Talk:Juice Plus

"not statistically significant" or "significant"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your statement about Lamprecht verbatim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As yet unreferenced source re Juice Plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One page has:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tone of the discussions

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

Neutral Point of View?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chambers Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me put the questions again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the reasons again:

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

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

Couple of points to help clarify this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overly negative tone to article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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