| Revision as of 18:50, 11 April 2012 editLeef5 (talk | contribs)Rollbackers1,569 edits →Andrew Weil: my 2 cents on Weil and Bowden← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:18, 11 April 2012 edit undoAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,013 edits →Andrew Weil: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| Can you (a) provide citations for Weil being 'discredited', and (b) tell us where he " he goes on to mention his own brand"? ] (]) 17:27, 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"? ] (]) 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. <span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span> <small><sup><font color="orange">]</font> | <font color="black">]</font></sup></small> 18:50, 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. <span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span> <small><sup><font color="orange">]</font> | <font color="black">]</font></sup></small> 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::You may be right about the first source - I think the second (Bowden) might be best discussed at ]. 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 Misplaced Pages policy (] in particular), such claims are entirely unacceptable - and come to that, I think the ] takes a dim view of such claims too. ] (]) 19:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:18, 11 April 2012
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MonaVie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Companies B‑class  | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MonaVie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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)
- 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)
- I agree, why is there no recent happenings section?YorbaLindaOCMan (talk) 20:05, 7 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.
- 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/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. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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 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)
- Your edit has been reverted. 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)
- Monavie is not a pyramid scheme, wikipedia lists it as an MLM company http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)