing his wife and her friend Ronald Goldman. In March 1994, shortly before these murders took place, he was videotaped telling 4,000 distributors at a sales meeting that Juice Plus+ had cured his arthritis. Testimony in the murder case indicated that he was also taking sulfasalazine, a standard anti-inflammatory drug that could have relieved his symptoms [6]. Subsequently, his defense attorneys presented medical testimony that Simpson was so crippled by arthritis that he could not have committed the murders [7].”

2. From: Juice Plus – And Minus:[19]

"Juice Plus+ relies heavily on anecdotes. One big endorser used to be O.J. Simpson, who testified in a tape for the company that the capsules cured his arthritis. But at his trial he claimed that his arthritis had made it impossible for him to have committed a double murder, so Juice Plus+ stopped using the Simpson tape.”

Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

None of this is criticism of Juice Plus, the subject of this article. It may be critical of the then use by NSA (note: not Juice Plus) of personal anecdotes but that has absolutely nothing to do with the product itself and should be deleted. This should be an article about Juice Plus, not NSA, not marketing methods, not spokespeople, not murder trials ... just the product. Rhode Island Red's comments above are off topic. Patriot Missile33 is right: Even one reference to this matter is one too many. --TraceyR (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Both are excellent sources with plenty of references and/or good science behind them. Nothing in mainstream sources contradicts them. On the contrary, only Juice+, its distributors, and those who profit from selling these types of dietary supplements, object to these legitimate criticisms. The subject is a significant enough mention of the marketing activities of the company, and especially OJ Simpson's role, that it deserves short mention using such sources. Especially the MLMWatch article contains many good references. Brangifer (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I re-ran some searches for news articles on Google/Highbeam/Newslibrary and, it seems pretty clear that the OJ connection with Juice Plus has received far more press attention than any other aspect of the product’s history. OJs promotional video, Juice Plus endorsement deal, and related trial testimony, were brought up in articles by more than a dozen different sources, including (but not limited to) the NY Times (01/28/1996),[20] Washington Post (07/19/1995),[21] Boston Globe (and the Arthritis Foundation; 02/23/1995),[22] New York Daily News (07/19/1995),[23] Fox News (11/21/2006),[24] San Jose Mercury News (02/17/1995), [25] Deseret News (6/21/1994),[26] and Associated Press (07/19/1995),[27] as well as other sources such as Environmental Nutrition (06/10/1995),[28] U Cal Berkeley Wellness Letter (11/2000),[29] and MLM Watch (rev 01/27/2008).[30]

Based on such widespread coverage, this aspect of the Juice Plus story is arguably notable enough to be included in the article lead, but as it stands, the subject receives one paragraph (6 lines, roughly the minimum amount required to adequately explain the background story and the reasons why it generated controversy/criticism) in the Criticism section. I don't see how TraceyR can justify the claim[31] that “None of this is criticism of Juice Plus, the subject of this article”. The title of the MLM Watch article that was cited says it all: “Juice Plus – A Critical Look”. I don’t see how that could be any clearer. Even if the argument that "none of this is criticism" did hold water (and it clearly does not), the appropriate action would be to simply move it out of the Criticism section to another section. But to suggest deleting it outright relfects a very extreme POV, putting it nicely. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead deserves some mention of this matter. If not by mentioning OJ Simpson directly (I'm not sure that's a good idea or necessary), at least by mentioning that the marketing methods have been criticized severely in highly publicized cases, and then use references to the OJ Simpson matter and other sources where their marketing has been criticized. That should be pretty easy to do. The rules for WP:LEAD require that significant content be mentioned in the lead, and criticism of the deceptive MLM marketing methods has certainly been a high profile issue. Juice+ is definitely not alone with this type of problem. The whole MLM dietary supplement industry is defined by deceptive marketing. The reasoning is pretty simple. The law almost requires it. If a product has good evidence, it is allowed to make health claims, but if it doesn't, the claims it makes (and they will be made!) are morally "illegal", but are usually worded in such a way as to fly under the radar, IOW they are intentionally and carefully designed to deceive. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I had to laugh at that one guys. You guys think that OJ should be mentioned in the lead for the Juice Plus article? Seriously, just put the neutrality challenge at the top the article because this is a joke. Anyone who thinks OJ Simpson is something that helps define Juice Plus obviously cares nothing for creating an accurate representation of Juice Plus for Wikipedia. This OJ Simpson thing is a sentence at tops but I agree with TracyR that the OJ thing should probably be removed all together. Juice Plus had no part in the OJ trial. How about something like: "At one time, OJ Simpson was a celebrity endorser for Juice Plus but the endorsement was canceled after he was arrested prior to his famous murder trial." I think that sums it up and it probably requires 2 sources tops. Oh yeah, and so there is no confusion, I think my edit should go under the criticism section, not the lead.Patriot Missile33 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Patriot Missile33 (talk) your assertion that “Juice Plus had no part in the OJ trial” is contradicted by the secondary sources cited thus far. Juice Plus gained notoriety and widespread press coverage as a direct result of OJ’s trial; Simpson’s promotional/training video for Juice Plus was subpoenaed by the prosecution, entered into evidence, discussed in court transcripts, and was widely mentioned by various media sources, both during and after the trial. OJ’s trial defense testimony contradicted his previous claims in the video that Juice Plus cured him of his rheumatoid arthritis and got him off all of his arthritis medications. His medical defense maintained that he had continually suffered from chronic debilitating arthritis and had continued to take potent anti-inflammatory drugs during that time, and that he was therefore physically incapable of having committed the murders. Once again, I reiterate, these various details were widely covered in the press and the information is highly notable. The existing text accurately summarizes what secondary sources have written about OJ’s connection with Juice Plus, and there is no bias or lack of neutrality that I can detect. I understand that you don’t like that the OJ information is included, but I see no basis in WP policy to support your argument for its removal. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course Juice Plus was part of the trial; this is a matter of historical fact. However the claim that "Juice Plus gained notoriety" due to the trial would be WP:POV or WP:OR, since none of the sources cited state this; one of the cited sources states that Juice Plus sales increased during the trial, which is inconsistent with this claim of 'notoriety'. The Deseret News (6/21/1994) source cited also mentions OJ's Hertz commercials - was Hertz therefore also 'notorious'? I think not.

Those who bought the product as a result of the trial seem to have understood that it was important for OJ's defence that he deny the benefits he had previously claimed to have experienced from taking Juice Plus. Of course this would have been perjury, but that consideration was presumably a minor one for his defence team. Obviously he either experienced benefits or he did not, but what was the truth? As far as I know, this was never established in the trial, so to claim or imply otherwise would be either WP:POV or WP:OR or both. The increased sales would suggest that some people believed he had been telling the truth on the promotional video and that he was lying in court to protect himself.

With hindsight it is easy to try to cast blame upon the NSA marketing people for using OJ as a celebrity to recommend Juice Plus. Bear in mind however that he was at the time one of the best-known sporting and cinema celebrities in the USA; with his nickname "The Juice" it must have seemed a marketing marriage made in heaven. The Deseret News (6/21/1994) source mentioned above also goes on to quote 'marketing experts' as saying that "Celebrity endorsements are always risky". 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but fortunately the inability to predict the future is neither a criminal offence nor a source of notoriety.

As has already been pointed out several times above, there is no need for so many sources to back up the undisputed facts of the case (WP:Citation overkill). As an aside, several of the sources cited do not seem to have very high journalistic standards: One refers to OJ taking a "herbal concoction", another refers to a "nutritional arthritis product", yet another refers to OJ taking a "fruit drink". Does the rest of their reporting meet the same (poor) standard? Since they could not be bothered to check the facts, why should they be considered reliable sources?

In the sources cited in the OJ paragraph to confirm the facts of the case (which are not disputed) there is NO criticism of Juice Plus; the two which contain criticism are already cited separately in the section. The link with OJ certainly is notable enough to warrant mention, but it has no place in the Criticism section. I suggest that the paragraph be trimmed of its superfluous references and deleted from the Criticism section. It could be inserted, shorn of the overkill, somewhere more appropriate. --TraceyR (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

TraceyR, I disagree with much of what you said above (factually and based on WP:OR), but rather than arguing about it, I would prefer that you cut to the chase and elaborate on which specific references you deem to be superfluous. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Can I make a general suggestion here? If at all possible, its best to avoid criticism sections entirely and instead, put the relevant information in appropriate sections. For instance, this would mean putting information about OJ in a "marketing" section or something similar. For an example compare this article revision to the current state of the R. L. Hymers, Jr. article - rather than lump information into a Controversies section (seen in the old revision) the article now covers various topics about the subject including both "good" and "bad" in the same area. Just something to think about. Shell ^babelfish 23:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. An impartial editor prepared to invest time and effort in such a rewrite would be the ideal solution. --TraceyR (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article still locked?

As time goes on, this lock seems to be more of an obstruction to creating a good article than preserving a good one. The lack of the {POV} tag only makes to obstruction more obvious. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is still locked because the editors here have neither a) agreed not to continue edit warring or b) addressed and resolved the issues that caused the edit war. The article was not locked to prevent editing, but because editors chose to ignore basic Wikipedia rules. If you'd rather, we can go the other possible route and I can unlock the article and block anyone who edit wars. For more information, you can review the protection policy here.

Just as a general suggestion, it would be remarkably helpful if you would address what issues you see in the article and suggest possibilities for resolving those issues (see my note above for an example of constructive suggestions) instead of continuing to throw out accusations of bias and other unhelpful remarks. Shell ^babelfish 22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the article has been locked a long time. I've been suggesting changes but none of the changes have been made which I have said is not a big surprise. The article has been skewed in a negative fashion for years. Most editors just get exasperated and go away. Is that what we are waiting for with this block? Patriot Missile33 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The changes you've been suggesting have been very vague and imprecise, on the whole. The edit war that started this was in the lede, and you've not commented on the lede for quite a long time. Please make *specific* suggestions. Identify exact text you with to change. Bhimaji (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Categorization of Criticism Section

Regarding the recent suggestion to group the critiques under broad subcategories, I think it's a good idea. I've often that that this would be helpful for organizing the information more effectively. I suggest the following for a start: (1) Marketing -- this could at least cover the sources that have commented on "the next best thing to fruits and vegetables" claims (ie, BBB, TGA, abd CSPI) and possibly also the OJ details, although the latter probbly merits its own subhead. (2) General commentary. (3) John Wise/United Sciences of America. Any other ideas? Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the already bloated Criticism section which really effects the readability of the article. I'm not sure what the plans are for the subcategories but I think there are some issues with the criticism section that need to be dealt with like OJ Simpson and Stephen Barrett. Patriot Missile33 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OJ Simpson[32] and Stephen Barrett[33] have been (or are being) discussed in other threads so it's probably best if you address your issues there. I don't agree that the criticism section is bloated (I think it's thorough, accurate, well referenced, and broad in scope), but nonetheless, this thread is specifically about subcategorization of the Criticism section. You may disagree with the suggestion that the Criticism section could benefit from subategorization, or you may agree and wish to comment on subcategory titles. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If I could just clarify, I want to make sure that I wasn't confusing earlier when I suggested re-organizing the article as a way to resolve some of the concerns being mentioned. I wasn't suggesting that the criticism section be given subcategories, rather I was suggesting the entire article be categorized and all of the appropriate material (including criticisms) be added to the correct category. This would mean that eventually no heading would be "criticism" or something similar; they would all be more descriptive and contain both positive and negative aspects properly weighted per reliable sources. Shell ^babelfish 03:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes understood and I agree with you in theory. If there are subheadings e.g. "Marketing", "General Commentary", "OJ Simpson", "USAI", etc..., then it wouldn't need to have a heading titled "Criticism". I understand that it's a bit of a catch-all title and it's generally best, from a style perspective, to avoid using it in articles. It's not necessarily inapprorpiate in this case, given that there isn't any apparent give-and-take in the commentary from secondary sources (it's pretty much unanimously critical) and I think you would agree that this isn't a case of cherrypicking critical sources while ignoring legitimate positive commentary. I haven't been able to find any and it seems that no one else has either. Nonetheless, I'm still waiting for any input on subheading titles here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The title could also be changed from "Criticism" to "Commentary", for now at least. It's an idea. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdated Image

My name is Jackie and I work in the marketing department of Juice Plus+. I want to be here as a resource for everyone as you talk about the article. I would like to ask that we update the image of the bottles used for the article, as we redesigned the labels 2 and a half years ago and the image currently being used is outdated. Jackie JP (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposed graphic sounds fine in theory. Do you have one that shows both bottles with the capsules laid out, like the exiting image? As for serving as a resource for our discussion, does that mean that you can provide "official" answers on behalf of the company, should we have questions? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rhode Island Red. As previously noted, the current image of our product is outdated, and we are requesting of the discussion group as a whole if it would not be appropriate for us to update the image. The image I have is similar to the current image, it is the redesigned bottles with the capsules laid out. As previously noted, I'm available to serve as a resource for the discussion group as you talk about the article. I guess we can only figure out exactly what that means if people take me up on my offer. As a resource, I also plan to make the discussion group aware of new developments - such as the "new" packaging - as seems appropriate. I'm Jackie, and I work in the marketing department of Juice Plus+.Jackie JP (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you are offering to serve as a resource, perhaps you can answer the following:

(1) The Research Underway section of the Juice Plus corporate website continues to list a study on endothelial function by Yale University-Griffin Hospital Prevention Research Center (i.e., David Katz et al.);[34] however, it was announced as early as July 2008 that the study had been completed and yielded negative results.[35] Why does the Juice Plus website fail to disclose that this study is no longer in progress and yielded negative results more than 1 year ago?

(2) By the same token, how many of the other studies listed as "underway" have been completed and/or yielded negative results.

(3) It seems that Katz is involved in a collaboratve promotional initiative with Juice Plus (the Nutrition Detectives).[36]. What is the nature of the financial relationship between Katz and Juice Plus?

(4) The Juice Plus website contains a number of testimonials from various so-called "experts" and as far as I have been able to determine, a least some of them have a finacial interest in Juice Plus. The FTC passed new regulations[37][38] that go in effect on Dec. 1, 2009 which will require that you list any financial conflict of interest on the part of these spokespeople/endorsers. Are you able to disclose this information to us now?

(5) The Juice Plus Children's Research Foundation changed its name to the Juice Plus Children's Foundation. Is this organization still a registered U.S. charitable organization or have they dropped the charitable organization status? Also, the original mandate of the foundation was to conduct medical research. How come no medical research was ever conducted in their 10 year existence? Similarly, the organization gave funds to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Nashville and a faith based organization called Volunteers of America, neither of which have anything to do with research, medicine, health, or nutrition. Why did the JP Foundation disperse funds in apparent contradiction to its mandate?

(6) Would you be able to furnish a copy of the original OJ Simpson promotional video that he did for Juice Plus?

(7) What is the nature of Dr. Jim Sears' financial relationship with Juice Plus and what is the company's official position regarding his public claim that JP can "help fight cancer",[39] a claim that seemingly is prohibited by FDA regulations.

(8) Despite the fact that 3 different organizations (Better Business Bureau, CSPI, and Australian TGA) have objected to Juice Plus using the marketing slogan "the next best thing to fruits and vegetables" on the basis that it is false and misleading. Has the company ever issued an official response about this and why is the slogan still featured prominently on the Juice Plus homepage?

Thanks. Your verifiable answers to these questions should be helpful for the article. Also, it might be advisable for you to furnish contact information or some other means of verifying that you do in fact officially represent the company. You might also want to consider creating a user page that identifies you as a Juice Plus marketing employee who is here in an official capacity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if your response strays away from the purpose of the Talk page (i.e., discussing improvements to the article), you can post your replies on my userpage. Thanks again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

One point I would like to make is WHY is it in any way relevant to TODAY to ask for a video that OJ Simpson made over 10 years ago and is not used by the company today? Unless you are trying to implicate Juice Plus to the acts committed by OJ Simpson? Should we request every Nike commercial made by other athletes who go nuts off field? This particular request makes it appear that a witch hunt is behind the motive rather than making a sound Wikipedia article.the all knowing 16:54, 28 October 2009 (talk)(unsigned comment by DubbaWubba)

The witch hunt comment was uncalled for, as was the questioning of motives. Stick to the facts at hand please. Nike has nothing to do with this article either (see WP:TPG). I would like to see OJ’s ad for myself because it’s mentioned in the article and was widely talked about in the press and in OJ’s trial testimony. Nothing wrong with that at all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If a Nike-wearing athlete had said, "Nike shoes stop me from going nuts", then we would be interested in Nike commercials about an athlete that had gone nuts, yes. Bhimaji (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "witch hunt" is going a bit too far, but this is not the first time that RIR's activities have evoked this response. It does look as if the search for information for the article is concentrating on negative information (which would, presumably, be treated in an NPOV way). Surely it would be more in the spirit of an encyclopedia to search in a 'fair and balanced' way for all types of information, not just the negatives, and then incorporate suitable facts into the article. Perhaps the search hasn't been thorough enough or maybe it was an oversight, but there have been positive developments which the otherwise so painstaking research has missed - a European documentary on the supplement industry produced by a major player in the popular science category ("Welt der Wunder" - World of Miracles) which ended up recommending Juice Plus as standing out from potentially harmful synthetic multivitamin products, and the fact that the German Olympic team has adopted Juice Plus as its exclusive supplier of nutritional supplements in the lead-up to the next summer Olympics. I look forward to mentions of the Welt der Wunder documentary and the Olympic selection in the article. --TraceyR (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the concept of staying on topic continues to elude you. If you are going to launch into another round of "I just don't like it and it's all RIR's fault", at least start a new thread (or post under one of the many other threads you started along this theme) instead of derailing yet another discussion on an unrelated topic. You were given ample opportunity to elaborate on your claims regarding what you perceive as "a lack of balance", and yet you elected to not do so. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, RIR, it is you who are off-topic - what has your list of questions got to do with the subject of this thread (Outdated image)? Very little, I suggest. --TraceyR (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jackie, I'm sorry about the somewhat cavalier treatment your offer of a new image received. I see no reason why you shouldn't replace the existing old image with a newer one - you don't need anyone's approval for that. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be 'owned' by anyone, in spite of the impression to the contrary which you might have been given.--TraceyR (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the current image should not be replaced, but I might support adding an additional image bearing a caption identifying the new image as the redesigned label (circa 2008 onward). The product label design was basically unchanged for about a decade as far as I can tell. The bottle currently shown in the article is the one that most consumers would presumably be most familar. The new label might be important to the company from a marketing angle, but it's less important from an encyclopedic standpoint (e.g., it would not make sense for an encyclopedia to be required to revise an article every time the company in question redesigns a product label). But until someone actually uploads an acceptable version of the new image in question, this discussion is moot. Let's see the image first and then proceed from there. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it would not make sense for a paper-based encyclopedia to be kept up-to-date with the latest data and/or images, but Wikipedia is web-based and should be accurate. And what is the point of showing old images? It has nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with accuracy. No reason is given for hanging on to out-of-date images; WP is not an archive of product labels. Most consumers will be familiar with what is delivered today, not what they got 10 years ago, so that argument is also a non-starter. Whatever the attachment to the old image, let go and move on! --TraceyR (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you fail to appreciate the straightforward commonsense argument, I'll simply refer to the Coca Cola article [40] as an example to support my previous suggestion. Lots of different versions of the bottle/cans and over there. Once again, it's all a moot point now because the new JP image doesn't exist yet. This mundane argument should at least be deferred until it becomes tangible and Jackie (the alleged JP employee who started this thread) brings forth a suitable open-copyright image. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Straightforward commonsense argument? Alas - you have made no argument for retaining an out-of-date image. Resorting to a comparison with a major household-name brand, Coca-Cola, in place of commonsense argument, belies your stated opinion of Juice Plus as "a trivial and insignificant small-fry product". If and when a new image is provided, a consensus for keeping the old image will be needed ... otherwise out it goes. --TraceyR (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Was that a warning that you are going to unilaterally delete the “original” package image because you don't deem that there is a consensus to keep it? Was it an invitation for one of the current crop of SPAs to delete it on your behalf? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"If and when a new image is provided, a consensus for keeping the old image will be needed ... otherwise out it goes." Is that so hard to understand? I'm not sure why you react so vehemently - are you really insinuating that I am orchestrating other editors to campaign against you? I can assure you that this is not the case. Can you not understand that other people, quite independently of each other, find your aggressive tone and negative bent repugnant? Your reaction to a WP:Good faith offer of help from Jackie is certainly not in keeping with WP standards. Perhaps it's time for an administrator to warn you again - so that you can appear contrite (again) and promise that it won't happen again (again). Please moderate your responses and concentrate on the subject - the offer of a new image to replace an outdated one. What is so controversial about that? It should be a no-brainer ... --TraceyR (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How long will you continue this disruptive behavior? Is it going to take a user conduct RfC as the next step? Do you really want to push it that far or do you think you can behave, stay on topic, and follow policy. That's the last warning I am going to offer before I take your history of poor conduct up with WP admin. No need for any further discussion on this; just want you to know that there are consequences to chronic disruptive behavior. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you seem to regard anyone who disagrees with you to be "disruptive". If people remain uncowed by your brow-beating, they are deemed (by you) to be "chronically disruptive". I suggest that you read this thread very carefully before carrying out your threat; my editing history will stand comparison with yours any time. Do what you feel you must do, but don't blame me for the consequences. Please moderate your responses and concentrate on the subject - the offer of a new image to replace an outdated one. What is so controversial about that? It should be a no-brainer ...--TraceyR (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

New Product Details

Can someone please explain to me WHY a web-encyclopedia wouldn't want accurate information? RRR (that RHode Island Red, the Juice Plus obsessed editor who thinks he can threaten everyone with a dissenting view than his into submission and thinks he OWNS this article) won't allow UP TO DATE current product information on the freaking article? Gummies are NO LONGER available. The chewable tablets and gummies have been discontinued and Soft Chewables with totally different ingredients are now offered, yet Red seems to want to ignore that so he can continue to rag on the gummies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbawubba (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC) (cur) (prev) 22:03, 30 October 2009 Rhode Island Red (talk | contribs) (56,081 bytes) (→Cancer claims: actually found an interesting comment from the pro-Juice Plus side; everybody OK with this?) (undo)

does this therefore imply that Red is anti-Juice Plus since he "actually found and interesting comment from the pro-JP".....seriously obsessed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbawubba (talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

mentioned as of when RED deamed it mentionable. and he buried in the "have been or are available" bull line. Gummies are gone, not acceptable to have them in the boxed area w/ OUTDATED not available anymore information. SO yesterday when the soft chewable informat as Tracy said is a few clicks apparent. Red, and please dont' take this personally or as an attack. WHY do you insist on keeping non-current, out of date OLD information out there? Living in yesterday isn't very Wiki, this is hip, new, up to date site, unless of course the article is one someone dead and then there obviously wouldn't be new activity to update.......strange in deed.the all knowing 05:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbawubba (talk • contribs)

Do you have any verification for the updated information you want to put up there? Wikipedia expects verification for information that is posted. Bhimaji (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You edits are being reverted for 2 reasons: (a) it is unreferenced, and (b) you are deleting referenced content in its place. Do not add information about this other new product in the Gummies Infobox; the information already contained therein was accurate and referenced, and it pertained to research and commentary on the Gummies product discussed in the article. As an aisde, refrain from personal attacks and do not include personal attacks or my user name in the title of your Talk page posts (as per WP policy). They are now spilling over from this page onto my User Page, with profanity. [41] Do not post personal attacks of any kind here on this page. if you want to talk about content, talk about content. Don't make it personal. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is some information about the product mentioned by Dubbawubba on the Juice Plus website. The other products he mentioned as having been discontinued ("chewable tablets and gummies") are no longer listed. It only took a couple of clicks to find this information. --TraceyR (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The soft chewables are already mentioned in the article as of yesterday. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Homocysteine

The paragraph on Cardiovascular effects currently states "Several studies have examined the effects of Juice Plus capsules on biochemical parameters associated with cardiovascular function, again with conflicting results. One study, which was not double blinded or placebo controlled, found a 37% decrease in homocysteine levels.[30] Other more rigorous studies, including two that were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, found that homocysteine levels were not reduced[19][29] or were reduced only marginally (7%).[23]".

Another study (Kawashima et al, current ref. 27, double-blinded, placebo controlled, n=60) states however "Compared with the placebo, 28 day supplementation significantly increased the concentration of serum beta-carotene 528% (p<0.0001), lycopene 80.2% (p<0.0005), and alpha tocopherol 39.5% (p<0.0001). Serum folate increased 174.3% (p<0.0001) and correlated with a decrease in plasma homocysteine of -19.9% (p<0.03)".

I'm puzzled that article fails to mention this 19.9% decrease in homocysteine. Is there a good reason for its omission?

Is the comment "again with conflicting results" consistent with NPOV?--TraceyR (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably in response to the above comment, the Kawashima study's finding w.r.t. homocysteine has been mentioned. This is, however, a text-book example of how to present straightforward information to achieve a desired effect. I wonder whether the editor responsible would like to (a) correct the reference and (b) try a bit harder to achieve a neutral point of view. --TraceyR (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have specific edits or content to propose, do so. Otherwise you'll likely be ignored. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignored by whom? YOU? I am reading, she's right, but someone, who's name shall go ignored refuses to be Neutral when it comes to editing. Someone's bias is showing!!the all knowing 05:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbawubba (talk • contribs)