Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 16 June 2006

I don't think "What health professionals say" is NPOV in the sense that it does not add to the discussion of what JP is. The link is currently one of several which directly point to marketing language on the corporate distributors website. Misplaced Pages is not to be a marketing conduit and I think it should be removed. --24.33.149.248 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Biased Opinions

It is clear that this is a very biased article and even just the section titled "Research" displays this. Read it carefully and note how even a simple section as this goes on the attack immediately. Why not simply add this paragraph titled "Research" to the section titled "Criticisms." Then you have to ask yourself why there is even a paragraph titled "Criticisms" and why this article does not simply state the facts on all sides. This article does not belong here and has limited to no credibility.

"Eight studies on Juice Plus have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of the studies were funded and co-written by the manufacturer. Only 3 were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. Several of the studies showed poor results with regard to (a) the content and absorption of several key nutrients and antioxidants, (b) antioxidant effects, and (c) effects on homocysteine, LDL, and cholesterol levels. Other studies are in progress but have not been published. To date, the products that have been studied are Garden Blend and Orchard Blend (2 capsules of each taken daily in most of the studies), and Vineyard Blend (taken in combination with Garden and Orchard Blend in one study)."

It is truly sad that someone would use this tool to state their own biased opinion and not use it for factual evidence to help others seeking the truth and facts regarding a particular subject.

While I can see that the article does not discuss JP+ in a flattering light, I do not agree that the article is an attack. I started this article as a research product into Juice Plus+, a subject of interest without any previous POV and it was interesting to see how a community developed (see the history) which established a compromise which, in my opinion, more accurately reflected the truth. I did not add the information, but it is important that only three studies were randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. This is fact, not attack or judgement from which one may draw their own conclusions. I have found this article very informative and consider the subject matter noteworthy. --Tbbooher 13:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't see anything controversial about it. Please clarify what you see as controversial.

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

Now it's a definition!

Now it's a valid definition and not simply a product attack.

Vandalism Above

Please do not remove content from Misplaced Pages; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Perhaps we should protect the article since whoever is at () is intent on vandalism. Feel free to quote more research and published information that you feel should be in the article, but please stop undoing the serious research of others. Misplaced Pages requires "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable." the current article meets these criteria. --Tbbooher 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Wikify

What needs to be done in order to wikify? I am familiar with the term and meaning. This article seems to meet requirements already. Can anyone please comment. I will remove the notice in a week if no comments follow. Tbbooher 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your comment. The article did link already, especially to external links, but scrubbing the article for more links can't hurt. I can prob do it this weekend. Tbbooher 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Expert

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

Why the attack?

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

Delete Article

If you would like me to I could add all sorts of text taken directly from the studies done on Juice Plus+ and we can go back and forth debating this on line and in this forum. I can cut and paste with the best of them, and I know how and where to find all the research too. But, does that really make sense and who would that serve? Wouldn't this article serve the public better if it was a simple, clean and non-bias definition of the product?

Please sign your articles and do not delete content. If you can add NPOV content to the article, please do so. If you have research to reference that provides independent insight, please do so. Testimonials are marketing language are not, by definition, NPOV. The point of the article is to present the truth in an unbiased manner. That might mean that the article does not positively promote a product. Statements like "direct and multi-level marketing" are true, that is the distribution medium. A statement like "independent marketing" is vague and left open to interpretation. As a research scientist my only interest is to understand the truth and preserve the truth in the article and prevent vandalism and the infusion of marketing language. The public is served by a complete description that references the scientifc community. So the Misplaced Pages community welcomes summaries of positive research which would add to the article. It would be wrong for someone to defame the product without reference. In any case, it is wrong to delete accurate and referenced content of others. Tbbooher 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article could benefit from more summaries of the scientific research with positive findings (if they are out there). Looking at the article history is interesting, it is a good thing there are many more positive people trying to represent reality and inform people than the vandal that seems intent on marketing the product described on this page. It is a good thing the cigaratte industry doesn't have someone to continually vandalize the section on Tobacco smoking and insist the article is short and only says positive things about smoking, ignoring any critical work in the scientific community. 134.205.133.251 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)