Talk:MonaVie/Archive 1

Is it a pyramid scheme?

When I first saw this article, I noticed that it mentioned that "many skeptics view the company as another 'glorified pyramid scheme'." I can't disagree with this as many can be interpreted many ways, and people have their views. I can understand how the virtual physical structure of the binary plan network looks like a pyramid scheme, other aspects of the company (primarily the income distribution) show that MonaVie is far from it. The person discussed how a distributor fee is required and is one of the reasons it is a pyramid scheme.

It's true that mandatory distributor fees are a major source of income for pyramid schemes. owever, MonaVie charges a reasonable fee of $39, which covers the cost of a booklet, 2 DVDs, web placement and website back office maintenance. With that said, instead of deleting the remark, I included the price addressing the concern to show. It seems that somebody agrees with me and deleted the Controversy section since stating that reason of requiring distributor fees define a pyramid scheme is absolutely ridiculous. I addressed a primary concern of the monthly order as a qualification, also known as "Autoship" or "monthly maintenance" I gave actual figures instead of the gross exaggeration of $200 as discussed before.

I also changed the wording from qualifying to earn commissions, from qualifying to "make money" or "in order to have income" because earning commissions from a company is different from having an income. The company allows bulk purchases which can allow to up to a 60% markup.

I deleted the remark that states that MonaVie is a pyramid scheme because it "requires a network of people under you." It does not require a network of people under you to make money (as discussed earlier on retail sales," but it is the way to earn commissions from the company and this network is the business model of multi-level marketing.

I can see how the company not publishing any scientific benefits on the juice can cause some controversy. I can't argue against that. I can only wonder what people looking at the juice was looking for. Were they looking for medicine for ailments?

Many products on the market advertise clinical studies based on one of the ingredients of components in the product and not the actual product itself (e.g. wheat in cereal). Let's take Jamba Juice as an example since it is in the same industry of fruit blends, the customers that drink it for the healthy lifestyle generally aren't concerned with clinical studies on the actual smoothie itself.

I omitted the word "supposed" from "acai is a supposed superfood" because according to information gathered on the superfoodarticle that it is.

I added the last part to controversy, even though the original writers did not include it but I felt they touched upon it in the main article stating that MonaVie primarily advertises the acai berry even though there are other fruits. I interpreted the tone of what was written as the writer having a personal major concern. I addressed, why it is the companies most talked about fruit as it is a primary ingredient. The fact that there is a link to the acai article shows why it is a focus. I included the corporate website stating there reason on including the other fruits. This statement coming from the corporate website and not from a distributor or third party, shows the company's view and not any individual's opinion.

I added the ingredient list with links to corresponding articles instead of repeating the benefits of the said fruits. i did not want to make the mistake as on the Xango article that has information that should be placed on the mangosteen article instead.

Holannakata (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Use by celebrities section

I find this section highly irrelevant as it is a textbook example of appeal to authority fallacy.Tesi1700 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF

I am the one that started this article yesterday under my friends account name: LonnieD - Why does the history for this article say it was created in February 2008? I JUST CREATED THIS ARTICLE YESTERDAY! March - 13 - 2008! "Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I found no user by the name of "LonnieD". And here's what the article looked like on February 1st; why do you think you created it on the 13th of March? (Please be specific - linking to an edit or a particular version of the article would be helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is well written and balanced

Thanks for a non-hysterical analysis of the company. I've been researching it- at each turn, the company is acting with integrity; even publishing the annualized average income of everyone in the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.249.148 (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not fair to always associate network marketing with pyramids- especially as the leading sentence!!!

I would say this isn't too bad, except the leading sentence!! "Many skeptics think it's a pyramid??" How about, "many people won't believe that any network marketing business can be legitimate, despite it being taught as a discipline at Harvard...?" Close-minded snots! Too many people would like to believe that living in corporate servitude (their current status) is the only option for getting through life. They take it out on others, who find good companies who will pay them based on the value they create. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.249.148 (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

LLC

Hey Mike, sorry about accidentally reverting your deletion of "LLC". I didn't notice that you had deleted it right after I put it in; I thought I just forgot to hit save when my change didn't appear, so I restored it again. Just FYI, I didn't originally put the LLC detail in there but I deleted it accidentally today when I was making some other edits, so I thought I should restore it. That's also why I marked it as a minor edit. But I see your point about it being a peacock term. My intention was just to indicate that it is not a publicaly traded company. How about "privately owned" instead? Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem - I had no idea a mixup was in progress. The clearest term for that would probably be "privately held." Mike Doughney (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Pulse

At the September 2008 Annual Conference Mona Vie Officially released a new product in the united states, soon to follow in interenational markets. The product is called Pulse and is FDA approved to lower LDL cholesterol. Foods containing at least 0.4 g per serving of plant sterols, eaten twice a day with meals for a daily total intake of at least 0.8 g, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease. Two servings (4 oz) of MonaVie Pulse juice supply 0.8 g of plant sterols. MonaVie Pulse, like red wine, contains a variety of phenolic (polyphenol) antioxidants including resveratrol, without the alcohol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.11.205 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing content for the article, not for product adertising. Monavie Pulse is NOT FDA approved for lowering cholesterol. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

People Who Call It a Pyramid Have A Misunderstanding Of A Concept

Besides the obvious reply that a true pyramid is what is your typical corporation, there are a few things that need to be pointed out: Monavie's business model is revolutionary. It is designed so that distributors are compensated most heavily based on their MARKETING performance. MonaVie itself does not advertise and has a $0 advertising budget. The company relys soley on their distributors to successfully MARKET the product. If you fail to market the product, you cannot get paid, no matter who is in your downline. A true pyramid scheme rewards you for being 'ahead' of the next guy. While there is a slight potential advantage to being above someone in the tree, the vast majority of the money is based on your personal performance, and MonaVie makes it extremely easy to pass up the guy above you, so long as you have done a better job of marketing.

People that insist on calling legit network marketing businesses like Monavie a 'pyramid' are really just uncomfortable with the business model in general.Kerrysmyth (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Praise/Criticism

There used to be a portion of this article (albeit not done too well) that talked about the praise the product is getting. Since there is much praise on the product and company (success from home - 2 issues - with the most recent being November 2008 edition, fortune magazine , official juice of the boston red sox , rachel rae, brian degan on cribs, cnn money, maria ramirez, etc ,etc), i think it should also be included in the article to give a fair and unbiased look at the company. The fact that certain celebrities, magazine publications, tv shows, news outlets and such support such a product/company lends credibility to the company. After all, an encyclopedia article should tell the truth about what is really happening. Right now the article is very one sided. If anyone wants to help with the date of the shows that it was on Rachael Ray and Cribs, that would be great. 199.227.234.222 (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP deals with verifiable facts from reliable sources. Pop culture sources of the kind you mentioned (e.g., Rachel Ray, MTV Cribs, etc.), are unlikely to be appropriate for an article of this type. Sources such as company press releases and vanity/promotional articles are also not typically a reliable source for anything other than confirmation of basic facts about the company, such as who their employees are, etc. I have found no source to confirm the claim that Monavie is the "official soft drink of the Boston Red Sox", so this detail (which is trivial) would not be included. I have looked at some of the other sources you mentioned, namely the CNN article, and it doesn't seem to say anything factual that isn't already mentioned in the WP Monavie article. Most WP editors will likely argue that athlete and celebrity endorsements are (a) not reliable (b) not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedic article of this type (see WP:NOT). It falls under the category of trivia. WP also does not necessarily include minority opinions unless they have a significant degree of support from reputable sources, and they are never given undue weight with respect to majority opinion.

WP articles are to be written in a way that reflects prevailing opinions among reliable sources only. In some cases, those prevailing opinions may be negative; an extreme example would be the Holocaust. In the case of Monavie, the sources that have been published include several lawsuits and several critical appraisals as well as a warning from the FDA. It’s an unfortunate consequence that this reflects poorly on the product but these happen to be the facts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are company press releases not considered a reliable source? Seems to me that they would be more reliable than just about any other source on the subject when it comes to their product and their company. There are many other studies/sources that also mention MonaVie and how great both the product and the company are. There were a few studies published (very recently) from AIMBR Life Sciences into major journals discussing monavie and it's benefits. Links to a few of the studies are here: http://www.aibmr.com/outcomes.html. What about two different issues of Success from Home magazine? That's as much of a reliable source as the other articles linked to on the WP page. What about the numerous news spots done on MonaVie, many of which can be found on youtube. I understand YouTube is not a reliable source, but the actual clips from the news stories are. As far as monavie being the offical juice of the boston red sox, check here: http://onthemove.monavievo.com/default.asp?PageID=95.

If WP doesn't necessarily include minority opinions unless they have a significant degree of support from reputable sources, why is that all the WP article on MonaVie focus on? Search MonaVie on google news and you will see that the ratio of sources touting monavie vs. the amount downplaying it is staggering. This article is simply trying to make it seem as though it's fact that the majority of opinions toward MonaVie are negative, when a little research shows that to be untrue. 75.71.58.62 (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that press releases were never a reliable source; I said that they were not a reliable source for anything other than confirming basic non-controversial details about the company. Press releases aren't fact checked; they are just sent by company PR departments to a press release service; they can claim anything regardless if it's true. They are not to be confused with journalistic news articles. If we were backing up a statement that the company is located in Salt Lake City, that they hired a new CFO, or that a bottle of their juice has a MSL price of x dollars, then a press release might be acceptable. If we were talking about Monavie being the official juice of the BoSox, then it wouldn't be acceptable. To confirm that detail, we would need a statement from the BoSox organization. Which brings us to that exact example...Monavie claims to be the official juice of the BoSox, but the BoSox do not; at least not according to any sources that have been brought forward so far. I for one would recommend applying extra scrutiny and skepticism to any of the company's claims, given that the criticism and lawsuits against Monavie alleged that the company made false and misleading claims.

I would also be careful about referring to this product as "great". From the sources I have read, there is much about it that does not appear to be great, and making blanket statements to the contrary is far from WP:NPOV.

Schauss and his company AIBMR published ONE study on Monavie -- not "a few" -- and the study is already cited in the article (reference #3; Jensen et al). I would also advise caution in interpreting any of Schauss' research, since these are primary rather than secondary sources and it appears that he has a potentially biasing financial interest in Monavie.

"Success from Home" magazine (published by the company) would, like a press release, not generally be considered a reliable source for anything other than the most basic information. It certainly is not on par, in terms or reliability, with the sources that are quoted in the article currently (e.g. legal dockets, FDA reports, and a few reasonably insightful news articles).

I have looked at few of the news clips on YouTube and aside from issues of reliability (i.e. they are posted by anonymous users rather than by the news agencies themselves, and the authenticity and broadcast dates can't be confirmed), they don't seem to say much of substance -- they seem a lot like press releases. They tend to say things like "Joe thinks Monavie is great", but that is hardly an encyclopedic fact and we should aim (per WP guidelines) to avoid inclusion of trivial details. For instance, it's not germane if someone says that Sumner Redstone drinks Monavie. What we want ideally are reliable secondary sources that can tell us verifiable (WP:VER) details about the product. If Sumner were a scientist or a notable nutritional expert who analyzed the company’s claims and spoke about them in detail, then that might be a different story. One of the videos I found was by Lou Niles, and this is the exact same video that was critiqued by several sources because it contained illegal claims that Monavie could cure cancer; these are the same types of claims that resulted in the 2007 FDA warning notice.

Weighing balance (see WP:UNDUE) in an article does not involve bringing unreliable sources into the equation. It refers to sources that satisfy WP:RS only. So it wouldn't matter if there were 5 million distributors' webpages extolling Monavie; if they aren't RS, then they don't exist as far as WP is concerned.

If you have an idea for some specific text to include that you think would help to improve the article but aren't sure whether it's Wiki-worthy or if the source meets with WP:RS, you can always propose it here and get some input from more experienced editors and those who are knowledgeable about the product/company.

As you may have noticed, this article has been vandalized several times (content blanking) and various Monavie distributors have attempted to insert promotional language and links to their sales pages into the article (against WP policy), and there are clearly some people who don't want the article to say anything negative about Monavie. This tends to put other editors on guard because tendentious editing by those with conflicts of interest goes against WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very knowledgeable about what is ok to put on the page and how to do it. I admire that, because I'm not so sharp on that. I know that there is some negative press on MonaVie out there, but there is also a lot of good press on it. It seems to be coming down to whether you think the content meets your standards. The negative press that is mentioned in the article is from people that are so called, "experts," but many are just random reporters for decent publications that wanted to insert their opinion (not fact). A great example of that is the article talking about it being a pyramid from forbes. That claim has been widely debunked and the fact that some writer calls it that in a respected magazine does not make him an expert. The positive sources are opinions as well, but on the positive side. If we're going by information coming from experts, then we should leave it to just that. Most of what's posted now is not from experts.

As for the AIMBR research. There have been more studies than one done. Also, you can't say that we can't post them because "there might be some financial interest for AIMBR to say such things." I thought this article is about to be about fact and not opinion/hunches. Those studies are published in well respected journals.

Success From Home is NOT published or ran by MonaVie, so using it should definitely be ok. It is published from the same publisher as SUCCESS. The purpose of the magazine is to highlight direct selling companies and what they do, how they do it, and their products. So far MonaVie has been highlighted twice. It is not a press release from the company or anything similar. The comments out of the magazine should definitely be used. The publishers/editors of Success from Home are more qualified experts in the field of MLM/Direct selling than some random editor for forbes that doesn't regularly focus on direct selling.

The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of sources touting the product and its benefits. What I'm hearing on here is that because the comments aren't some specific detail about the product, they aren't mentioned at all, while random writers are saying their opinion about the company or how it works and the worth of the product with no real testing done are getting all the limelight. It seems biased. While we can't post how so and so likes it, it can at least be mentioned that there are many sources that promote and endorse the product, with links being put into the further reading link. 75.71.58.62 (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, rather than get bogged down in theoretical arguments, if you have text that you think would help improve the article and is in compliance with WP policies, then no one is stopping you from proposing it here. It’s difficult to comment on the reliability of a reference without knowing what statement it’s being used to support. As for the Forbes article, it would seem to easily qualify as a legitimate work of journalism.

I checked Success From Home and from what I can see, this is a company promotional magazine and would most likely not be considered a reliable source except under very limited circumstances (similar to the use of press releases, as I described above).[1]

Regarding AIBMR, please read my previous post more carefully and please do not put quotation marks around statements that I did not make (i.e. "there might be some financial interest for AIMBR to say such things."). Most editors, me included, do not take kindly to being misquoted. Furthermore, I did not even imply that articles written by AIBMR could not be included. I pointed out that AIBMRs only published study on Monavie is in fact already quoted in the WP article. I also said that because the author has a financial interest in Monavie and because the research is a primary vs. secondary source, it should be interpreted cautiously. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I will write some articles depicting the majority view of MonaVie. And if you don't think it's a majority view, it is definitely a strong minority view. According to the WikiPedia: verifiability article that you linked to, much of what is written in the controversy section should not be on the page. First, the Palm Beach Post might be able to qualify as a "main stream newspaper" even though that's stretching it. Main stream newspapers are ones like Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc. Second, Newsweek and Forbes do not qualify according to this, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." from the WP:RS article. Wikipedia made sure to italicize the "in relation to the subject at hand." Since neither sources typically write about or publish stories about direct selling or MLM, it seems to me that they aren't reliable sources on the subject. The forbes article, like I said, is simply some reporter spouting off his unfounded opinion. "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." WP:RS

So at this point, the only things that should remain in the controversy section is the FDA warning for a 3rd party website (not MonaVie). This, by the way, should not be left simply because it was not MonaVie that did the wrongdoing, but a distributor within MonaVie. MonaVie itself never made health claims. It is fact that Dallin was a senior exec in the previous company and it is verifiable. That is fine to leave there as well. The rest should be removed from the article for it to conform to the WP standards that you so graciously brought to my attention. 199.227.234.222 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You opened this thread to discuss the inclusion of new information, and yet you have not proposed any specific text to include; at least none that would come close to being considered reliable. I provided you with some general and specific advice on what constitutes a reliable source on WP. If you have any text to propose including, I suggest you do so rather than arguing for removal of properly-sourced content. The Palm Beach Post is in fact a newspaper and it meets WP:RS in the context in which it was used. You stated that “much of what is written in the controversy section should not be on the page” and that Newsweek and Forbes do not meet WP:VER. In fact, both of those publications easily satisfy WP:VER as well as WP:RS, particularly in the context in which their articles are now cited. I suggest that you spend some more time familiarizing yourself with WP’s policies and guidelines because you seem to be misinterpreting the most critical details. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP Edits on 10/10/08

To anon IP/SPA at 65.44.117.2: you made several edits today that would be considered vandalism according to WP policy, for example blanking content. Secondly, you removed several company executives listed in the article but have not provided evidence that these individuals have left the company. Third, you re-added a scientific study that dealt with acai (not Monavie itself) after it had been removed once already. If you wish, you can try adding it to the acai article, but it does not belong here because the research does not involve Monavie per se. You also removed the correctly formatted reference for one of the studies, an action which is also inconsistent with WP policy. When reverting edits, be careful as to what you change in the article -- use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Lastly, if you have doubts about whether information in the article is properly cited, you can raise the question here on the Talk page, or you can add a dispute tag (if warranted), but simply removing the content is inappropriate. Thank you in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this vandalism warning went unheeded and the anon IP was blocked from editing the article for 36 hours.[2] However, I would still like to comment on this user's deletion of 3 names from the company’s management roster; i.e., Ralph Carson (MonaVie’s chief science officer), Amy Cowley (VP of finance), and Charles Brink (VP/Chief Counsel). The anon IP claimed (a) that references were needed to support their inclusion and (b) that they no longer work for the company.

There are numerous Monavie web pages that refer to Carson as the company’s Chief Science Officer. This company document refers to him as a member of the Board of Directors [3] and this company document (“Monavie on the Move” Q1/08) lists him as “MonaVie’s chief science officer and cofounder.”[4] And there are many others that also list this information.[5][6][7] Several websites, including a press release and one of the main sites for distributor training tools, describe Carson as the lead developer of Monavie,[8][9][10][11][12] as does this distributor training audio interview with Carson himself, who is described as “the main formulator of the Monavie product.”[13]

Charles Brink is listed among the company’s management team as well.[14] This news article establishes that he, along with Dallin Larsen, Randy Larsen, and Henry Marsh, co-founded the Monavie company.[15] There are also numerous company pages that have listed Amy Cowley as the company’s VP of finance (including an archived version of the company’s website).[16][17]

There is ample evidence to support the inclusion of these 3 individuals under the executive management section of the article. Now, as to what should be done if one of the executive management team members was to leave the company. First, we would need a reliable source to verify the fact, which should be easy to obtain because the company often issues press releases with such announcements. Once verified the person’s name should remain but the tile changed parentheticaly to, for example, “former” CEO. We don’t want to remove the name entirely from the list nor is there any reason to. Once these people have served as company executives, they remain relevant to the company’s history, even if they subsequently leave. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts about Mona Vie critics

This was my email back to my friend that referred me to this Mona Vie article.

Thanks for the heads up. My first reaction is to thank you for notifying me. My second reaction is anger, due to the negatively biased way some of the comments are made in the Wikipedia article.

The article is obviously current, since it states Mona Vie Pulse as one of the products, which was only released about a month ago.

Please understand that ANY health claims are ALWAYS crunched on by the FDA, since they are (in my opinion) in bed with the doctors and the drug companies, and they all want to promote (in my opinion) is the removal of symptoms, not actually cure, so that everyone will have to go back to the doctor, sooner or later, to buy more drugs and pay more doctor fees.

The Mona Vie lawsuits were not known to me. Their sueing Quixtar/Amway seems to be in support of the 40 top Amway producers, some of whom are our current TEAM leaders, who we dearly love and respect. Please know that the owners of Amway, Jay De Voss and Steve Van Andel, would alter the Amway pay plan any time they wanted, denying our nearest upline persons (name deleted for privacy reasons) a $10,000 bonus at the last minute. Also know that the terminated leaders sued Amway, not for money, only for the freedom of the "little guys" like me, since Amway forbade us to work in ANY other MLM business for 6 months after quitting Amway. Some people had a 1 year forbid! Also know that Amway lost a BIG lawsuit in Georgia to the TEAM leaders (the same Amway terminated leaders) simply because they bound us distributors tightly to their contract terms, while they could change the terms of the distributor contract at will, and did. The Georgia judge ruled that Amway's distributor contract was not a valid contract, so it was null and void in Georgia (as reported to me).

I'm sure Mona Vie needs to sue any company that they feel is infringing on their identity. Corporate copy cats are prevalent everywhere, so you have to sue to protect your identity. Even if the case is dismissed, it puts the other company on notice that they are watching.

You can go to www.youtube.com and search for Lou Niles and watch his video yourself. You will see that he has had tremendous results with having his cancer patients drink Mona Vie. He teaches how oxidation occurs in our bodies, and how he SUPPOSES that Mona Vie is a great counter action. He also states that, at first, he thought promoting Mona Vie was a conflict of interest. He then states that now, he sees that it's the other doctors who have the conflict of interest, inferring that their prescribing medication to solve a symptom, and not the underlying cause, simply ensures more doctor visits, not actually curing anything (my interpretation). You can be sure that he has pissed off the entire American Medical Association, the FDA, and anyone else who makes money off of our medical sick-care system.

Although Dr. Weil has been promoting a health and medical science melding, it seems to me by his criticism of Mona Vie and his promotion of blueberries, that his Medical Blinders and his arrogance are preventing his continued learning. Blueberries are truck-ripened, which means they are mostly dead by the time they reach the grocery store. On the ORAC scale (a free radical fighting rating) they still rated about 120. Please remember that the freeze-dried Acai berry that is in Mona Vie has an ORAC rating of 1027. This testing data is available to any doctor who will take their Medical Blinders off long enough to find it. Dr. Weil's apparent my-way-or-no-way arrogance seems to be preventing him from practicing unbiased research.

In the end, it's the people who drink Mona Vie who tell the best tales. If you ask people who are consuming some other health product, or program, how they think it is working, they most often seem to say "...Uh, I think so...". With Mona Vie, my personal results, my wife's results, as well as some friends; results, seem to be quite concrete. We can attribute the health successes to nothing else.

Expect the criticisms to continue. When you are at the top of the flagpole (as comedian Jerry Lewis has said), everyone else is looking up your A!?!?@.

Okay, I'm off my soap box now.

Just my opinion. Thanks for listening.

TruthHonestyClarity (unsigned comment by Truthhonestyclarity 04:42, 31 October 2008)

Welcome to Wikipedia THC. Since you are new here, let me begin by offering some advice. The talk page is for discussing content and improvements to the article (see WP:TPG). It is not a chat room for discussing the topic in general, nor is it a message board for posting anonymous letters, like the kind you posted above. If you have any specfic suggestions about specific content in the article, then this would be the place to list them. Soapboxing and venting, especially when it has nothing to do with specific content suggestions, is not consistent with the purpose of this page. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheaper alternatives

I think the article should mention antioxidant-rich cheaper alternatives to Monavie drinks. I wrote about bilberries and blackcurrants because they are known to contain more antocyanins than most "superfruits" and are very popular where I live. Earlier the article mentioned only blueberries that are still quite epensive in Europe. I'll appreciate your help with improving sources because it's not easy for me to google up these things in English ;P

This article is about MonaVie, not about antioxidants in general or cheaper alternatives that provide them. Your references do not mention MonaVie or its constituants and thus are not appropriate for this article. Promotion of other products as alternatives is also not appropriate. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about blueberries either and yet they are mentioned as an alternative source of antioxidants even though they contain less of them than both bilberries and blackcurrants. Your argument that this statement is "not appriopriate" "promotion of other products" is especially funny because I haven't named any brand or specific commodity thus it's not any less appriopriate than this entire article promoting Monavie.

In conclusion, I think this article needs two separate paragraphs. One of them should point cheaper alternative sources of antioxidants - the other should name Monavie's competitors for its segment of the market. Ofcourse I don't exclude my edit needs to be improved or moved but deleting it makes the article less informative. I suggest we could work it together :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike Doughney alias abd. I'd like to express my concern that you seem to be among editors involved in advertising commercial goods on Wikipedia. How else could You explain why you reject every possibilty of informing readers on alternative sources of antioxidants to Monavie liquid, cheaper than 40 dollars per bottle. Since antioxidants capacity is Monavie's main catchword Wikipedia article should refer to it. You started a reverting war without even attempting to discuss or relate to my arguments. It looks like the only reason You're here is to defend Monavie's interests. I clearly stated I'm open to work together if necessary to rephrase/move/improve my edits. Your only reaction was censoring my edits, making personal allusions and threatening I could be blocked. This is very sad and disappointing.

I'll repeat it - IMHO the article needs two separate paragraphs. One of them should point cheaper alternative sources of antioxidants (like for example blackcurrants or bilberries) - the other should name Monavie's competitors for its segment of the market. Is anyone willing to discuss me about my proposition??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike and everybody else, I would like to officialy apologize for not keeping my observations to myself. This might have been interpreted as a personal attack and trolling. Yet I'd like to explain that the emotional remarks above were caused by Mike reverting my edtis without discussion and sending those threats that I would be banned If I dare to touch the article anytime soon. I promise it will never happen again and I would like to invite You to work together on this article. I'm waiting for Your reply to my arguments at the bottom of the site. If you approve them, don't answer:). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blackcurrants must be mentioned if blueberries are to stay. I'm going to find more sources however so that everyone's satisfied83.14.137.66 (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is meant to discuss MonaVie. Other forms of antioxidants have nothing to do with MonaVie. Blueberries are mentioned in the article because the author was specifically comparing them (albeit with no actual research, just opinion). If you want to know sources of antioxidants then look up antioxidants on wikipedia. It is not the job of the MonaVie page. As for listing competitors, all that is done on other wiki pages that I have looked at is a simple link to the other products' wiki page. Nothing more. 75.71.58.62 (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I solved the problem with my latest edts. Although I stll think it was a good idea. On Coca-Cola article Pepsi is mentioned as its competitor. I think I could find more examples but it doesn't matter now. I replaced blueberries with a wikipedia link to antioxidant-rich foods. Don't tell me this is not a reasonable compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike Doughney has sent me a message stating that my edits (replacing the example of blueberries with a more informative wikipedia link to antioxidant-rich foods was an act of VANDALISM and if I dare to make more changes I would be BANNED:) Judge his attitude Yourselves. (BBSoon)78.131.137.50 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The warning was appropriate and the basis for it has been explained already in this thread. First, the sources cited in the Monavie article specifically compared Monavie with blueberries (i.e. Andrew Weil and Jonny Bowden); they did not mention other fruits, such as bilberry and black currents, nor has any reliable secondary source done so. To compare Monavie with these other fruits would violate WP policy which prohibits original research. Secondly, inserting spam links in an article also violates WP policy. Lastly, it is inappropriate to link "antioxidant rich foods" to the WP page on ORAC becuase ORAC is not synonymous with "antioxidant-rich foods", which is why your edit was reverted. After this was explained to you, and your edits were reverted, you continued to insert the same inappropriate content in the article, which constitutes edit warring and is prohibited according to WP policy. Please take the time to review WP policy and to edit accordingly.Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I went back and checked the articles by Weil and Bowden and both mentioned rapsberries and pomegranates, in addition to blueberries, as cost-effective sources of antioxidants. I have included these in the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Only Your 2nd and 8th sentences are is right. I really think that identifying my latest change as "vandalism" was somebodies overreaction. Let's be constructive. What i'd like to discuss is this latest edit where I replaced the example of blueberries with more capacious&reliable wikipedia link to antioxidant-rich foods. The antioxidant-rich foods are mentioned in the table in paragraph No2. The table has been published by United States Department of Agriculture - much more trustworthy source than Weil and Boden's essay. Don't You agree?

This edit made the article more succint, credible and informative - all at once. The only thing I would improve is linking so that the table appeared immediately.

I'd be happy if You rethought this particular change and told me if You're able to link it this way.

(As to my previous ideas I've already wrote I gave them up. Even though no one's bothered to respond the Coca-Cola argument) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You still seem to be misunderstanding some basic concepts about editing on WP. When writing an article, we limit ourselves to sources that discuss the topic in question – in this case the topic, obviously, is Monavie. The articles by Bowden and Weil are about Monavie, and both authors compared Monavie with other antioxidant-rich fruits (e.g. blueberries, raspberries, and pomegranates specifically). The USDA link, which you suggested including, has nothing at all to do with Monavie. Quoting what Bowden and Weil said is appropriate; citing the USDA is not. Nobody would argue that there exist fruits other than blueberries, raspberries, and pomegranates which are rich in antioxidants. The point is that if that if such a comparison has not been mentioned in any reliable article that discusses Monavie, then it doesn’t belong in the WP article; it would be considered original research. You may however consider adding your information to the WP article on antioxidants. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do You realise how silly your response actually is? :) Linking to other WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES is a common practise and the statement we are talking about already includes a link to article on Cost-effectiveness analysis (!)- which doesn't say anything about Monavie either:) Yet, You consider a wikipedia link to antioxidant-rich foods as an "original research" and invoke "the basic concepts about editing on WP"(!) I find it all a bitter irony. Tell me, are You (at least hypothetically) able to admit that somebody is right?:(

I re-read what you wrote and I am afraid that I misinterpreted your suggestion. I didn't notice the table you were refering to in the ORAC article, and I think it's not a bad idea at all to link directly to that. I thought you were suggesting (a) linking to a USDA website or (b) linking to ORAC, rather than the table itself. Sorry for knee-jerking but there has been a lot of questionable editing going on lately and as a result, I was too quick to dismiss your suggestion. It's too bad that the table is listed in the ORAC article because it doesn't really belong there. It should be located here instead. One of us should consider moving it at some point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Company Execs

I noticed a few names had dropped off the list in the last round of edits. I found sources that support the entries in the previous version.

• Dallin Larsen, Chairman and CEO[18]
• Randy Larsen, Executive Vice President/Chief Operations Officer (former)[19]
• Dell Brown COO[20]
• Ralph E. Carson, CSO[21]
• Mike Kennedy, CMO[22]
• Devin D. Thorpe CFO[23]
• Amy Cowley, VP Finance[24]
• Jeff Graham, Vice President of Product Management[25]
• Steven King, Vice President of Distributor Services and Human Resources[26]

I am going to revert back, but let me know if there are any objections.Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, as long as we have the sources so as to avoid the unsourced changes we've seen in the last few days, that's completely fine with me. --McSly (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OK great. Another suggestion going forward is that if one of the execs leaves the company, we should keep them on the list but indicate that they have left by including "formerly" or the year of departure or something like that in parentheses. The reason being that some of these people would remain integral to the Monavie story even if they were no longer with the company (for example, the founders, Ralph Carson, Jeff Graham, etc.). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)