Talk:MonaVie/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Distributor Earnings

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

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

Edit request from 76.183.49.240, 5 October 2010

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

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

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

Article as a whole

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

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

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

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

BBB rating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll: Should BBB ratings be included in the article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading advertising and health claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my search for more information I found something recent that might be interesting, I am unsure what this will mean for some of the information that is currently posted in this article but I figured I would post it here for further discussion. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50590558-76/amway-distributors-monavie-companies.html.csp DavidR2010 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

~PLEASE READ~ Just thought I'd confirm that DavidR2010 is a monavie employee along with much of his family; he's also been going around on websites that are not distinctly pro-monavie and fighting there too. For example: http://imcurtain.com/business/the-truth-about-monavie/ Obviously as this is anonymous my statement will be called into question but take it for what it's worth A friend ~THANKS~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.82.93 (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That person can barely write English Haha that's not me nice try. I am not an employee of MonaVie and I don't even live in Utah. Another example of people circling around everything I say and this time all I did was bring two new sources into the discussion. DavidR2010 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

You seem to think that the Wikipedia community are a bunch of idiots who are unable to recognize the obvious. I assure you that assumption is false. Dlabtot (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What I just found two new sources to bring into the discussion whats wrong with that? I will let others discuss for now while I go and discuss other topics here on wikipedia. Is it really that hard to believe that someone other than a MonaVie employee in Utah would want to edit articles on wikipedia? DavidR2010 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I look forward to your constructive contributions to the project outside of the subject MonaVie. However I won't be holding my breath while I wait. Dlabtot (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop the ad hominems, and trying to determine the identities of users, and work together on making this a good article. From what I have gathered, most of us would like to see the Monavie Wikipedia page improved by ensuring that it includes relevant information, cited from reliable sources. Let's start there. Perhaps a review of the resources might be in order, to determine if they actually say what editors claimed they said - If a user wants to see the lead altered, this might be the place to start. Xenoknight (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to contribute to so many subjects here its just that you must understand the subject of MonaVie will be ever changing as is noted by the recent settlements between MonaVie and Amway and also that they are no longer defendants in the Oprah Lawsuit. Someone here has to keep the article up to date and accurate I wish it wasn't all up to me however It has been a great opportunity to figure out how to use wikipedia Thanks for that. DavidR2010 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

Litigation

Amway and MonaVie settle legal disputes. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50590558-76/amway-distributors-monavie-companies.html.csp

Oprah Lawsuit: MonaVie no longer a defendant in action over misuse of talk show host's name, image. http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/civil-procedure-settlement-compromise/14394389-1.htmlDavidR2010 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

Interesting. It would appear that the litigation section of this article could use another paragraph or two explaining the outcome of these particular lawsuits. When I have a moment I might do some further research surrounding this, by following the items that the Salt Lake Tribune is citing. Xenoknight (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes this will need an update for sure I also noticed a dead link in the references #49 just leads to the main page now the article must have been deleted after the Oprah lawsuit against MonaVie was concluded as a mistake. if an Admin is reading this can you please remove that source and if necessary anything that was cited with it. DavidR2010 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

 Fixed -Location (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Acai Berry

in my efforts to find some common ground here I noticed that this is one of the ingredients in MonaVie. I am also noticing that there are quite a bit of Acai Weightloss ads going around on the internet. My oppinion is that Acai Weightloss products are a scam. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/23/acai.berries.scam/index.html

However I would like to ask the question then for everyone involved in this discussion. Could this be really what we are are arguing about? If this really is about this one ingredient in MonaVie then perhaps we can end some confusion between all editors and discuss Acai in this one discussion area.

I would also like to make it clear in this discussion that the only facts about the acai berry I believe are found in this CNN article quoted here "Virtually every berry -- blueberry, strawberry, goji, acai -- are anti-inflammatory and high in antioxidants," I would also like to add that I have yet to see the MonaVie company claiming that Acai and only Acai has a weightloss health benefit. DavidR2010 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

Are you seriously trying to draw away attention from MonaVie onto Acai Weightloss ads? The arguments being presented to you are not about about Acai Weight Loss products; it's about Monavie, their products, and the controversy surrounding them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.82.93 (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am just trying to improve the article and maybe get it up to an A for wikiprojects companies. As well as simplify the discussion into different topics to reach that goal easier. The statements made in the lead paragraph can still be discussed in the lead section perhaps you are new to wikipedia? If so then welcome!

There is Acai in MonaVie so it is a notable discussion topic to make here, Is MonaVie the same as all the Acai Weightloss ads? From what I can tell MonaVie is much more and yet perhaps the controversy surrounding the products has a deep foundation in being mistaken as one of these acai weightloss ads?

As for the controversy surrounding MonaVies products I am assuming you mean the Science behind them? MonaVie is mostly made up of Fruit and there is plenty of Science backing the health benefits of fruit even the CNN article here http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/23/acai.berries.scam/index.html mentions Anti Inflammatory and antioxidants within some of the ingredients that are within MonaVie.

It is also an interesting point to make that if you look at the individual fruits in MonaVie http://www.monavie.com/Web/CA/en/blend.dhtml and research them on wikipedia you will find all kinds of possible Health Benefit claims that Wikipedia could be making about the ingredients in MonaVie products. For example Aronia is an ingredient in MonaVie and lets look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronia If you read this article you might notice what it says about this fruit in the Antioxidant Qualities and Efficacy in disease models sections.

For Blueberries check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueberry#Research_on_the_potential_anti-disease_effects_of_blueberries and seriously for apples check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple#Health_benefits DavidR2010 (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I don't think anybody was disputing that fruit is good for you, and given that the issues with monavie are usually about fraudulent claims in terms of definite health benefits, distributer "issues", and false claims of endorsement, nobody was mistaking Monavie for a diet either. You should also note that merely containing an ingredient does not inherently mean one will experience maximal therapeutic benefits from that ingredient. Does an apple pie retain the weight loss benefit of apples? Obviously not. Finally I suggest you do a cost to benefit ratio of Monavie versus berries themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.82.93 (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There are strict rules on wikipedia about attempting to reveal anonymous editors identities. Like I would use anything close to my actual name here. Hey Admins in case this editor is attempting to connect myself with a real person and his familly this editor is putting those people at risk could you deal with this please? Thanks! DavidR2010 (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

Oh and might I add that any editor with a conflict of interest or a suspected one as in my case can still edit a wikipedia article. I suggest you read the rules as there is something called an edit request where an admin can make changes for this user. So Conflict of Interest is probably not as big of an issue as you might think as long as the editor does not whitewash the article. I actually plan on using this template for future editing of articles. Here is an example

DavidR2010 (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

As for Fraudulent claims the issue is that nobody has provided any evidence here of any claims made by the MonaVie company being proven to be fraudulent as I have said many times. Just go and find evidence of Fraudulent claims and false claims of endorsement that come directly from the company I have yet to see any proof. The article is about the company of Monavie so thats what we need in this article or else the statements are false. As for apples losing their health benefits once they enter a pie shell I am not sure what you mean is there a scientific reaction with the dough that removes the nutrients in the fruits? And as for cost ratio well I could buy pepsi and yet I could also buy sugar and water which would be cheaper yet its not an issue in the article so not a notable topic for discussion. Finally if you want to go around wikipedia attempting to reveal users and placing people and their famillies in danger perhaps you should begin by revealing your own self first. DavidR2010 (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

Nutritional value, cost effectiveness and fraudulent health claims are all in the very first subsection of the Criticism section, so at this point I can only deduce you either haven't even read most of the article you say you want to "improve", or you are being willfully disingenuous. So which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.83.111 (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just because it says that there doesn't make it true you see on wikipedia its all about the sources you need to read the source articles they are those little numbers to the side of each statement. I am just the type of person who questions what I am told I like to analyze and find the facts of what leads to statements like these. ( A skill I believe may be useful for this website in other topics as well)

To recap it basically says MonaVie has made claims that were not scientifically proven or approved by regulatory authorities however to support this they use an example of the FDA warning towards an independent distributors site. Just read the source articles its all there There is no evidence of the MonaVie company making claims that were proven to be false.

As for its Ceo being involved in false health claims of another company. If you read the source articles all they tell us is he quit a whole year before that company was shut down.If the business plan was similar to a pyramid scheme there would have to be a payment system without any products involved. And I cant find anywhere in any other MLM article mention of very few distributors making a profit, this company of MonaVie has business in the Billions of dollars now I find this very hard to believe. These statements lean towards what was said in the news week article yet its contradicted by two other sources and since that article is from 2007 I am looking for something more recent currently.

Anyways welcome to wikipedia I hope I have given you a better understanding of how I have come to learn how things work around here. I also suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars DavidR2010 (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

Oh sorry I thought you were mentioning the lead Yeah I have not really disputed much of what is in that section some of that wording looks ok to me. My primary concern is just whats written in the Lead as it makes it read like the company is directly making claims when its really possibly misinformed distributors. The Misleading advertising and health claims section actually has the proper wording for what is really going which is independent distributors making claims. There is no evidence of any misleading claims made directly by the company. The section Dallin Larsen and Dynamic Essentials/Royal Tongan Limu seems to have the appropriate wording for that situation as well he quit basically. And the Pyramid Scheme Allegations is based on the wording of Pyramid in the Forbes article. DavidR2010 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

Irritated at Unexplained Reversion

User:Dlabtot has deleted a series of edits that were intended to improve the page beyond a C- level. All of my edits were carefully thought out, and as the page obviously has a history of sock-puppetry and vandalism, I was extremely careful not to remove any key points or research. They content was simply organized and consolidated, as topics were previously cut in half to flesh out a criticism section; I assume this originally was structured this way because agenda-based editors were attempting to hide critical information at the bottom of the page.

If productive edits are reverted without explanation, this page will never, ever improve, and it desperately needs improvement. It's overly wordy, rambling, and unorganized.

I am reverting User:Dlabtot changes (I would definitely, however, understand if has the urge to revert the intro, though I personally feel my additions are an improvement - I explain more fully below, and would welcome discussion). This is not an attempt to start an edit war. If he would like to re-undo some of the changes, I would highly recommend he explains his reasonings for doing so, to prove he's even looked them over. Otherwise, I'll find his actions extremely rude.

Again, not an iota of negative information was removed during my edits.

I did delete the comment in the intro that the ceo was previously in a previous juice company scam, in light of nuetrality; in the intro, it comes off as a damning statement that the company is in fact a scam, which the content does not prove as "fact", simply toys with. Intros are meant to be even-handed. If others disagree, I would be more than happy to discuss, as their point of view in the end could be more correct. However, my body edits, again, are intended to be productive. Jonses40 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of an assumption of bad faith. However, I was just checking through the edit history and noticed that you made rather drastic changes to the article in one feel swoop, and you did in fact delete a key portion of notable text on pyramid scheme allegations. It might be better if you took a stepwise approach to addressing your concerns here on the Talk page. In the meantime, I've reverted it back to the last stable version. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• understandable, I am prone to ogreish editing at times... In the pyramid schemes portion, I eliminated a statement from the Forbes article that was essentially repeating what the statistics stated (that less than 1 percent made a profit)...at the time it seemed repetitive. The other, more complete quote stating that the company is like a pyramid scheme, I simply took out of block quotes and put in a complete form into the text. I believe that's the only thing removed, tho. I would appreciate if people would at some point look the edits over, and consider putting sections back in. Since the page is prone to reversions, I'd rather not rock the boat by doing it myself, but I do believe they are productive. Cheers, Jonses40 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You made a blatantly false statement in regard to the content that you removed. You did not merely remove a bit of, what you describe to be, redundant information; you removed the entire section entitled "Pyramid Scheme Allegations",[19] describing the Forbe's article, TEAM, and Orrin Woodward. In your edit summary, you also failed to indicate that this material was being deleted; in fact you failed to mention that ANY material was being deleted -- your edit summary said only "streamlined wordy "litigation" section, added clarifying subtitles, moved criticism section below litigation section". Section blanking is a definite no-no (especially when done under the guise of a misleading edit summary) and it might have gone unnoticed had it not been for one vigilant editor who picked up the change and restored the deleted section.[20]

• oops, I am very aware section blanking is a no-no, and I promise I tried to do no such thing! I did remove section headings and move large chunks of content into new areas, in an effort to consolidate - I suppose that would look like section blanking to someone looking just under the sections themselves. I do apologize. looking back, I most definitely should have only edited one section at a time. And if I did delete Orrin Woodward section, I thought I moved it as the second paragraph under "Revenue" - I'll go back and check. Jonses40 (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Also, who is speaking?
• I checked, and whoever pointed out my former section-blanking is entirely in the right; I did somehow end up removing the Woodward section when I was trying to clean up the litigation section a couple weeks ago. (edit is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MonaVie&oldid=416763012 ) I take pride in not being disingenuous, and I'm very embarrassed. In my defense, after another watchful editor remedied the mistake, I did not remove it from the other version I was working on afterward; all the content is retained in the versions I'm recommending be reviewed (consolidated in the "revenue" section, in chronological order). As I mentioned before, I did remove one of the two quotes by Forbes (the short one) but I'm entirely ambivalent if people would like to add it back in. I'll even recommend adding it back in myself, if it makes people more accepting of the overall section. I apologize for the careless copy pasta mistake from earlier. Cheers, Jonses40 (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Review requested for potential improvements

• For convenience, here are the potential changes I personally think would improve the page (this is to sum up the conversation above). The significant changes are a major restructuring to combine and make chronological sections that had been chopped up (the revenue section consolidated with the "pyramid scheme allegations" section, and all the product research combined under "product")

- VERSION WITHOUT INTRO CHANGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MonaVie&oldid=420417728

notes

I was careful to avoid removing any key points of research, any references, or any "negative" information. However, I did remove a Forbes statement which I personally thought was just repeating what the statistics above the statement made obvious: that less than 1% percent of distributors make a profit. (User:VQuakr removed the overly long ingredients list after this, a change I personally I thought quite prudent). I also removed the Better Business Bureau info in the history section; BBB ratings are secured by payment, which makes them largely irrelevant.

-VERSION WITH INTRO CHANGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MonaVie&oldid=420544258

notes

I did delete the comment in the intro that the ceo was previously in a previous juice company scam, in light of neutrality; in the intro, it comes off as a damning statement that the company is in fact a scam, which the content does not prove as "fact", simply toys with. Intros are meant to be even-handed. I also removed the intro quip about the pyramid scheme, instead replacing it with the simpler statement "a small amount of distributors make a profit on commissions". Since the pyramid scheme is an allegation from journalists, not a legal accusation, and if you read the entry on MLM marketing schemes, some people consider all MLM marketing strategies to be pyramid schemes, it seemed less even-handed then it could be. I think the statement about distributors makes the point about the controversy just as well (and is an undeniable, unambiguous fact). Thoughts? Jonses40 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are that most of the changes you are alluding to are unwarranted. Also, see my previous comment above regarding the section (Pyramid Scheme Allegations)[21] of critical content you blanked (using an edit summary which failed to mention any deletion of content). I take particular issue with the call to remove accurately sourced content (e.g., Forbe's) when there is no apparent justification for doing so. Lastly, it's next to impossible to check the major changes you are proposing without seeing it as a compare/difference edit. I'll also point out that neutrality doesn't mean whitewashing criticism or bending over backwards to say something nice. Our task is just to summarize notable information written by reliable independent sources, even if it's unflattering. That information most certainly includes "allegations from journalists (aka investigative reporters)" As for the BBB rating, I'm certianly open to additional opinions on whether it should be deleted (however, while it's possible that the company did in fact pay for the A rating, it's highly unlikely that they paid for their previous D minus rating).Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• hmm, you make a good point; it is quite confusing the way I did it. I apologize. Perhaps I should go through and re-add in sections piece by piece, allow them to be reverted, and that way people can look just at the chunks in the history one section at a time? I'm not trying to make things hard, but I tend to get overexcited with my edits. Jonses40 (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Company Overview

Devin D. Thorpe is no longer Chief Financial Officer http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/7/prweb8661751.htm.

The BBB ranking is currently an A, juicescam.com is not a credible source to mention a ranking from two years ago.

Why does the article mention that privately held companies are not required to publish financial data this is a known fact and is a redundant bias.

Got anything besides press releases issued by the companies themselves? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking these points in order, I cant actually see any reason for listing company officers in the first place - there names tell us nothing of encyclopaedic significance. I'd suggest that they be deleted.

The BBB rating likewise seems of little consequence: as it says on their own website "BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services". We should probably remove this.

As for the comment regarding the non-publication of financial data, taken out of context it might seem undue, but it is inserted to make clear that the Inc. magazine rating cannot be independently verified. If we are to mention the rating at all, we shouldn't give it more weight than is justified by the evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on the points about the BBB and Inc., but I do think that a list of the key company executives is worthy of inclusion. It seems like a relatively significant historical detail. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As for dealing with Thorpe's or any other executive's departure, I suggest that the name stay on the list and the dates of tenure be added parenthetically. That way all major players in the company's history remain part of the encyclopedic record. It's not overly burdensome, since the players on Monavie's roster haven't changed much since its inception. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Who should take the initiative to make these edits?--Edgar Valdezzz (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2012

Declining Sales according to the Internet traffic metrics from compete.com, http://www.quantcast.com/, http://www.alexa.com/, Monavie sales have fallen nearly 80 percent over the last three years. Their income disclosure statement distributed to their sales force to substanciate current earnings has not been updated since 2008. This is to give the impression that the current earnings are considerably higher than they actually are.

Desparate measures Monavie has frabricated a high ranking pin level (Hawian Blue Diamond) on at least one occasion to also create the impression that they are doing better financially then they actually are. ref: Brent Ririe [email address redacted] Brent Sr. VP of Global Compliance at MonaVie. The specific instance reference can be corroborated : Steve Kampouroglou, Hawaiian Blue Diamond , Monavie Executive, [email address redacted] 64.252.194.239 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

While these assertions are certainly plausible, individual testimonials do not meet our reliable sources criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Complaints

This is the most biased article I have ever seen. Isn't it supposed to talk about what the product is in the introduction? i.e. Company X is fruit juice vs. Company X is the most scandalous corporation in the world and that's all they're known for... Drpeter2 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am also surprised that many of the references are obviously biased, this entire page should be rewritten. There is obviously a bias with the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorbaLindaOCMan (talk • contribs)

Please refer to WP:TPG. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason every source used in the introduction is negative, is there no neutral/positive information regarding Monavie. 69.108.80.108 (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you find any? If not, what does that tell you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many neutral/positive credible articles about Monavie. I just don't see how something like "its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage" is relevant to the general company introduction, it comes off very biased and negative.69.108.80.108 (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it true? And where are these "neutral/positive credible articles"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it's true or false. I just don't see how the CEO's past is relevant to the intro section of the page. Are we to assume the CEO did crummy business in the past, so he must still be doing crummy business. I'll pull together some neutral sources. I am by no means an endorser of Monavie, but this page does read extremely negative.69.108.80.108 (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't "an endorser of Monavie", and you "don't know if it's true or false", why are you assuming that a neutral source won't be equally negative? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see why someone past would be relevant to this, he appears to be accused of something .. yet it's written here as a fact referring to Monavie. I just think that should be removed 69.108.80.108 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

this seems like a very unbiased neutral source http://amarillo.com/stories/111408/fea_11683137.shtml69.108.80.108 (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"If a person wants to drink this juice, go ahead. But drink it because you like it, not because you think you won't get cancer if you do so. Until double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are done by independent, third-party research firms that publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, don't believe everything you hear". Exactly - the ridiculous claims made by some people pushing this produce are meaningless. It is fruit juice. Which on the whole is good for you (in reasonable amounts). You can buy this anywhere. Or make it yourself from fruit. You don't need to involve yourself in 'multi-level marketing' with characters with a dubious background to do this. Fruit juice is good probably for you. Monavie probably isn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how that reads to 69.108.80.108 as an unbiased source. I do agree that "its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage" does not need to be referenced in this article. Edgar Valdezzz (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

At least 2 high profile sources (Newsweek and Salt Lake Tribune, both cited in the WP article) wrote pieces about Monavie, and both featured significant coverage about Larsen's involvement with Dynamic Essentials and Royal Tongan Limu. Whether or not 69.108.80.108 and Ed understand the significance of this information, the task at hand is only to report what reliable third-party sources think is significant. That is why it's in the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I call for deleting the statement "as a privately-held company, MonaVie isn't required to publish financial data." this lacks relevance to the article and appears as a bias as this is a fact of all privately held companies.YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask, given your repeated attempts to remove all negative information from this article, whether you have any connection with MonaVie? If so, you need to read WP:COI, and if not, I'd like to see an explanation as to why you are so concerned about our portrayal of this dubious enterprise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any connection to Monavie, nor have I tried to remove all the negative information. I am a neutral party, looking for neutral information. This article has things that are written in a complete and utter bias. The term you use dubious proves my point. I have had friends who were distributors and were successful. I never distributed the product, but have researched it quite a bit and found that it's not as bad as this article claims.YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to make sweeping proclamations about "complete and utter bias", you might want to at least attempt to back it up with a detailed explanation. The talk page isn't a complaint department. It's a place where editors can coordinate their efforts to improve the article by discussing specific content. Vague complaints are not helpful in that regard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The "call for deleting" the statement "as a privately-held company, MonaVie isn't required to publish financial data" and the complaints that it "lacks relevance to the article" and "appears as bias" are so far off base I have to wonder a bit about the motive of this editor as well. All it took was checking the reference that was cited in the article (in Newsweek by Tony Dokupil) which contains the following statement in reference to Monavie's income claims: "as a privately-held company, MonaVie isn't required to publish financial data." So the statement is (1) not irrelevant, (2) not biased, and (3) not going to be deleted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"I am a neutral party". Really? "I have had friends who were distributors...". Then you aren't neutral, are you? "I never distributed the product, but have researched it quite a bit...". Oh really? Why? What is it that interests you so much, as 'a neutral party', that your sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to present MonaVie in a positive light? Why are you 'researching' this particular purveyor of fruit-juice-based products? Why does it matter to you? Why, if the products themselves are so beneficial, are those marketing them so keen on preventing people from actually purchasing direct from the supplier, and would rather involve people in a convoluted 'multi-level' supply system that seems to do nothing other than draw in more and more people into a system that can only disrupt commerce between supplier and consumer. If you actually have 'friends' involved in this scheme, you ought, as a friend, to advise them to purchase their fruit juice elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I've researched quite a few things on wikipedia and most articles are written completely based on unbias. Ofcourse the critism section is warranted as Monavie has been the source of complaints in the past, however I do think some sections in this a page are written as a complete bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorbaLindaOCMan (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion. You are entitled to that opinion. We, on the other hand take note of the fact that once you discount the hype produced by MonaVie and its supporters, almost all reliably-sourced material is negative. 'Bias' in Wikipedia terms isn't related to some abstract concept of 'neutrality', but instead in not reflecting accurately the views expressed in sources. If MonaVie attracts a large amount of negative commentary due to the way it does business, it would be 'biased' not to take note of that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I understand what you are saying, this article focuses primarily on the negatives from 2007-2009. From my own personal research it appears Monavie has developed into a more sophisticated brand and most of the allegations are not relevant to the past several years. I thank you for your explanation.YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not just a matter of past allegations but these allegations refer to distributors and not the actual company. MonaVie from my understanding cannot control what it's distibutors do or don't do. Am I correct?85.163.156.168 (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Monavie page is biased and misleading

When you compare the Monavie page to, say, the page for AMWAY, which is also a multi-level marketing company and a company steeped in controversy in its past, it is clear that the AMWAY page is more balanced and the Monavie page is clearly biased.

There are studies by nutritionists and doctors showing the efficacy of acai and absorbancy in the body. Many of the criticisms are supported by non-scientific, non-journaled articles themselves which is the same complaint leveled against Monavie.

The multi-level, network marketing approach used by Monavie is no more a pyramid scheme than any insurance or corporate marketing department where sales people receive one commission, brokers receive overrides, managers receive bonuses, and corporate execs receive management bonuses. The compensation plan allows any distributor to surpass their upline, is compensation offered in conjunction with product sold, and does not meet the definition of a pyramid scheme within wikipedia itself, i.e., "A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public."

I recommend that the page be deleted or modify to delete its obvious biases.

Tony Hammond

Tonyhammond (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, "studies by nutritionists and doctors showing the efficacy of acai" are irrelevant, unless they (a) refer to MonaVie products directly, and (b) meet WP:MEDRS regarding any claims of health benefits. Secondly, our articles are based on what reliable sources say about the topic, rather than on the opinions of contributors - particularly those who seem over-keen on presenting a contentious organisation in a more favourable light than external sources would seem to justify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Monavie 2.0

There appears to be no section within the page regarding current happenings at Monavie. Since conception Monavie has changed quite a bit. I would like to propose a new section for the page regarding the growth and new divisions of Monavie; including Monavie 2.0.Edgar Valdezzz (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, why is there no recent happenings section?YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's putting the cart before the horse, since no one has yet proposed any specific new content for inclusion. A "Recent Happenings" section sounds like something to be avoided (c.f. WP:NOT#NEWS). If there is notable new information from independent sources, it should be woven into the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The company has evolved, how is this not relevant. Most of the articles on this page are 5-7 years old, yet Monavie is still prevalent and doing well today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.82.155.253 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Monavie is not a Pyramid Scheme and does have scientific research.

Please correct this sentence in the Monavie article. It is not a pyramid scheme, this insinuates that the company is operating illegal.

This is an MLM company, Multi-level Marketing.

Also there has been scientific research, not just on the Monavie products. But on the actually fruits and vegetables that are the ingredients in Monavie products.

As with ALL MLM companies and other self-employed business venture, you are an independent distributer / independent business owner, your compensation is directly based on the efforts that you put in. Unfortunately many MLM-ers (and small business owners) do not have the patience and perservance to do what needs to be done, in order to be profitable.

Ivy888 (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that MonaVie is a pyramid scheme - it says that "the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme", and we cite the sources that we use to verify this. I suggest you read the Forbes magazine article on the subject. [22]

As for 'scientific research', the only research that would be relevant concerning the supposed benefits of MonaVie's products would be any that was directly about such products, and which was published in a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal - see our WP:MEDRS policy for further information on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Monavie is not a pyramid scheme, wikipedia lists it as an MLM company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-level_marketing_companies. The Forbes blog is the opinion of one blogger. A pyramid scheme is illegal, Monavie is legal. Please removed pyramid scheme from introduction. YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted.[23] Our role as editors here is not to debate legality but to accurately summarize what other sources have reported. The Forbes article cited in support of the statement in question is not a blog as you incorrectly asserted. On a side note, MLMs can be pyramid schemes; the two terms are not mutually exclusive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Forbes article is an opinion of one individual not published in the magazine, clearly a blog. The source is invalid for such a strong statement and I have removed it for legality reasons. MonaVie has established itself as a legal MLM that goes beyond just selling juice.YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Forbes article neither a blog nor is it the opinion of just one lone individual as you allege. Perhaps you failed to notice that it was authored by two people (Emily Lambert and Klaus Kneal), not that the number of authors has any bearing on the article's qualifications for inclusion -- and the article clearly meets WP policy requirements. You don't get to delete content you dislike[24] merely because you alone have deemed it invalid based on criteria that have no basis in WP policy. If you keep blanking content in this manner, it's very likely that you will be blocked from editing on WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The article referring to a pyramid scheme is years old, the company has evolved why is this still in the introduction?178.82.155.253 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it is reliably sourced. In any case we don't have a reliable source that says it has 'evolved', whatever that means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There are government sources and Wikipedia articles which contradict this statement. They carry more weight than Forbes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.121.134.186 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Weil

Andrew Weil has been discredited several times for his studies and claims. He is not reputable, nor should his be taken as non biased when he goes on to mention his own brand. Please remove the Andrew Weil mention from the Wikipedia page.Edgar Valdezzz (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you (a) provide citations for Weil being 'discredited', and (b) tell us where he " he goes on to mention his own brand"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the source being used is drweil.com, which is his personal website. I can't see how this passed the RS test. The Huffington Post one is borderline RS, as that section is a blog from a contributor, but not editor - is it going through editorial review? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jonny-bowden . The criticism needs to be sourced properly to be included in the article.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be right about the first source - I think the second (Bowden) might be best discussed at WP:RSN. If it wasn't for the endless attempts by POV-pushing SPAs to insert entirely unverified claims that MonaVie is selling some sort of miraculous 'health product', none of this would be necessary. Per Wikipedia policy (WP:MEDRS in particular), such claims are entirely unacceptable - and come to that, I think the FDA takes a dim view of such claims too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Weil is an OK source in this case. I might take issue if his position was WP:FRINGE but it's certainly not in this case; it's very commonsensical -- eat local organic berries instead of expensive processed juices sold with specious claims. The fact that his opinion was echoed by Bowden and consistent with the lab tests (and echoed by many other health authorities not quoted) makes it well within the mainstream. I fail to see the basis for the complaint about the drweil.com website -- i.e., that it is Weil's "personal website" . That would make it a perfectly appropriate source regarding the opinions of Weil himself. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether the recently-added external link to a Skeptoid article on the subject (written by a science journalist) might be an alternative source to Weil, if he is seen as problematic: [25]. I'd think that would satisfy WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm usually reluctant to cite blogs. In this case, it might depend on the statement. What I find remarkable about Weil is that he is sometimes (often) regarded as being kind of on the fringe in certain alt med subjects, but in the case of Monavie, he gives sound conventional advice. Monavie's advertising relies to some (a large) extent on pseudoscience (or just bad science). So when a wildly popular and well known alt-med advocate like Weil criticizes something as overhyped and nonscientific, you know it must be really off the map. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Attributed opinions to Weil and Bowden seem fine, they are acceptable parity sources in my mind, given the extreme claims made by the company. It's just juice, it's not magic, and Weil/Bowden are just pointing this out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The edit warring must stop

We've had quite a dustup this morning, with three regular editors of this article being blocked for having spent months reverting each other. This edit warring (or reverting, or stridently disagreeing with each other through edit summaries, or whatever you'd like to call it) needs to stop. I'm giving serious thought to full-protecting the article, and I probably will do so if this behavior continues after today, but in the meantime I encourage you all in the strongest possible terms to give editing the article a break for the next few days while you discuss the issues that are underlying all these reversions. Clearly there is some ideological disagreement here. Hash it out on this talk page. Use WP:DRN, WP:NPOVN, WP:COIN, and the other noticeboards available to you, which are staffed by editors who are happy to deal with issues like this. Use WP:AN or WP:ANI if the issues become intractable. I want to stress one thing here, by way of persuading you guys to engage: the way things have been done on this article in the recent past hasn't been working. For any side of the dispute. Continuing to do it will continue to not work. How about coming up with a new strategy that just might be actually functional? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ideological disagreement"? A curious description, IMO. Unless the 'disagreement' is between those who wish to use Wikipedia as free advertising for overpriced fruit juice/go-broke-quickly schemes, and those who prefer articles to comply with Wikipedia policy, though I'm not sure where 'ideology' comes into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that all three blocks were overturned as premature, and I'm disappointed that Fluffernutter has chosen to represent the events of this morning in the way that he did. I am also disappointed that Fluffernutter has been very clear and emphatic in threatening blocks, but regrettably vague about exactly which quagmire noticeboard might be appropriate for resolving the problems with this article more permanently. (Blocking everyone certainly eliminates the symptom – reverts – but does not address content: Wikipedia's core concern.) I don't know whether this is because he hasn't spent as much time investigating the content issues here as he has formulating his threats, or whether it's because he knows that the noticeboards have a very poor track record dealing with civil single-purpose POV-pushing accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I've threatened any blocks over this matter, ToaT. Could you point out where I've done so? In any case, my point here is that you guys, as the editors involved in this [insert word for recent history here], need to figure out what the actual problem is, and address it head-on. Undoing edits doesn't address whatever the underlying issue here, so if you can determine what it is - if it's a matter of an editor pushing non-neutral information, or of an editor having a conflict of interest, or of a paid editor violating policy, or of purple unicorns having swooped in and given everyone Mad Unicorn Disease - then you'll be able to address that issue using standard processes - dispute resolution, noticeboards, Arbcom, etc. - more easily once it has a name. I'm encouraging you guys to do that. Pause the editing, discuss here, figure out what's gone wrong so you can address it. It will be much more effective than blocking anyone, and much less of a pain than things like protecting the article. I'm aware that civil POV pushing is problematic on Wikipedia, and that's why you need to work on sussing out what's going on here. The disruption, whatever it is and whatever its cause, won't stop until you can explain what the disruption is to yourselves or to people who can help. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, some statistics from the contributions history to ponder:

AndyTheGrump: article edits 11, talk page edits 15.

Fluffernutter: article edits 7, talk page edits 1.

What was that about "persuading you guys to engage", Fluffernutter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I hadn't realized that Fluffernutter had a history with this article. He definitely shouldn't be making threats about taking administrative action under such circumstances, and his lecturing on reverts rings a bit hollow given that those represent the bulk of his contributions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Fluffernutter has been doing the same thing as me: reverting POV-pushing spin. It does make comments about my actions seem rather odd though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Andy, I'm not sure what your point is here. I've been watching this article with my admin hat on for a while, and I haven't touched it in months other than that watching. My encouraging you to engage here is a continuation of that - my goal is to have the article settled down, and the way to do that is for the people engaged in the current dispute to discuss the dispute. It would be ideal if you would go ahead and do that and ignore the issue of my apparently having angered you somehow, which won't actually improve the state of the article as best I can tell. I do apologize if my encouraging discussion here, or the way I encouraged it, or anything else I've done, has upset you, and I hope my apology for that lets you refocus your energy to the article rather than me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andy and TOAT on this. There was no real conflict to begin with; certainly no overt edit warring and no "ideological differences", unless the ideological difference is whether or not core WP policy should be respected. The talk page was being used and was serving its purpose. Issues were being raised, discussed, and usually resolved. There have been a few blatantly inappropriate edits that were simply reverted without any pushback whatsoever. A few anonymous IPs and SPAs have made some WP:DONTLIKE comments, and these too were addressed on the talk page. In a few cases, the talk page responses were simply ignored and the anonIPS and SPAs went ahead and made the edits they originally wanted to make. Those too were reverted without any significant conflict or edit warring. Andy and I are both experienced WP editors in this subject area and have been toeing the line with respect to WP policy (I've even reverted a couple of Andy's edits as I recall). Can't say the same for all participants though.

I'm well aware of the dispute resolution processes at our disposal should any irreconcilable conflicts arise and when outside opinions need to be solicited, but so far this simply has not been necessary. If a driveby editor (or any other editor for that matter) makes a blatantly inappropriate edit, the correct response is to revert the edit and if necessary explain further on the talk page; sometimes the edit summary alone is sufficient to explain the rationale for the reversion. When there is pushback, it ends up getting hashed out on the Talk page. So far this has worked just fine. Asking editors to immediately go to a noticeboard to resolve a benign situation that can be handled by hitting undo and leaving an edit summary, and/or leaving a comment on the talk page, is really not the way to go IMO. It would greatly hinder rather than aid productivity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Toxiciology Vitamin K Report

Hi Smartse. I noticed that you added a new article from the journal Toxicology with a comment about vitamin K levels in Monavie. I think you might have misinterpreted the article's significance. A juice product would not normally be expected to have high levels of vitamin K. The way the information is now presented in the article implies that Monavie has low vitamin K content and that the low level of vit K represents a nutritional deficinecy in the juice, but that's not the case. Quite the contrary in fact -- the product has significant amounts of vitamin K, which is unusual for a fruit juice, and the vitamin K content of Monavie was linked with possible adverse (i.e., anti-clotting) effects, as reported in this article [26] mentioned in the adverse effects section. Also, just FYI, Schauss is a Monavie insider, so his primary source publications may not qualify as independent, depending on the context. I'm going to revert for now but let me know if you have any followup comments or questions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, fair enough. I did think it was a bit strange that someone would write a paper saying that something wasn't toxic, but assumed that it was worth including being in Toxicology. SmartSE (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

'Products' section and infobox

"MonaVie produces a variety of blended bottled fruit juices, carbonated, energy drinks, dietary supplements and dieting products" [27] Should we be using a source that states that "From powerful antioxidant support to joint, heart, and immune health, MonaVie body-beneficial products provide the nutrition you need for a healthy and active lifestyle" as a source for this? Frankly, I'm surprised the FDA lets MonaVie get away eith it, though that seems to be insufficient reason for us to do the same. There is seemingly no evidence that these so-called 'body-beneficial' products do anything at all as "dietary supplements" or "dieting products". We also have a ridiculously-long list of 'products' in the infobox, which tells the reader nothing whatsoever regarding what the products consist of - inherently unencyclopaedic promotion. I think the 'products' section needs a neutral first paragraph, sourced to somewhere other than MonaVie's website, and I can see no reason to list product brand names at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I like using sources even when they're flawed like this. Realistically the company's website is the best source for their products, particularly if they change, and would prefer to keep it but wouldn't object too strongly if a news or other independent source was used instead. I agree strongly, however, that we should only have vague "juice, vitamins and carbonated drinks" rather than an extensive listing of products with proprietary names. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the same page as both of you. I think the company can be an acceptable source to cite when it comes to things like the products they offer and the basic claims they make about their products; however, I get uncomfortable pointing readers to any source that is blatantly promotional or makes outlandish product claims -- we shouldn't assist in disseminating such claims. So whenever possible, I would choose a neutral third-party source over the company as a source. It's a fine line, but I think between the lot of us, we should be able to keep on top of it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, we could name the products without linking to the site. It's only a problem if someone WP:PROVEITs the section. Which would be weird, since the company makes juice, vitamins and carbonated drinks, obviously. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is evidence that these products do some good, though I also agree the intro should be more "neutral." As it stands now it is very biased in a negative direction. Compare it to the intro for AMWAY, a similar MLM company. Here are some cites to some of the studies. I would recommend we add some of this to the Product research section, as well, but I'll put that under another post as doesn't apply to this section.

References: [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3046208/ [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21569436/ [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3133683/ Tonyhammond (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012

source/reference [5] should be deleted because it no longer exists or can be accessed. Tonyhammond (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: A source being WP:OFFLINE is not a sufficient reason to remove it. Readers with access to offline archives of the Palm Beach Post should have no trouble locating the article for verification. Kilopi (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Product Research

This section is based on old information mostly from 2008 and prior. It presents a one-dided view of the research and benefits of anti-oxidants in general. Recommend recently available studies and presenting a more balanced view by adding following.

While studies have failed to show the benefit of polyphenols, in vivo, more recent studies have suggested in vivo benefits of other nutritional components of Monavie. In one study, researchers reported that the polysaccharide components of Acai induced innate immune responses and "have implications for the treatment of asthma and infectious disease.” [28] Another study concluded that “consumption of açai fruit pulp reduced levels of selected markers of metabolic disease risk in overweight adults, indicating that further studies are warranted.” [29] And in yet another study, scientists reported that consumption of Monavie Active juice “resulted in significant pain reduction, improved ROM (range of motion) measures, and improvement in ADLs (activities of daily living) for participants of a 12-week study.” [30] Tonyhammond (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to do with those studies. The first two involve Acai components, but to my knowledge, MonaVie considers the actual amount of acai in their products a trade secret. Without knowing how much of the studied nutrient is in a serving of MonaVie juice, it's difficult to draw a conclusion relevant to this article. The third study - the one coauthored by MonaVie's science advisor - doesn't seem like a very well-designed study: There were only 14 subjects, with no control group, and data for 2 of them were discarded as outliers for reasons that weren't well explained. Kilopi (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good point about the acai, but I can think of two good reasons why it is appropriate to cite studies of acai. First and foremost, the FDA requires product labels to list ingredients in order of content and acai is one of the first ingredients listed on the bottles. Second, the criticisms in the start of the product research section single out specific components of the juice (lesser components I might add) in order to criticize the product. It only seems fair to also shed light on the the more prevalent components with positive results to report. Otherwise, the article is very one-sided. I struggled with the last article as well, but decided to include it as a reference for two reasons. First, it was specifically about a Monavie product. Second, similar to my last comment, several of the criticisms in the article were based on even less evidence--most importantly the one negative clinical case presented is cited as an adverse warning with only one such case and no clear cause and effect to prove that Monavie was the culprit--don't think that means I am suggesting one should disregard the concern--only that the proof on the other side of this issue is even more sparse. If the Monavie Active cite is not credible, maybe the other cites should not be considered credible as well...your call. I am okay either way. Just looking for balance. Tonyhammond (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Monavie is not synonymous with acai and acai is not synonymous with Monavie. Acai is only one of many ingredients in the product and the amount is unknown (secondary sources seem to suggest that it would be a rather low amount). It would not be appropriate to include articles that are specific to acai but do not mention Monavie. For example, grape juice is a major component of Monavie, but it would not be appropriate to include a discussion about grapes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that acai and Monavie are not the same thing, but there is an argument that the two are intimately linked. Cranberry juice cocktail is not all cranberry juice either, but we still talk about the cranberry, and V8 juice is not any one particular vegetable either but we talk about the components. The point I raise is that the criticisms are focusing on individual components, so--in order to present a more balanced and neutral view--the other more positive components should be raised as well. Either that or remove both comments. This is all the more important when the one component is a larger proportion of the product.Tonyhammond (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that it can be fairly argued that Monavie and acai are intimately linked; quite the contrary in fact according to the quote from Ralph Carson, who developed the product: "Ralph Carson, the original developer of Monavie and the company’s chief science officer cautioned that the juice was 'expensive flavored water' and that 'any claims made are purely hypothetical, unsubstantiated and, quite frankly, bogus,'. Carson added 'if you were to ask me how much acai is in the product, I do not know'."[7] However, I'm inclined to agree that the generic discussion about polyphenols may represent improper synthesis, since it does not specifically mention Monavie. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others think as well. One response on Ralph Carson, his comments are almost a decade old now, and a lot of research has occured since then.Tonyhammond (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The quote from Carson was from an article published in the Salt Lake Tribune in December 2011.[31]

you are correct that the quote was repeated in a recent article. But the SOURCE is an internal memo written by Mr. Carson that was cited in an AMWAY-MONAVIE lawsuit. The memo had been written years ago when Monavie was first being developed. Suggest we let some other folks weigh in so we can get a more balanced view.Tonyhammond (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The lawsuit was filed in 2008; the article does not state the date that the internal memo was written. Regardless, I fail too see the point that you are trying to make with regard to Carson's comment or how the date is even relevant. Carson, the product developer, referred to Monavie as "expensive flavored water" with an unknown amount of acai, and he said that the claims about the product were "bogus". It's clearly a reliable source and extremely relevant. Do you have a specific editing suggestion here with respect to Carson and the SLT quote? Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that Carson's letter is a relevant source for THIS discussion regarding CURRENT studies. His comment was made before these studies were done. I am suggesting we provide updated information in this article based on the facts of current studies rather than opinions recorded long ago. That is my point.Tonyhammond (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's still not clear what you are proposing. Is it that Carson's comments should not be in the article or merely that something else should be added. It it's just the latter, then the issue of including studies that mention acai but not Monavie has already been commented on -- i.e., they are not relevant. Please make your editorial suggestions specific. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Rhode Island Red - unless a study mentions MonaVie then we shouldn't include it as a reference here. By all means update the acai article if necessary using the sources, but adding it here requires synthesis of sources so cannot be done. SmartSE (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete intro comment that "business plan resembles a pyramid scheme."

The words "resembles a pyramid scheme" are misleading the same way the old joke "when did you stop beating your wife" implies a man is a wife-beater. Neither is accurate, and both mislead by insinuating the statement is true. The FTC has ruled that compensation models similar to Monavie's are not pyramid schemes. Recommend deleting this erroneous comment.Tonyhammond (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you argue with those making the statements cited. Though if you can't understand the difference between 'is' and 'resembles', you aren't going to get far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I definitely understand the difference between is and resembles. A cat resembles a dog in that both are four-legged, have hair and are domesticated, but to imply a cat is anything like a dog by saying it resembles one is misleading at best and simply untrue. The only purpose for doing so would be to malign either the cat or the dog, depending on which side of that argument you are on. You suggest I should argue with the persons making the statements cited. I thought we are supposed to be trying to improve the wikipedia article so it is accurate, not repeating misinformed, untrue statements that we know have been proved to be untrue by a reliable source. So, being new to this process, how do I get this to be corrected to a more accurate article, since this is clearly erroneous, biased and in violation of Wikipedia's own rules?96.28.85.164 (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate my request to delete the words"resembles a pyramid scheme" and ask that others please weigh in on this issue. If I need to repeat the citation, I can, but I believe it is referenced in the prior article and even in the AMWAY article.Tonyhammond (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols

The article section on product and research goes to great pains to make it sound like the polyphenols in Monavie have no benefit in vivo. This is in direct contradiction to Wikipedia's own article titled "Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols" where the anti-inflammatory benefits of polyphenols and other benefits in vivo are reported. Recommend removing that entire paragraph until a more appropriate and scientifically accurate discussion can take its place.Tonyhammond (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is direct quote from Wikipedia article "Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols." Consuming dietary polyphenols may be associated with effects in higher animal species:

- Possible reduction in inflammation such as in coronary artery disease[6][7] including specific research on endothelial cells via downregulation of oxidative LDL.[8]

- Other possible effects may result from consumption of foods rich in polyphenols, but are not yet proved scientifically in humans so are not allowed as health statements by regulatory authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Among these are possible anti-aging effects in skin.[9] Further research may discern if polyphenol antioxidants have biological roles in vivo.[10][11]

Could substitute above paragraph for the paragraph on polyphenols in the Monavie article.Tonyhammond (talk)

No. We are not going to violate WP:MEDRS to help you push your overpriced fruit juice with weasel-worded nonsense. 'Not scientifically proven' means exactly what it says. As for 'further research', this would be a lot easier if companies like MonaVie told their customers just how much 'antioxidant' there actually was in the product. And BTW, we don't cite our own articles as sources - though if we did, your cherry-picked interpretation of the article wouldn't be acceptable anyway. It quite specifically states that "caution should be exercised in attempting diets depending largely on dietary supplements as opposed to a broad array of food sources, since the quality and concentrations of beneficial chemicals in some commercial products is subject to question". AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Did not and would not suggest violating any reliable source criteria. Further, am not suggesting you use one Wiki article to support another. However, the sources cited in that article are just as valid for the Monavie article if addressing polyphenols. My point is that the current Monavie article is highly biased in a negative way and the other article is more balanced and more accurate--presenting both sides of the issue. The sources cited in the polyphenol article are more credible and there is a preponderance of scientific evidence now available to suggest that the Monavie article is erroneous, biased, and violates Wikipedia's criteria that articles be balanced, unbiased and not push someone's personal agenda. It seems like someone here is pushing an anti-MonaVie agenda rather than one of presenting a balanced, unbiased view. If you can't support presenting a balanced, unbiased view, then I recommend dropping the paragraph entirely.Tonyhammond (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited in the polyphenol article are not about MonaVie. It would violate WP:MEDRS (and common sense) to suggest that they were. We don't lie to our readers to suit the wishes of promoters of dubious 'multi-level marketing' schemes. If you can't stop pushing a pro-MonaVie agenda, I suggest you do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not pushing a pro-MonaVie agenda, but I am disconcerted with the anti-Monavie agenda that you and others seem to be promoting. I am just trying to understand why it is okay to malign a product with articles that do not refer to the product but instead refer to components of the product, but it is not okay to refute those erroneous statements with more recent scientific evidence. Is Wikipedia about presenting the truth or your agenda? As early as 2005 the Journal of Clinical Nutrition was reporting on the benefits of and anti-inflamatory properties of polyphenols...here is one article from 2005 other, more recent articles abound...Polyphenols: antioxidants and beyond,Augustin Scalbert, et al, an excerpt from the abstract is below:

Research on the effects of dietary polyphenols on human health has developed considerably in the past 10 y. It strongly supports a role for polyphenols in the prevention of degenerative diseases, particularly cardiovascular diseases and cancers. The antioxidant properties of polyphenols have been widely studied, but it has become clear that the mechanisms of action of polyphenols go beyond the modulation of oxidative stress....it seems to me the outdated references in the article should be replaced with more recent scientific evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.85.164 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about the effects of dietary polyphenols on human health. It will not be so unless and until the supposed benefits of the product itself are backed by direct and appropriate scientific evidence, in compliance with WP:MEDRS policy. We aren't here to promote your overpriced fruit juice scam. <-expletive deleted ->. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way rather than want to have a rational discussion of the subject. I believe you leave me no recourse except to submit these discussions for internal dispute resolution.96.28.85.164 (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I will try to give this one more shot for rational discourse in case others are willing to weigh in here. The article states"there remains no physiological evidence that any fruit polyphenols have such actions in humans or that oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) has any relevance in the human body.[26] On the contrary, research indicates that although polyphenols are good antioxidants in vitro, antioxidant effects in vivo are probably negligible or absent." The reference I cited and other more recent studies directly refute the statement "there remains no physiological evidence that any fruit polyphenols have such actions in humans..." My second point, is that these statements are made about polyphenols, not Monavie, so it is reasonable to use other statements about polyphenols to refute their inaccuracy. The citations and discussion in the Wiki article on Polyphenols, as I mentioned, do present a more balanced view, which is why I was suggesting it as a model for what might be used in this article. The article on polyphenols mentions both sides of the issue not just the negative one. thank you for you consideration. If we can get a consensus that we should make the article more balanced, I would be willing to suggest some language for doing so.Tonyhammond (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:MEDRS requires very good sources for any health-related claim. I don't see any such source making those claims for Mona vie. Our article Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols says that there is still little proof of its effects of humans, so we shouldn't make such claims here. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree that we should not be making health claims. That is not what I requested. I am asking that we DELETE the erroneous claim against polyphenols. The fact that more evidence is needed to prove other claims about polyphenols does not mean that "there is no phsiological evidence" as the cited article states. I can provide additional citations if needed.Tonyhammond (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Note the use of "possible" and "may". And note that 2 of the 3 supporting references make clear that there is still no solid proof: "Evidence of benefit still fragmentary"[32], "Mounting evidence shows that phenol-rich beverages exert strong antioxidant activity. However, in vivo evidence has produced conflicting results"[33]. The third reference is a divulgation book that makes wide-ranging claims without citing studies, and other sources in the article contradict it. The FDA says that the only antioxidant with a proven effect on humans in vivo are vitamin A, C or E. All the other antioxidants don't have a Reference Daily Intake and manufacturers of food can't make health claims or infer that there are health benefits [34] (I added this reference to Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols).

So, our article should reflect the mainstream view that beneficial effects on humans are still unproven. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I followed up on Tony's concern's and focused my attention solely on the issue of the quality of evidence regarding polyphenols in the two articles in question. I had a look at the Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols article, which Tony has suggested as a template for the Monavie article, and IMO the section on antioxidant effects in vivo is extremely weak and outdated. The article states:

“Consuming dietary polyphenols may be associated with effects in higher animal species: possible reduction in inflammation such as in coronary artery disease[6][7] including specific research on endothelial cells via downregulation of oxidative LDL.[8]"

It cites 3 sources in support of this statement: The first of these sources (BMJ) is an outdated review article from 1996 (and it just so happens that the opening statement in the article is "evidence of benefit still fragmentary", which is not supportive of an antioxidant effect of polyphenols in vivo). The second source (The Cardiovascular Cure) is also outdated (2002) and it can be categorized as a pop-health book for consumers -- in other words it's a pretty crap source for anything related to science. The third source (BNJ) is also outdated (2000). The aforementioned WP article on polyphenols also goes on to state that scientific proof is lacking regarding their in vivo effects in humans, but inexplicably goes on to assert nonetheless that polyphenols may have anti-aging effects (citing an in vitro study from 1998 [35] and that its role is being explored in further studies (citing 2 pretty worthless in vitro studies[36][37]) that may prove its physiological role in vivo.

Now compare that with the sources cited about polyphenols in the Monavie article. All of these article are more recent and supersede (published between 2004-2010) the studies that Tony directed us to. One was a fairly compelling review article published by Balz Frei in 2006. The sources in the MV article also deal directly with the effects of polyphenols in humans, unlike the test tube studies mentioned in Tony's preferred version, and included among them are highly credible sources such as the FDAs and EFSAs guidance for food manufacturers regarding health claims. The EFSA (2010) states the following:

"No human studies which investigated the effects of the food(s)/food constituent(s) on reliable markers of oxidative damage to body cells or to molecules such as DNA, proteins and lipids have been provided in relation to any of the health claims evaluated in this opinion. The evidence provided in the animal and in vitro studies submitted is not sufficient to predict the occurrence of an effect of the food(s)/food constituent(s) on the protection of body cells and molecules such as DNA, proteins and lipids from oxidative damage in vivo in humans."

The FDA document (2008), while not dealing directly with polyphenols, makes very relevant and impactful statements about advertising of antioxidant content and antioxidant-related health claims by food manufacturers:

"1. Is an antioxidant claim a nutrient content claim? Yes. A claim that describes the level of antioxidant nutrients present in a food is a nutrient content claim and may be used on the label or in the labeling of a food when the conditions of use in the regulation are met (21 CFR 101.54(g))."

"2. Can I make an antioxidant nutrient content claim for any ingredient in a food? No. An antioxidant nutrient content claim can only be made for nutrients for which there is an RDI established in 21 CFR 101.9 (21 CFR 101.54(g)(l))."

"3. Does the claim apply to all nutrients listed in 21 CFR 101.9? No. The nutrient that is the subject of the claim must have recognized antioxidant activity. That is, there must be scientific evidence that after it is eaten and absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, the substance participates in physiological, biochemical, or cellular processes that inactivate free radicals or prevent free radical-initiated chemical reactions (2 1 CFR 101.54(g)(2))."

The FDA document pertains to Monavie's claims about having high antioxidant and polyphenol content, both of which have been strongly contested by other secondary sources cited in the MV article. It was shown that MV does not contain high levels of antioxidants and polyphenols, and even if it did, there is no reason to think that this would translate directly into health benefits. Also, we have to consider the recent USDA decision to abandon ORAC scores because the measure is scientifically invalid and essentially worthless (high ORAC scores were touted as a selling point for Monavie). See the opening paragraph of the WP article on oxygen radical absorbance capacity:

"A wide variety of foods has been tested using this method, with certain spices, berries and legumes rated highly in extensive tables once published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), but these were withdrawn in 2012 as biologically invalid,[3] as no physiological proof in vivo exists that the free-radical theory is valid. Consequently, the ORAC method, derived only in in vitro experiments, cannot be interpreted as relevant to human diets or biology."

I also notice that there is a tendency for laypeople when they see a statement about how evidence for something is lacking to interpret that to mean the evidence is forthcoming, but it doesn't. Unproven doesn't mean "unproven YET"; it just means unproven. So keep that in mind when you see a statement like "marshmallows may cure cancer but conclusive evidence has not yet been provided".

In conclusion, I have no choice but to reject the notion that the article suggested by Tony should be used as a a template for the content about polyphenols in the MV article. Quite the contrary, it's the other way around. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that detailed analysis. I guess that suggests that the Polyphenol page is the one tthat needs updated.Tonyhammond (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That article certainly needs less clinical papers and more secondary reviews of the literature (books, reviews, meta-reviews, commentaries from medicine-related associations, etc). The article suffers from a very usual problem in semi-obscure topics: there is a scarcity of secondary sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Intro Section

I could use some help in formulating the following edit correctly (i.e., to meet WP standards). The Monavie WP Article starts with a description of Monavie, and then states,

"MonaVie has been the subject of several controversies, notably: health claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities, its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage, its business plan resembles a pyramid scheme, and few of its distributors actually make a profit."

I would like to add the following statement to present a more neutral POV.

"Conversely, MonaVie has also received positive reviews. It has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, has received positive reviews from MLM business reviewers, and its Founder and Chairman, Dallin Larsen, was named Ernst & Young’s Entrepreneur of the Year in 2009."

sources for this statement are:

[1] http://www.bbb.org/utah/business-reviews/multi-level-selling-companies/monavie-in-south-jordan-ut-21000953

[2] http://www.networkmarketing247.com/monavie/monavie-review-one-of-the-good-guys/

[3] http://www.michaeltmak.com/mlm-companies/monavie/is-monavie-a-scam-or-not-the-truth-about-monavie-2/

[4] http://www.ey.com/US/en/Newsroom/News-releases/Dallin-Larsen-EOY-2009-Emerging-category

[5] http://images.buinessweek.com/ss/09/11/1116_entrepreneurs_of_the_year_2009/7.htm

[6] http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20090616005346/en/dallin-a.-larsen/dallin-larsen/direct-selling

Any comments would be appreciatedTonyhammond (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(1): "BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services".

(2), why would anyone consider Network Marketing Insider reliable source? Apart from anything else it appears to be a blog, written by "a full time internet network marketer". If you think it is valid, take it to WP:RSN and ask - but don't get your hopes up.

(3): A blog.

(4): "The page you have attempted to reach is either unavailable or does not exist".

(5): Is this the correct link? It seems to be a 'Welcome to BUINESSWEEK.COM' page.

(6): A press release - "MonaVie (www.monavie.com), maker of the premier blend of the Brazilian acai berry, today announces that Dallin A. Larsen received the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year® Award in the Distribution and Manufacturing category in the Utah Region". So only "Ernst & Young’s Entrepreneur of the Year in 2009" for "the Distribution and Manufacturing category in the Utah Region". Please do not misrepresent sources, even ones we aren't going to use.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh...no Tony, that's hardly "a more neutral POV"; quite the contrary. The critical statement in the lead is a summary of a consensus POV based on numerous reliable sources. It would not be a more neutral POV to negate that consensual statement by beginning the next sentence "conversely Monavie has received positive reviews", nor would such a statement deserve equal weight in the lead. Most of the links (4/6) you provided are not positive reviews. Dallin Larsen winning some obscure award(s) from E&Y (the significance of which is very debatable) is not equivalent to a "positive review" of Monavie, and even if it were, it would be a WP:FRINGE POV. As Andy pointed out, the blogs you put forth are not WP:RS; not only do they not merit merit equal footing with other sources cited in the lead, it's downright laughable to see that these are being proposed as a means of presenting a "more neutral POV". As Andy also pointed out, BBB ratings are pretty close to worthless and can they be jiggered simply by paying money to the organization. Based on your proposal (and previous ones), I find it hard to accept your claim at face value that your interest is in presenting a more balanced POV. It looks more like your goal is only to say something good about Monavie regardless of whether it's valid, reliably sourced, or outweighed by a conflicting consensus POV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The 4th cite above, is the same as #22 on the Monavie article. In previous talk page discussion I was told that a citation being removed from the website is not sufficient reason to remove a citation as it could still be obtained by the source. Further, this article that is cited, specifically references a very credible source that is in direct contrast to the negative comment about Mr. Larsen. If E&Y's selection committee and award cannot be considered a more reliable source as to the character of Mr. Larsen than the citation given that makes negative comments about him, then I don't see where there is a neutral POV being presented. It sounds like we are assuming guilt by association. Just like we claim that the article must be about Monavie, we must be neutral on our evaluation of Mr. Larsen and not malign him over association with a product he did not create and which is not Monavie--at least not on the Monavie page.205.145.107.100 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding you statement about the BBB, I agree that the BBB “refrains from recommending or endorsing any business, product or service.” However, I believe you are incorrect with regard to the rest of your statement. The BBB does in fact evaluate businesses. On the BBB website, the Bureau provides, and I quote, the “BBB standards against which businesses are evaluated” in its response to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The FAQs state, “The BBB Standards of Trust are a comprehensive set of best practices for how businesses should treat the public in a fair and honest manner,” and the BBB monitors accredited businesses for “continuing adherence to BBB standards.” <http://www.bbb.org/us/bbb-faqs/> The BBB Standards of Trust can be found at the following link, and include the requirement that a company “honestly represent products and services,” advertises honestly, is transparent, and “approaches all business dealings … with integrity.” <http://www.bbb.org/us/bbb-standards-for-trust/> Thus, I still believe it is a reliable source for citation regarding the honesty and integrity of a business, unless one is simply so biased against a company that one refuses to believe any credible source that would change one’s mind. The fact that it is indeed an independent source that millions of consumers and businesses rely on to evaluate the integrity of businesses would also suggest that it is a consensual, reliable source suitable for Wikipedia.Tonyhammond (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services". Seems clear enough to me. Then again, I'm not a MonaVie distributor... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement "Monavie has also received positive reviews" is refering to the company, not to the products--the same as the preceding statement it is comparing with. As I said on WP:RSN, WP:Better Business Bureau has a properly sourced and cited statement that supports BBB as a reliable source in this situation..."The BBB serves as a trusted intermediary between consumers and businesses, handling nearly 1 million consumer disputes against businesses in 2012[6]. The BBB also alerts the public to scams, reviews advertising, and assists when donating to charity." And I agree, seems clear enough to me, too. Then again, I'm not so biased against MonaVie that I won't consider even the most reliable source that disagrees with your bias.Tonyhammond (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

So your argument now boils down to a single source -- the BBB. However, BBB ratings are most definitely unreliable. The organization's ratings have no credibility.[38][39][40][41][42] The BBB might be worth citing if they conducted an investigation of some sort and wrote a real article about it, but their letter ratings are pretty close to useless. So let's put an end to this argument. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the neutrality of the lede, see WP:UNDUE. We should not attempt to present both "sides" equally, but instead represent the consensus of reliable sources independent of the topic. The change you are proposing does not appear warranted or neutral. VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with WP:UNDUE, but I disagree that there is a consensus of reliable sources that support a negative bias of the company that overwhelmingly exceeds reason and positive POV about the company. If having a lot of detractors means there is a consensus view that WP should support, then we would not cite the FDA as the final arbiter of nutrition information nor would we believe the government could do anything right. A lot of negative reliable sources is not the appropriate measure of whether a view is neutral.Tonyhammond (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to argue with established Wikipedia policy, this isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing with established policy, I am agreeing with it. This article does not meet the criteria of WP:NPOV by any stretch of the imagination, and I have to wonder if anything of any sort positive were to be suggested for an edit, if it would get past the editors for this page. So, I have to ask, would you approve ANY edit that has a reliable source and is positive about the company?Tonyhammond (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If the source was relevant and from an independent reliable source, and the edit accurately reflected what the source said, I can't see why not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Stick to the facts Tony. You're ignoring them when they are presented to you and still insisting that the article is not NPOV. If you can't prove your point, then drop it, because it's starting to look to me that if you can't get your way, you're intention is to punish other editors by wasting their valuable time with endless circular arguments. As a single purpose account with a WP:COI, you're on thin ice as it is. Everyone is telling you the same thing, so show some respect for consensus and stop refusing to get the point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What is this source being cited for?

"MonaVie juice was launched in January 2005 by MLM company Monarch Health Sciences, founded in 2003 as a distributor of diet and weight loss supplements. Also in 2005, the executives of Monarch founded MonaVie LLC/MonaVie Inc., a privately held MLM company based in Salt Lake City, Utah. The newly formed company took over the bottling, distribution, and marketing of MonaVie juice products. Both Monarch Health Sciences and MonaVie, Inc. were founded by Dallin Larsen, who graduated from Brigham Young University with a B.S. degree in finance.". [43]

What is the source cited here (http://www.secinfo.com/dS9Jj.6k8.htm#ptk) being cited for? If it being cited for Dallin Larsen graduating from Brigham Young University, as the position of the citation might imply, I have to question its validity as a source, given that it appears to be a copy of a statement submitted to the SEC relating to a 1999 shareholders meeting for a company named 'Usana Health Sciences Inc', rather than anything about Larsen himself, who seems to have been Vice President of Sales and a minor shareholder. While I have no reason to doubt Larsen's graduation, a better source than this must surely be available?

On reflection, one might of course ask why Larsen's graduation is of any particular relevance to the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I would just end the sentence at Dallin Larsen. I'm not sure why having a BS degree in finance is noteworthy.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. It's gone. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajeev_Nair Korakkod (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The article concerned should almost certainly never have been created, on WP:BLP and notability grounds. I have proposed that it be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2013

• Mona.Vie India Blog

A2zankit (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Link does not meet Wikipedia policy, see WP:ELNO. Grayfell (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

MonaVie communication to distributors regarding FTC guidelines

In December 2009, MonaVie sent a communication to all its distributors, as well as posted publicly on its blog, 5 Tips Every MonaVie Distributor Needs to Know About the New FTC Guidelines. This should probably be mentioned somewhere in the Criticism section, maybe under the Misleading advertising and health claims section.

ScottAllenOnline (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that is encyclopedic or that would qualify as criticism. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the company's response to these issues. Doesn't seem balanced / unbiased to say that there were all these criticisms of the company about not following FTC guidelines without also saying that the company formally addressed them... after most of the complaints listed here. ScottAllenOnline (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an internal communique to distributors; it is not a direct response to criticism. Additionally, it's also a primary source and to give it equal weight to offset criticism from many secondary sources would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, among other issues. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In this case, Forbes not a reliable or unbiased source

First off, the quotes selected from the Forbes article clearly demonstrated the bias of that article, unfounded in facts, e.g., "all these juice selling schemes", "flog", "wiggle room", etc. The article was clearly intended to be inflammatory. The fact is, nearly five years after that article, neither MonaVie or Team or Orrin Woodward have had any issues with the FTC.

MLM industry expert and watchdog Troy Dooly has a point by point rebuttal of the Forbes article. Being a self-published site, I don't know if he meets the reliable source criteria, but his site's been around more than 10 years and he's one of the leading industry authorities. Also, perhaps to make the case for a rebuttal of the Forbes article, it could be considered relevant (you're obviously not going to find a rebuttal of the Forbes article in some other mainstream publication).

ScottAllenOnline (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Forbe's article meets WP:RS. The other site that you mentioned does not. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

So what's the recourse when a reliable resource isn't reliable? There are plenty of times when usually reliable sources get it wrong, and it doesn't always come out in another major media source. ScottAllenOnline (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether a reliable source is correct or not isn't important - what matters is that the information in the article is verifiable, which it is. If the source is libelous that needs to be argued with the original publisher of it, but there is no reason that we cannot cite it. SmartSE (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are Orrin Woodward Wikipedia searches directed to this page to begin with? It seems like he could have his own page as New York Times best seller, cofounder of LIFE, any related controversy, etc. --Evmore (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Trademark Cases in Litigation

I contend that some of the trademark cases in the Litigation section are non-notable as they fail to meet the criteria (WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:LASTING). I think the lede for that section should remain as is, and the non-notable, dismissed cases (i.e. Fruitology, Imaginetix, Amway, and Amazon Thunder) should be removed. Blueskymorning (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Blueskymorning

Okay, I removed a couple, but I don't think you looked very hard for sources. The Amway and Imaginetix suits are both well documented. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Newsweek source is a deadlink

From MonaVie Please remove the newsweek source, cite 10

http://www.newsweek.com/id/150499/page/1

It is a dead link. The text is already supported by other blogposts about schemes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.7.162 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Newsweek source is broken, but easily fixed. It's not always a good idea to remove a link just because it's dead. See WP:LINKROT. I am, however, removing the 'Huffington Post' source, since it's of questionable pedigree, per comments this IP posted on my talk page. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Key People Edit

Hey everyone, after looking through this article and doing some background research on the company, I've noticed that the CEO is often speaking on the company's behalf [44] -- shouldn't he be included under the "key people" section of the block on the right side of the page? I've also seen a number of other company pages where the CEO is mentioned. Adamh4 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I added him. The lack of a clear-cut editor guideline from Obtainer Online is a bit concerning. The article lacks a named interviewer as well, but for something like this it seems ok. Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! The source definitely wasn't the best, I was mostly just trying to show that he got press attention, but I'm glad it was enough to get his name on there.

So I've been looking through the article and there are a few other things I think we should consider changing. In the final sentence of the lede, it says "its business plan resembles a pyramid scheme." I feel as though this is redundant, because the term multilevel marketing already implies that it operates similarly to a pyramid scheme, and the repetition of the term makes it seem like the article is trying to emphasize this potentially negative information. I've been looking at some other MLM pages and they don't include that: [45] [46] [47] [48] What do you think? Adamh4 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph in the 'Criticism' section relating to 'pyramid scheme allegations' is well sourced, and the lede is supposed to summarise the article body. As for other articles, we take each subject on its own merits, and base it on the available sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, before proposing significant changes to the article, I'd recommend looking through the archives for this page - the 'pyramid scheme' reference has been discussed before multiple times. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"False Claims"

There are a number of problems with the statement " its CEO was previously involved in false health claims of another beverage" and the sources that come with it. In the first source, the only mention of “false claims” are referring to things said by Ralph Carson, who at the time was the CSO, and currently does not work for the company because he was replaced by Shawn Talbott. The second source mentions false claims made by a few doctors, but has no mention of the CEO of MonaVie. The third source, the Newsweek article, states “Larsen says he reminds people that MonaVie ‘is just a juice.’" This statement is him downplaying any of the false claims that had been previously made, which directly contradicts the statement that this source is attached to. Finally, the fourth source is a dead link. I think this statement is poorly sourced, ultimately inaccurate and should be removed. Let me know what you all think. Adamh4 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement is clearly referring to Larsen, not Carson - and the fact that Larsen made false claims regarding 'Royal Tongan Limu', which led to the FDA issuing an official warning, is well documented in the Salt Lake Tribune and Newsweek articles. If we have Larsen's current job title wrong, it can clearly be corrected, but his previous involvement in the 'Royal Tongan Limu' affair is deemed significant enough to merit discussion in the sources cited - and accordingly, it is significant enough to merit mention in our article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes more sense, I wasn’t sure if that’s what it was supposed to say or not. In that case, the title needs to be changed to “chairman.” Also, we should include that the "false health claims of another beverage" were made when he was a part of another company, which is an important factor of the statement. Thanks for getting back to me. Adamh4 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've amended 'CEO' to 'chairman'. I don't see any need for clarification regarding 'another company' - the word 'previously' seems to me to indicate clearly enough that the claims were made prior to Larsen's involvement with MonaVie. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Larsen left Dynamic Essentials in 2003, and MonaVie was founded in 2005. Therefore, it has been over 11 years since the false claims were made. "Previously" is a vague measurement of time and could indicate any time period of his career. In order to ensure that the reader understands these "false claims" weren't made during his time at MonaVie, we need to state that it was when he was with Dynamic Essentials. Adamh4 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What wording are you proposing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to edit the statement to say "In 2002, Dallin Larsen was accused of making false health claims about Royal Tongan Limu, a beverage made by Dynamic Essentials, a company where he was previously the vice president of sales." Adamh4 (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. For a start, Larsen wasn't just 'accused of' making false claims - he was deeply involved with a company that had its products destroyed by the FDA on the basis of bogus medicinal claims - and as the Newsweek article [49] points out, the FDA subsequently issued a warning to MonaVie regarding claims made regarding their product. As for going into details about exactly what the product or company was, I can't see why it is relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, the "accused of" can be taken out. The product and company are both extremely relevant -- if we neglect that information, the reader will be lead to think his false claims were made during his time at MonaVie (considering this is a MonaVie article,) which is not true. I can go ahead and make the edit so the statement says "In 2002, Dallin Larsen made false health claims about Royal Tongan Limu, a beverage made by Dynamic Essentials, a company where he was previously the vice president of sales." Adamh4 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the edit. Thanks for clarifying things with me before I did. Adamh4 (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still fail to see why we need to specify the product or company - it isn't relevant to this article. And mentioning Larsen by name before we say who he is makes no sense whatsoever. I am going to revert. I suggest you wait to see what others have to say regarding this - the article has been the subject of considerable discussion, and we should probably try to establish consensus before making substantive changes to the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If the product or company isn't relevant to the article as you say, then the entire controversy of Larsen making false claims should not be mentioned. The way it is worded is leaving out important details, which will lead people who are not aware of the situation to think it was recent or through MonaVie -- neither is true. This is not an issue of relevance, this is an issue of accuracy. If the nature of the controversy is not clear to the reader in the lede, they will be misled. I have stated the importance of the information that was added in multiple times, and have received no valid reasoning for why it is irrelevant.

Furthermore, if including his name before introducing him is unclear, I will gladly say "the founder" when reinstating my edit if you feel as though that is better. Adamh4 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is. It's clear that this was prior to MonaVie, the previous company sold a similar product, and sources agree that Larsen is significant part of MonaVie's history. The proposed edit is unnecessarily complicated for a lead, which should be a simple summary of the body. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

While I can agree that my edit may have been slightly complicated, it is still not clear that the false claims were prior to MonaVie. The article is about MonaVie; unless we specifically say that "another beverage" was not affiliated with MonaVie, the reader will rightly so assume it was. Twelve years is a long time, and the word "previously" does not accurately depict the passage of time associated with this instance. We either need to say it happened in 2002, or need to say that it was with Dynamic Essentials, otherwise there will be confusion. If just one reader misinterprets the statement, we have made a mistake to keep it the way it is, which is why clarification is necessary. Adamh4 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity as far as I can see. The word 'previously' would make no sense whatsoever if we were referring to something Larsen did while at MonaVie. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

MonaVie was founded in 2005. The word "previously" could refer to any year between now and then. The word itself is ambiguous, because it doesn't specify a certain date or period of time. 2002, or during his time at Dynamic Essentials, adds a time to the statement. It currently is unclear and potentially misleading. Adamh4 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made it clear enough why the current statement on the article needs to be edited. I will gladly make the edit myself if you don't want to engage in a constructive discussion about the future of this page and the accuracy at hand. Adamh4 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the lede as it is, as both Grayfell and I have made clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You haven't made it clear why you think the lede is currently acceptable. You have only continued to disagree with me without any rational arguments that validate your opinion. Adamh4 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The lede is acceptable because it is entirely clear that it is not asserting that Larsen made false claims while involved in MonaVie - though it would of course be possible to add to the lede that MonaVie likewise received FDA warnings over false claims, while he was involved, as the NewsWeek source points out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now added 'company' which must make this entirely clear, even to people incapable of reading simple English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That definitely clears up any ambiguity, thanks for adding that in. Glad we could come to a conclusion together. If you'd like to discuss the FDA warning, we can talk about that in another section. Adamh4 (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Product description in infobox

I have edited "Products Açai berry juice beverages and supplements" to read "Products fruit juice beverages and supplements", since we have no source whatsoever stating that Açai berries are the major constituent of the products - to the contrary we have Ralph Carson's statemt that he doesn't know how much açai is in the product, along with his description of it as "expensive flavored water". AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, I agree that needed to be upgraded. While we're working on the infobox, do you think we could try and update the number of employees? The current number is from 5 years ago, and I'm thinking it might have changed. I know primary sources should be avoided, so I'm not sure where to look for this information -- any ideas? Adamh4 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

requested edits made

The following request was posted on my talk p. (and on that of another editor, Zefr ):

MonaVie manufactures and distributes products made from blended fruit and vegetable juice concentrates, powders and purées through a multi-level marketing (MLM) business model. The company has been the subject of several controversies, such as the health claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities,[4][5][6][7][8] and its chairman was previously involved in false health claims concerning another beverage company.[9][10][11][12] According to Forbes, its business plan resembles a pyramid scheme.[11][13]

My changes are these: I changed the second sentence to start with "The company" so that the first two sentences don't start the same. I changed "notably" to "such as the" so that it is easier to read. I added a period to make a third sentence for the second one to not be so long. My third sentence states the web source (Forbes) that called MonaVie a pyramid and the Newsweek web source calls MonaVie a scheme. I took out the last part because it is restating what a pyramid scheme and the clickable link does this.

The other editor regards these as clear improvements. I do also, except that I have previous said that I consider the explanatory part of the final sentence reasonably appropriate as a brief explanation. But I don't insist on that, especially considering the other editor's opinion. I have therefore made the changes.

I consider that it would be reasonable to have made all changes but the last one without asking permission; they're pretty obvious style improvements. I think it was a good idea to ask for an ok on the final one, which is a little more substantial. I suggest that requests for similar changes be made directly here, and that (as one good alternative to the requestedit template) other editors be invited to look at them. That makes them immediate available to anyone else also.

I shall make one or two other style improvements, including omission all the officials other than the ceo from the infobox, which has become our standard practice except for the few most famous & extensive companies . DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I responded directly to the user's Talk page, recommending liberal editing according to WP:BRD. I felt the recommended changes were fine as suggested, as they were minor edits, and could have been made without checking for approval. --Zefr (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality?

While they may be a terrible company, the page is basically just a giant negative entry. Not very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.208.217 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the article? Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What information about the company and its products – that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia article – do you feel has been omitted? Has that information been published in indepedent, reliable sources that could form the basis for changes or additions to Wikipedia's article? Or – to ask a rather broader question – what do you believe would make this entry more "useful"? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)