Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:43, 12 October 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

"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. 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.

(unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

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. (unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

I don't see anything controversial about it. Please clarify what you see as controversial. (unsigned comment from tbbooher)

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)

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 (70.33.58.155, NET-70-32-0-0-1, locatable through Adelphia 70-33-0-0-Z12) 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 positive 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. (unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

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)

Got ya, thanks Yanksox the article should now be wikified. Tbbooher 21:36, 17 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)

Hello. I am a board-certified doctor who has practiced pediatric medicine for more than 30 years and written over 30 children's books. I have also been nominated a fellow in my profession. Moreover, I've consulted as an expert on more than 100 television programs such as 20/20, Donahue, Good Morning America, Oprah, CBS This Morning, CNN, NBC's Today Show and Dateline. Not only that, but I am very familiar with Juice Plus+, in fact I conducted an extremely exhaustive and scientific study resulting in over 500 file folders on the subject. My research proves that the phytonutrients in Juice Plus directly bolster one's immune system causing a definitive improvement in health. Not only has Juice Plus+ been a critical factor in my recovery from colon cancer, but after taking Juice Plus, I haven't even had a common cold or needed my glasses anymore.

I am willing to lend my considerable and respected expertise to cleaning up this site and, consequently, will remove this page's flawed reasoning and present this product in a much better light. However, before I begin, I need assurances that my professional opinions will not be changed and that the article will be locked to prevent vandalism. Once assurances are received on this talk page from Misplaced Pages leadership, I will clean up the article. Dr sears 01:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already had serious questions about your status "doctor." You're requests appear to be outrageous and this is a little too much. Your "expert" opinion, is too bias, and not that of an expert, in my opinion. Yanksox 02:14, 19 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? (unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

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? (unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

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)

The difference is, that Juice Plus+ is proven to work. It's a whole food based supplement -- there are no articifical ingredients. More information is available on my web-site: http://www.askdrsears.com/html/4/t040500.asp. Dr sears 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know this product or company (Juice Plus, NSA, etc) but from looking at the history, there seem to be at least 6 authors adding building this article and a someone at 70.33.58.155 trying to delete their work. I have looked at the "contributions" of 70.33.58.155 and they consist of deleteing information and inserting marketing language. 70.33.58.155 Please don't attribute the consensus of the community to one person and please stop trying to destroy other's work. 69.143.38.167 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are the many bias, attacking, slanting and manipulative examples throughout the Juice Plus+ article (You refers to the author):

In the initial paragraph: "only through direct or multi-level marketing" Instead of saying it's sold through independent distributors (which was a simple edit and was deleted), which is a lot less negative today than mentioning multi-level marketing, which we all know carries a bad stigma today. You chose to use multi-level marketing to get your first dig in there.

In the Product Labeling: "Juice Plus products do not contain certified organic ingredients." What exactly does this mean? When I go to the grocery store and buy an apple, it's not certified either. This is thrown in even into the section that should be a simple ingredients/product labeling section to attack and/or slant against Juice Plus+ again. The product labeling does not make this statement. Again, an attack.

In the entire Adverse Events Profile: This is an extremely bias, one-sided reporting of a few people (which I don't even know to be true) compared with 10's of thousands (if not more) taking the product and seeing incredible results. Why are you not allowing both sides of this to be heard? Why are you attempting to deprive other people of the possibility of some help with their health?

In the Research section: You had to add in "Most of the studies were funded and co-written by the manufacturer" because you feel this sheds some bad light on the product or the research. Who else would be willing to fund all this research? And, if a company didn't fund the research on their own product they or their product would be much better off, why?

Criticisms, Product Claims and Counterclaims is entirely negative and an outright attack, but you think it's not?

The links contain not only "Critical Commentary" but other "Critical Commentary."

Could this article be anymore of an obvious and bias attack on a product?

(unsigned comment by 70.33.58.155)

Please stop posting my I.P. Address

If you would like to assign a name to my comments, you can use "Nick" but putting I.P addresses out there like that simply open things up to malicious type actions over the Internet. I would think you would not want to be responsible for causing problems like that. If you want to block my I.P. address go ahead and do that as I have nothing further to say about this article or anything on Misplaced Pages anymore anyway. I did my best to provide some additional information and some edits, they were promptly deleted and nobody said a word about any of that. Every attempt I made to add something of value was deleted and that was fine.

Nick (unsigned comment by 12.73.180.138)

Nick, contributions need to be attributable to either a registered Misplaced Pages username or an IP address. Rhode Island Red 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To User: Dr sears

The opinions posted under the heading "Support From the Medical Community" do not represent the consensus of the medical community and are not NPOV. The individuals mentioned and quoted are all company spokespersons and have financial interests in the product. The endorsements are on the Juice Plus homepage which is already linked in the entry under "External Links".

The following stement is unsupportable: "From this list, it is clear that the medical community stands behind the efficacy of the Juice Plus+® product. In fact, one can see the suport of not only the medical community, but also the definitive support of the international scientific community. Any criticism of the Juice Plus +® product must be understood in the context of the stature and education level of these professionals." Rhode Island Red 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To Misplaced Pages user Rhode Island Red: I am a respected doctor with an international reputation. Moreover, I am the Misplaced Pages expert assigned to this project with the task of making this article more favorable to the marketing and distribution of Juice Plus+. Removing my content is standing against my medical credentials which I don't think you are qualified to do. Dr sears 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages community has no idea who you are in reality. You are entitled to post information regardless of your true identity, but it is no less likely to be edited simply because you claim to be an authority. I refer you to the following page regarding Appeal to Authority. Rhode Island Red 00:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Expert opinions are NOT brought forth with claims of notability, but citations of sources and clear, coherent, and neutral statements of what is true. Yanksox 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To user Dr sears regarding the following threat you left on my talk page: "You are hereby warned. You are to stop attacking a certain product, which is protected by a company with considerable means." Please do not resort to threatening Misplaced Pages users. That behavior absolutely will not be tolerated and you will be sanctioned if you continue. Rhode Island Red 02:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Expert Needed?

Yanksox -- I don't like what I have seen with a certain 'expert' popping up and don't understand what contributions an expert would make besides referencing more research. The only reason for dispute seems to be one user, who wants more favorable marketing on the site and a self-proclaimed expert who also seems to be marketing the product. It seems that Rhode Island Red has carefully referenced his links and statements, I tried to scan for anything to remove that wasn't supported by research and couldn't find anything. I say we remove the expert tag, as far as encylopedia articles go, this seems large enough for a nutrition product. Perhaps it should even be merged into a larger article on suppliments in general. In any case, what good do you envision to come out of the expert tag? Tbbooher 02:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I expected someone to pose as an "expert." There has been a massive revert war over this article and I applied the tag and am trying to get outside sources into this. I may request for a semi-block. I just wanted a third party in to aliveate this. Also, keep in mind, I'm not an almighty editor. I'm just a normal dude (and in others cases dudette) like everyone else. I'm not infallible. Revert the tag and apply edits as you see fit. I've been trying to act like a mediatator and I side with RhodeIslandRed. The IP and "dr. sears," are just people probably working for this thing. Yanksox 02:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideosyncracies of Juice Plus+ Product Naming

Does anyone know why NSA insists that Juice Plus is written redundantly as Juice ++ with the extra plus? Do they know this is redundant, or is there something clever here as in the C++ name? Or do folks pronounce the title Juice Plus Plus? It also seems the official name (per their web-site) is Juice Plus+® -- which also includes ® symbol. Clearly the word is a registered trademark, but they seem to insist (or continually write) that the trademark registration symbol is part of the name itself. This is odd. Even though Misplaced Pages is a registered trademark we don't ever write, "Today I was on Misplaced Pages® using FireFox® on my Windows(tm) box". This is perhaps more interesting and inciteful than redundancy as it almost implies a defensiveness or insistance that others know it is registered. The question here is why? Is this another attempt to create a sense of legitimacy (as in "hey this is a real product registered with a government body") or a warning to anyone thinking of misusing their trademark? I am not too familar with the economics of the supplement world, but it seems pretty competitive that too the extent where getting a trademark is a sign of notability. Any thoughts? The answer of the actual legal name (and if it includes the registration mark) might be interesting in the article. Tbbooher 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you are right in suggesting that it is to add a veneer of legitimacy. Distributors sometimes claim that JP is produced by a "patented" process (even though it is actually an unpatented "proprietary" process), and refer to how the US Patent/Trademark Office has recognized JP, or some such distortion of the truth. So, I think the exploitation of the copyright symbol in the product name is to make the product or the method of production seem unique and legitimate. I don’t know what to think about the Plus-Plus aspect, other than it is as annoyingly redundant as when people talk about “giving 110 percent” or refer to “ATM machines”, “PIN numbers”, and “salsa sauce”. Rhode Island Red 03:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is another fine example of the high-caliber of this entire Misplaced Pages Web site, this article, and the people working on it. Very impressive, based on facts for sure, not at all speculative and for sure it's totally worth reading. A company has a name for its product and you question why they want it spelled and identified correctly? Using a plus symbol is somehow a distortion of the truth? Oh, I see, it's annoying so it has to be some sort of conspiracy. I can see you are a highly-credible bunch! This whole article clearly comes from an agenda to bash a company and its product, for whatever reason, and anyone who says it's not would have to be completely blind and/or part of the bashing effort. (unsigned comment by 12.73.180.174)

For what it's worth, the words "Juice Plus" alone cannot be a registered trade mark. But a logo using those words including the + symbol can be (and they can have some variations of it), with the ® does show its status as a registered trade mark. This has nothing to do with what industry it is used within, it is standard registered trade marking. Misplaced Pages is apparently not a registered trade mark which would use the ® symbol. If it is, they should learn what's required to protect it and how the name is supposed to be used, but I doubt it is. (unsigned comment by 12.73.183.192)

Thanks for the info, that was the kind of information I was looking for. It is relevant to the page, since whatever the correct and legal name is should be displayed. In fact, Misplaced Pages® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. This is displayed at the bottom of almost all pages on the site. This matches the standard way trademarks are used, in reference areas instead of being added to the name. So is the ® part of the name (i.e. it should be included on the page in every reference) or is the name just Juice Plus+? No intent to slander here, just want to know what the correct name is. Tbbooher 12:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, here is an example of what I mentioned before about false claims that Juice Plus is patented. A Juice Plus handout allegedly distributed at an autism conference contained the following false claim: “Need More Credibility? Effective October 1997, it (Juice Plus) was granted a US Patent!” . Another website shows a synopsis, allegedly prepared with the assistance of the chief biochemist at NSA (John R. Medeiros,) which states “JP is clearly the front runner in its patented processing and scientific research.” Rhode Island Red 15:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

July 19 Edit

I am a bit leary of the latest addition to the page by Truthseeker which read “however, each batch is tested for the absence of pesticides, herbicides, yeast, mold, bacteria and heavy metals.” This statement should be referenced if it is to be included, since the bottle label does not contain information to validate the claim.. It seems unlikely that the product is actually free of such residues but probably contains amounts within acceptable limits. I modified it temporarily to “The products are claimed to be free of pesticides, herbicides, yeast, mold, bacteria, and heavy metals”, but I think it should be promptly removed if it cannot be adequately referenced. Rhode Island Red 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at Truth Seeker's edits more carefully and realized that many unsupported claims and product promitional statements had been added as well as important sections removed. I reverted back to the previous version. Given the history of vandalism of this page and the revert wars that have ensued I suggest that Truth Seeker consider discussing proposed changes on this page before making such changes.Rhode Island Red 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

References

A number of complaints about this article have been made to m:OTRS. I noticed that many references listed in the article text do not appear in their full form in a references section. I also noticed that a number of statements, especially in the controversy section mention a reference (i.e. "According to Consumer Reports) but then don't give enough information on the reference. These problems make it incredibly difficult for another editor to verify the material in the article. If someone with knowledge of the references used in the article could properly cite them (or maybe even convert to the standard format), it would avoid someone coming along and cutting the article to a stub until it's properly citing its sources. Shell 16:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As requested, substantiating links have been provided for several of the articles in question (e.g. Consumer Reports). These links were already on the page but were listed in the references section. The links/references are now in line with the text which should facilitate verification. Please indicate if you think that any other links should be included. By the way, are the complaints to m:OTRS available for non-admins to view? Rhode Island Red 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's closer to the standard reference style which helps quite a bit in articles that have been questioned. OTRS is only viewable to those with access (not all admins); the list can be found on this page. Shell 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Request Comments/Dispute

I feel that the inclusion of: Research Resources

http://juiceplusresearch.blogspot.com/ Juice Plus Research Blog Includes independent chemical and nutritional analyses of Juice Plus products.

on the Juice Plus article is unnecessary. It is NOT a research site, it is a blog written by a person with an agenda against Juice Plus and anyone who promotes it. The author gives "golden apples" to anyone who does not support Juice Plus and "rotten tomatoes" to anyone who does. The comments about these people are liablious, the person posting them remains anonymous but it clearly being protected by editor Rhode Island Red who has edited every positive comment about Juice Plus OFF of Misplaced Pages and expanded on if not posted the negative commentary.

I think if allowed to continue brings the credibility of Wiki into question, this article is clearly NOT unbiased and to allow this "research resources" blog link to stay on Misplaced Pages, according to my attorney, opens Misplaced Pages up to being named in a liable suit against the cloaked blogger. October 9th, 2006

The link was included because the site contains a very exhaustive collection of full-length original research articles and commentaries on Juice Plus. This site is invaluable for Juice Plus research so its inclusion is justifiable. Although the site also contains some satirical commentary, I did not see anything on the site that can be fairly termed libelous. Libel must be proven through the courts, and merely saying something is libelous does not make it so. Legal threats (i.e. Havey stated: “according to my attorney, opens Misplaced Pages up to being named in a liable suit…”) are prohibited according to Misplaced Pages policy regarding (No Legal Threats). In accordance with this policy, “if you do choose to take legal action, please refrain from editing until it is resolved”.

I have not single-handedly edited this article, as suggested by Havey, and the deletion of spam and other content has been the result of consensus achieved with several other editors who have contributed to this page. Virtually all of the contributions that were reverted were blatant acts of vandalism (i.e. removal of content) or insertion of clearly inappropriate non-scientific, unreferenced promotional messaging.

The deletion of the extra links to the Juice Plus homepage that Havey inserted into the Research Resources section was justified. The first link listed in the External Links section is to the Juice Plus homepage, and the text clearly states that it contains “excerpted research abstracts”. It serves no purpose to include additional links to the same site under the Research Resources section. The Juice Plus site does not contain original full-length research articles and the excepted research abstracts that it does include are not in their originally published form. There is no way of knowing whether the distributor of this product accurately transcribed the details of those research abstracts, and therefore, they cannot be deemed to be reliable. There is certainly no point in linking to these versions when relaible, full-text versions can be linked instead. Furthermore, the Juice Plus homepage only includes research that was funded by the manufacturer/distributor of Juice Plus, and omits several important studies, conducted by independent laboratories, that conflict with the promotional claims made about the product.

Upon reviewing the past contributions made by Julia Havey, a history of consistent spamming, vandalism, self-promotion, and personal attacks against Misplaced Pages editors is evident. The latest legal threat is yet another behavior that flouts the principles and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Rhode Island Red 16:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red has been the most visible, frequent almost a full-time job "editor" of any/all Juice Plus article activity. The blog in question is NOT as Rhode Island Red argues "The link was included because the site contains a very exhaustive collection of full-length original research articles and commentaries on Juice Plus. This site is invaluable for Juice Plus research so its inclusion is justifiable." This blog contains ONLY negative research and is therefore biased, against Wiki's policy I would assume. It is NOT invaluable and the fact that it's main reason for existing is to paint Juice Plus in a negative light and it's use of liablious, cruel and mean spirited "satire" is reason alone to not allow it as a "invaluable" research site.

Research is NOT satire and there is no place for satire on a legitimate research site.

The Wiki credibility is at question if they allow a site that is extremely satirical to be listed as a "Reaserch Resource". To state that it opens Wiki up to Liable is not a threat, it is a statement, an observation and a point worth making. I have no intention of suing Wiki, but there is a clear case that could be made if they only allow negative and satirical content on this, or any other article.

As for my "history" of consistent spamming, vandalism, self-promotion, and personal attacks against Misplaced Pages editors is evident, NO Red, that isn't acurate, my first day with Wiki was an eventful day, I was unaware of the rules, but I am now. I did not put a link to a commerical site for a distributor or for my financial gain, the link was to the corporate site that offers actual research. My article created for myself, was copied exactly from another authors article, simply putting my information on it. I had no idea I did anything wrong, especially when the fact that the article I mirrored is still live, exactly as it was the day I created mine using it as a quide. So, commericalism and promotion are clearly allowed, if not encouraged, but now I realize you just have to have someone else do it, or even use a fake name...my henious act was to be honest and use my own name when doing an article on myself.

And personal attacks, only when placed on the defense. Wiki specifically says "don't bite the newcomers" because obviously, newcomers do not know your etiquette or rules.

You and I aren't strangers Red, you have gone on numerous website support boards, threads etc...and whenever a positive comment about Juice Plus is made, you go on the attack and write hours of commentary stating your opinion, unless of course there are two people out there with the cloaked identity of Rhode Island Red with a strong opinion against Juice Plus and anyone who promotes it?

But you are unbiased. Right.

Here is the real issue, doesn't the link in question, http://juiceplusresearch.blogspot.com/ Juice Plus Research Blog Includes independent chemical and nutritional analyses of Juice Plus products, actually belong in the category just above it,Other Critical Commentary? Because it contains satire, it is NOT a "research" site and, it is important to note that thanks to Rhode Island Red's diligent, but not single handed stellar editing, EVERY SINGLE RESEARCH link on this "invaluable" research site is ALREADY listed on WIKI! The ONLY reason that "they" are fighting to KEEP this link on Wiki is so that their satire is viewed. and that, is NOT unbiased!

And, while we are at trying to keep this article Fair and balanced, WHY are: Other Critical Commentary

Juice Plus: A Critical Look Commentary by Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch A critique of Juice Plus from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Juiced Up and Dried Out A critique by the University of California Berkeley Juice Plus—and minus Additional critique by the University of California Berkeley Consumer Reports: How product testimonials bend the rules (Jan 2006) Consumer complaints with the Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Division regarding misleading Juice Plus testimonial advertisements featuring Dr. William Sears.

repeated? All I tried to do was to put JuicePlus.com in the research section and I was told that I could not do that because the links were already provided, well, these links are all provided in the Claim/Counterclaim area, so if we are to only allow repetition when it is in regard to those sites against Juice Plus, how is that unbiased?

I feel like I am fighting a lost cause because Red is the one who will edit this page and make the decision, but atleast I get to state the facts, wheter you all listen or not. (Julia Havey) October 11, 2006 2:48 PM CST

Its important that we focus on the content of the articles and not on the contributors. When I have time over the next few days, I'm going to covert the article to our standard reference format, which will eliminate duplicate links and also seperate links used as references from external links provided as further reading.

You might want to read our neutral point of view policy - we cover all significant points of view in an article. Since there are reliable sources criticizing Juice Plus, their side needs to be included. I agree, however, that a blog (generally not considered a reliable source) is misleading when labelled as research and should be part of the "Other Critical Commentary" section instead. Shell 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is completely untrue that the blog site that was linked includes ONLY negative research. All of NSAs sponsored studies are included and the list of full-length research articles on the site is exhaustive and unique. I see no inherent reason why the site’s inclusion of a few satirical comments would preclude its value as a research resource. I have no interest in engaging in tangential arguments, but I am interested in seeing that this Wiki page has the best possible information. I see no compelling reason why the Wiki community would be better served by the removal of the link. I see no problem in moving it to Other Critical Commentary but I think its greatest value is as a research resource library. Perhaps accompanying text to that effect should be included. Rhode Island Red 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in addition to being a blog, the site has an obvious bias, regardless of whether or not it contains both positive and negative research. While it may be acceptable as an external link, we cannot pretend that it does not display that bias, nor can we elevate it to a research site given its questionable status. Shell 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not see, given the Neutral point of view rules and the need for sources to be "RELIABLE" how this blog can be allowed on the article at all. No one knows who this blogger is, but it is clear his agenda is to smear anyone and everyone associated with Juice Plus, and that, as I have been saying undermines the credibility of Wiki and is counter to the very mission statement of Wiki Foundation. Knowledge, not agendas is what they want to have available to all mankind. The research mentioned on this blog are all mentioned in the Wiki article, so there is nothing new for the reader to gain by being routed to this blog other than to read the tangenitals of the author, and those are perhaps better left alone. (Julia Havey) October 11th 15:43

Like I said , I see no problem with moving it to the commentary section. Rhode Island Red 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the issues raised by Shell about the obvious bias of this blog, it isn't even worthy of a mention on the 'Other Critical Commentary' area. It is a satirical site at best and a very inflamatory one. Having it on Wiki will make others feel that they can make satirical sites and post them on other articles to be distruptive in an attempt to further their personal agenda. One only has to read the rantings of "truth seeker" about people who promote Juice Plus. He makes fun of a very prestigious Breast Cancer specialists's speaking "ums and uhs" and calls chiropractors "medical school rejects". This is NOT a reliable source and has no place on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, one would have to question why a nonbiased editor would fight so adamantly to keep in on Wiki, given that it's "invaluable" research is quoted on Wiki already. It would lead one to think that the editor actually desires that the satire itself be readily available to Wiki visitors and since that information is clearly NOT appropriate for on a Wiki article the only way to get it in is to piggy back in under the guise of a "research resource". (Julia Havey) October 11, 2006 20:42

The reason it can and should be included is one of the policies I pointed your towards earlier. Please review WP:NPOV. You may not like their point of view, but its policy for us to include it. Again, please avoid commenting on other editors and limit your discussion to the content. Shell 02:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Only a fraction of the research on the site in question is even discussed on the Misplaced Pages Juice Plus page. The site includes full-text versions of every research publication and many additional published commentaries that are not provided on the Wiki page, so it cannot be reasonably argued that the content is redundant or without obvious value. Shel suggested that the link should be moved to critical commentary, which seems like a reasonable compromise. Shel also offered to cleanup the links and referencing which is much appreciated. Rhode Island Red 02:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)