Talk:Julia Griggs Havey

Untitled
Elonka, although I am reluctant to enter a disupte over the content you recently contributed, based on the fact that we are having editorial disputes on another article; however, your recent edits on this bio are inappropriate. This article, originally submitted by Havey herself, had previously been nominated for speedy deletion in part becuase the article read like a self-promotional advertisement. After considerable input from roughly a dozen different editors, a pared down version |1] was voted on as acceptable, the article was deemed to be suitable, and the deletion and ad tags were removed. You have now unilaterally reverted the article back to a version that is almost identical to Havey's original. This clearly usurps the consensus of the editors who expended considerable effort in making this article worthy of inclusion. I am going to revert back to the last version prior to your edits. I highly suggest that you go back and review the edit hitory of this article. Rhode Island Red 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not revert the article, I improved the article, and Kusma agreed. If you disagree with my changes, feel free to submit the article for another AfD. --Elonka 17:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that there were two issues discussed at the AFD: (1) Is this person important enough to have an article? and (2) Is this article an advertisement? As she is a successful published author, she is important enough per WP:BIO. The self-promotion was adressed by editors rewriting the article during the AFD. Elonka's rewrite did not change the article into an advertisement. Reverting to an older version of inferior quality is not helpful. If you have problems with the article, please provide a list of what needs to be fixed so it can be fixed. (One problem is that the sourcing of some parts is not independent from Julia Havey herself; however, there does not seem to be any reason to doubt the truth of these statements). Kusma (討論) 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I regret if my revert was too extreme. It seemed to me that the latest version read similarly to the version that was whittled down to a stub by several editors prior to the tags being removed. I do think the article would benefit by omission of non-encyclopedic details like (e.g. “She and her mother would stay up late into the night, watching the news from Vietnam, and eating ice cream to improve their mood” and “Shortly after that she learned that her husband was having an affair”). And I agree that sourcing is big problem with this bio. Havey herself seems to be the source of most of the information. If the subject is truly notable, then others who have talked or written about her should be used as sources. The book cover photo strikes me as unnecessary advertising. I’ll leave it to the rest of you to sort out. Just trying to be constructive and no provocation intended. Rhode Island Red 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. My own feeling is:
 * The "ice cream" comment is relevant as it applies to the beginning of her eating disorder.
 * As for Havey being a source, much of this is from an interview on the Discovery Health Channel, which qualifies as reliable. Her books are also usable as sources. Per Wikipedia autobiography guidelines, the subject can be used as a source for information that is relevant to their notability, as long as it is not unduly self-aggrandizing, or contradicted by other published sources.
 * Book cover photos are used routinely throughout Wikipedia. And if it's any consolation, all we're doing here is including a small image on an author page, instead of actually creating a separate article on each of her books.  This seems to me to be appropriate.
 * Hope that helps address your concerns, Elonka 08:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vice busting (2).jpg
Image:Vice busting (2).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RHODE ISLAND RED
This editor has been admonished in the past and told to refrain from editing this article re his personal and obvious obsession/stalking/harassment of the person. He lies in wait and when he thinks no one will notice or care, he does an edit, gets away with it, does a few more. IS anyone watching the hen house?! This cock is on the lose, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:C003:6560:4024:A123:5C60:3277 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious that Rhode Island Red has an obsession with Julia Griggs Havey, why else would the brilliant ambiguos "scientist" waste his time editing this article when he is desperately needed to protect the world from fruit and vegetable extracts in capsules! Look into it, from early edits on the Juice Plus article to the edits on this page, it's clear, after Julia Havey had an opinion different to his/hers the editor in question continues to great lengths to waterdown any reference to legitimate work down by author Julia Havey. Why not just remove the article entirely? You can control Wiki, but you can't remove thousands of articles, 2 published books, interviews by DR. Oz on Oprah and Friends, his quote from the cover of the book or Dr. Katz's 3 page foreword from history, fact or the internet. The biased editor may not like Julia Havey or agree with her views, but that does NOT give him any right to attempt to hide her legitmate accomplishments and FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.53.34 (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red is not only editing this article because of a personal vendetta/negative bias, he is LYING.

Can't find a credible source to show Julia Havey has been on Oprah & Friends XM radio? Try going a searh on Oprah's site. That's going to the source! http://www.oprah.com/search.jsp?query=julia+havey&resultsPerPage=20&sortBy=Relevancy&filterType=&filterBy=&page=1

Unhealthy Vices Oprah Radio' host Dr. Mehmet Oz talks with CNN's Larry King and author Julia Havey about kicking unhealthy vices. Oprah Radio | Dr. Mehmet Oz http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahradio/moz/moz_20070425

Raising Fit Children Oprah Radio host Bob Greene talks with Congressman Jay Inslee and author Julia Griggs Havey about improving the health of America's children. Oprah Radio | Bob Greene http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahradio/bgreene/bgreene_20071015 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of Article Quality
Here are my basic thoughts on this article.

1.	Notability: IMO the subject is barely notable enough to warrant inclusion in WP. This feeling was shared by several other editors when the entry was initially proposed for deletion. Nonetheless, the decision was narrowly reached that the author was sufficiently notable, based on the fact tha she has published 4 books and her name yields a number of hits in Google. I would argue that merely being an author is not sufficient grounds to establish notability, unless the author’s works have been discussed by at least some reliable secondary sources to establish significance. I am not convinced that this is the case for Havey. A Google search for the author’s name yields many hits but none seem to be of sufficient quality to establish notability (ie, reliable secondary sources discussing the authors works). If we deem that the author is in fact sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion, then the basis for notability is that 2 of her 4 works were published by a notable publisher (the other 2 were apparently self-published). Therefore, the author’s entry should be limited in coverage to those areas for which the subject is notable. However, I see a problem here, and it seems to be a chronic one on WP; namely, just because a subject’s notability is established doesn’t mean that the door is open to posting a curriculum vitae or trivial details about the subject, which seems to have occurred with this particular article. Instead, the content should focus only on those areas in which the subject is notable, and the content must be reliably sourced.

2.	Relevancy of Content

Too many of the details in the article are irrelevant to the subject’s notability. For example, it is irrelevant that the subject attributes her obesity to consuming ice cream as a child. This is not an expert opinion nor a verifiable fact and it wouldn’t matter to the reader whether her obesity arose form eating too much ice cream or too many corn chips; the point is that she became obese, lost weight and then wrote a book about it. Similarly, the details about the father’s service in the Vietnam war are irrelevant. The author herself is barely notable enough to merit a WP entry; these unverifiable details about the father are completely irrelevant to the subject’s basis for notability. If such irrelevant details are allowed, then it opens the door for discussing other irrelevant details about the subject’s family (e.g. siblings, cousins, etc.).

Details about the subject’s divorce are irrelevant to the subject's notability and the inclusion of the accusation of marital infidelity is potentially inflammatory, irrelevant, and not supported by a verifiable reference. It most definitely should be deleted on that basis.

Where the subject went to high school is of limited relevancy. The author is not notable because of expertise associated with her educational background, and on that basis, the high school she attended smacks of trivia. Furthermore, the subject writes that she attended a particular university, which is non-verifiable, and that she dropped out before completing a degree program – this makes the information even less relevant, and including it opens the door to listing other trivial examples of incomplete accomplishments.

Similarly, details on where she met her first husband, the births of her children, and her later remarriage are irrelevant to the subject’s notability.

The entry about “working” for E-Diets.com is non-notable and does not merit inclusion. The author does not appear to have been an employee of the company, but rather just one of hundreds of bloggers that contributed posts on the website. The title of “Master Motivator” is a meaningless term to a general audience and does not merit inclusion.

That the subject was interviewed on an XM radio program is also non-notable in my opinion. No secondary sources (aside from the source that aired the brodcast) have mentioned this appearance, which would have helped to establish the notability of this detail.

The subject being featured on a segment of Discovery Health Channel’s "I Lost It” program is of questionable relevancy also. “I Lost It” is a recurring program in which each episode features several people who have battled with weight issues. Listing this detail in the subject’s WP entry is somewhat akin to including articles in WP on the contestants for America’s Biggest Loser. Even though the latter is a very popular program (about obesity and weight loss issues) it is not the kind of detail that would typically be considered encyclopedic.

The article states that Havey “writes for CBN.com and Diets.com”; however, there are no citations included that support this assertion nor any evidence that she holds a notable position with either of these organizations. If all she does is submit blog entries as an unpaid contributor, than the detail is not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion.

Lastly, the detail about the Turn the Tide Foundation is questionable. I have seen no evidence that establishes the relevancy/notability of this organization. It does not appear to have been discussed by secondary sources and judging by their tax return, which shows revenue of only about $25,000 in 2007, this organization does not seem notable. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2007/205/525/2007-205525336-04866013-9.pdf

I consider a detail like this to be about as relevant as service on the PTA or Rotary Club board; ie, not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.

I also have some issues about how this article came to be included on WP – it was self-submitted by Havey, and Havey (or allegedly her “assistant”) has added additional content since, IMO to the detriment of the article’s quality and reliability.

Lastly, the unruly conduct (ie, accusations of a vendetta) on the part of an anonymous IP, who appears to in fact be Havey, is completely inappropriate. My concern is with the overall quality of the article and the observance of WP policy. I expect the bar to be held as high for this article as for any other biographical entry on WP.

In summary, the subject’s notability rests on the fact that she was obese, lost weight, and then wrote an autobiographical book or two about her experience. She is not a recognized expert in the field of nutrition or obesity. The article, therefore, should be edited accordingly and the content should deal only with those aforementioned areas of notability, and the length of the entry should be commensurate with the subject’s degree of notability, which, I regret to say, is very limited at best. The article should state her name, where she was born, that she became obese and wrote some books about it, and little else. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as 1 goes, if you feel strongly about it, open another deletion discussion, otherwise this is irrelevant.


 * As for 2, you seem to have an incorrect understanding of how articles on Wikipedia are written. We often include little tidbits of information to give a more clear picture of the person who's article we're writing.  For example, the fact that one's parents were uneducated or the cost of one's homestead is probably not "notable" by your definition and yet Abraham Lincoln goes in to just such detail.  Once a subject has an article, there's no requirement that the article confine itself only to information specifically related to their reason for having an article.  So long as the information is about the subject or in this case, even the subject's books, its fair game for inclusion.


 * Clearly the IP address, article subject or not, had a legitimate concern here especially given your history with the subject. Your edits took the article from a start class to a bare stub with very little explanation.  Several of your edits were, at best, inaccurate - I can only guess that you didn't take much time trying to confirm that the subject was on Oprah since a simple Google search confirmed it.  I appreciate the fact that you've agreed not to edit the article any further. Shell   babelfish 17:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ Shel. First, I was adhering to policy as outlined in WP:NPF, which states the following: "People who are relatively unknown: Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." In this case, as I pointed out before, the subject is not well known and is only notable for (a) having been obese, (b) losing weight, and (c) writing a couple of books about her experience. Trivial details about Lincoln would be permissble because Lincoln is not "relatively unknown". The level of detail about a subject's life is supposed to be commensurate with their nobability -- an enyclopedia had to be cognizant of the signal-to-noise ratio.


 * With regard to the XM radio spot, I never said that it wasn't verifiable; I said that there was no secondary source that established that this satellite radio interview is notable. The subject did not appear "on Oprah" as you suggested; she was interviewed on an XM satellite radio program that bears Oprah's name. IMO, this isn't a particularly notable detail, but if a secondary source that wrote about Havey established that it was, then I woul say that notability had been established.


 * It was my understanding that the portion of policy you refer to was intended to limit harm, specifically by limiting potentially damaging information that had little bearing on the subject's notability. However, I would be happy to hear opinions from other editors on whether trivial biographical facts were intended to be covered as well.  Its probably important to note that the policy simply requires relevance, not notability, so the argument that writing or appearances in the course of her career aren't notable is really beside the point. Shell   babelfish 02:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaving notability aside for the moment, I’m looking at the issue of relevance objectively here and the article simply doesn’t read like an encyclopedia entry. Details about ice cream and cheating ex-husbands make this seem amateurish and non-encyclopedic, as do many other details (e.g., incomplete university programs, unpaid blogging activities at e-Diets, etc.).


 * It might be worth your while to review some of the comments form the original deletion discussion, after Havey first posted her biography (which as you know, is frowned upon). The subject’s notability for inclusion was very weakly supported, and the consensus that emerged was a week/conditional keep. This was the version that was ultimately approved.. You’ll notice that it is roughly the same length as the version I generated after my last round of edits. These were some of the most salient comments that were posted during the deletion discussion:


 * “Weak Keep as it is fairly likely she meets WP:BIO as an author. Page should be watched though to protect it from the creator.--Isotope23 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)”


 * “If Ms. Havey can resist the temptation to work on the article in the future and add linkspam to obesity-related articles, I see no reason why we can't keep it. I would encourage Ms. Havey to review Wikipedia policies and gain experience working on other articles. --AlexWCovington (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)”


 * But what happened after that? The article got expanded with fluff and became exactly what these editors collectively agreed that it shouldn’t become –- ie, the current version, which is almost idential to the version that Havey originally posted, and is exacly what the editors in the original deletion discussion agreed was unacceptable. And it looks as though Havey has been editing the article again using an anonymous IP and never did follow the advice that was given (ie, don’t edit your own article and gain experience on other articles). Someone is clearly circumventing WPs processes here by re-igniting what had been a settled issue.


 * You’ll see that I participated in the original deletion discussion on Havey’s article, which took place more than 3 years ago; I was never an ardent supporter of inclusion. The bulk of the issues that I had with Havey (edit warring on an unrelated page) came up quite a while later, so the accusation that I was on a vendetta when I edited this article is not accurate, if anything the opposite is true. The accusation also shows a failure to assume good faith, and hopefully you can see from my explanation that I was in fact editing in good faith and merely following the policy outlined in WP:NPF and respecting the views previously expressed loudly by a consensus of editors.Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have to question your assertion that you're able to look at this with any sort of objectivity. I note that many items I would have considered problematic and I imagine were a concern in the deletion discussion (i.e. "a top-10 seller on amazon.com--#2 on the Health rankings just behind the renown Dr. Atkins!" "Julia has been called the Weight Loss success story Cinderella--with the humor of Jerry Seinfeld, the enthusiasm of Richard Simmons and the passion of Tony Robbins." or "She is America's Master Motivator!") aren't in the current article.  Conversely the information about the radio program and other writings that appear in this version, weren't present in the earlier version.  I also note that unlike the earlier version, this version provides sourcing for the biographical information.  In short, I have a very difficult time swallowing the idea that this version is essentially the same as that earlier version which everyone agreed was problematic. Shell   babelfish 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said, this was the version that was approved. It looks nothing like the current version. We can agree to disagree and open this up for more opinions, but it seems like tail chasing and deja vu to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly that version was an improvement over the earlier ad-like versions, however, articles on Wikipedia aren't ever "finished" so expecting the article to remain a stub forever isn't realistic. I would consider this version a significant improvement over the stub that was in place after the deletion discussion. As I said though, I'd be happy to hear additional opinions about how the BLP policy applies to trivial biographical data and/or whether the article still has promotional sounding language that can be improved. Shell   babelfish 04:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

eDiets.com was a paid staff writter position from 1999-2006, weekly published articles to 14 million readers, never one time was a blog written for eDiets.com by Ms. Havey. And, many accomplishments of individiuals while uncompensated are considered wiki worthy. Being First Lady is an unpaid position yet there are countess wiki articles that discuss such people and even mention where they went to college, even if they didn't graduate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this assertion about the paid staff writer position at e-Diets verifiable? FYI, what would apply to a First Lady (a highly notable subject) does not apply in this case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you want 1099's Red or direct tax returns, but then it would show the sale of 2 books to nationwide publishers, royalties and speaking engagement fees which would further shoot your arguement of her being a loser down? or, call ediets directly, 800 265-6170. FYI, they paid $3000 a month for 4 articles and 4 chats. Guess that's expert worthy pay or would that still qualify as "an unpaid blogger". Can we find out who pays you and what they pay for your "expertise" or are you just an unpaid editor?


 * If the notability and verifiability of this information rests on phoning e-Diets, then I would argue that it does not merit inclusion. This article is not a curriculum vitae; it is supposed to be encylopedic and based on published sources. If the position that Havey allegedly held is not verifiable in a published source, then it probably doesn't merit inclusion. I have found no source that idetifies Havey as a paid contributor or employee with eDiets; if the source exists, simply provide it. BTW, with whom am I having this dicussion? Are you in fact Julia Havey. If you are, then you should be transparent about it; identify yourself as such and sign your posts accordingly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Red, I don't think you are going to have much luck finding every corporation in the World that employees people and posts their names and pay online, the entire world does not exist merely online, the typical procedure for verifying employement is to call. If you are so compelled to, call, but please make sure you do not violate any privacy laws as that wouldn't be a good representation of a non-paid blogger/wiki editor. I am not in fact Julia Havey, since I am not her, I don't need nor want to sign in or identify myself. And, quite honestly, simply calling yourself Rhode Island Red and putting four tildes after your posts doesn't identify you and most definately keeps you veiled behind your wall of transperency. So call me Deeper Throat if that pleases you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Red, found you a published source that ties Julia Havey w/ ediets! http://books.google.com/books?id=clHrxeBAAlQC&pg=PR17&lpg=PR17&dq=julia+havey+ediets.com&source=bl&ots=MojWFGu6Nv&sig=bvcPno1MHXpFg2zV7ybchqVNZw4&hl=en&ei=3hFASs3fHtXtlAfz2P25Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 It's in the preface written by the editor at ediets.com!! Here's the actual text for you, too. Gosh, it only took me one search on google for "Julia Havey eDiets.com" and I found a bunch of published notations. But none that showed a paycheck stub or 1099s but the editor of ediets.com does say "I probably hired her..." so usually being hired somewhere does indicate. I bet you could find them in the corporate filings as they are a publically traded company so if you really need to indulge your curiousity about this woman, go for it! Obviously there is some free time on your hands to spend so much of your unpaid editor time on such a non-credible person.

Preface John McGran, editor-in-chief eDiets.com and “Mr. Bad Foods” Thank God for people like Julia Havey. At a time when nearly two-thirds of all Americans are overweight or obese - and the rest of the world is fast catching up -- we need role models for healthy living. While that rail-thin fitness pro or stick-figure nutritionist may talk the talk, it's a former fatty like Julia who's walked the walk to wellness.

I first met Julia in 2000. She was a bright-eyed former pageant queen with a simple message: "I was unhappy. I gained a lot of weight. I found a way to turn my life around. You can too!"

I probably hired Julia more for her glowing personality than for her writing skills. But five years and 200-plus columns later, Julia remains an integral part of the eDiets family of experts, all dedicated to helping the hopeless attain a healthier lifestyle.

It's easy to lose weight. Heck, I've done it a dozen or more times. The hard part is keeping off the weight you lose. I haven't mastered that part yet. So it's comforting to have a close personal relationship with a woman who has been there, done that in the lose-weight-and-keep-it-off department.

Millions of eDiets subscribers have had access to Julia's heartfelt messaging. And from the many letters I receive, it's clear Julia has amassed a passionate following of men and women anxious to enjoy their life. Forget all that nonsense about a jolly fat person. It's not easy finding happiness when your clothes are always too tight, your health is a mess, and you need to wedge your widening bottom into an airplane or theater seat. Julia knows that pain and frustration. Not only will she ever forget it, she'll never return to her out-of-control eating behavior that turned her into a sad, oversized mess.

Happy days are here again for Julia. You can hear it in her voice. You can read it in her words. After an encounter with Julia, you can't help but come away with a resolve to get in shape. If you sorely need motivation, you sorely need Julia.

So, once again, thank God for people like Julia Havey. I believe we all have a mission in life. Julia's mission is to spread the word about redemption and happy endings via proper nutrition and exercise. Through ridding yourself of the food vices that landed you in trouble in the first place.

Enjoy Julia's book, then begin enjoying your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say guys, this behavior really doesn't reflect well on either of you. If you want to bicker, please do it on your own time and somewhere off Wikipedia. Shell   babelfish 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it doesn't bode well for either, however, Red is trying to force me to say "who" I am or am not, which he has zero right to request or know and asks so despite the fact he, as well as most Wiki editors, go by username/s that in no way reveal who he/they are, what their agenda might be or their ulterior motive. I find the attempt at asking me for what no other editor need present to be very offensive and therefore feel the need to go on the defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that questioning identities is unproductive especially since you've not edited the article and I understand your concern. Hopefully Rhode Island Red can agree either to let this drop or get outside opinions before things degenerate any further. Shell   babelfish 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care personally who this person is but if they are serving as the only source of verification for details that are not otherwise in the public domain, then it's relevant. It seems like it's Havey, which is not in itself a problem, but it's important to know if she is in fact verifying information written about her that cannot otherwise be confirmed. It's not at all uncommon for the subject of a bio to particpate in a content discussion about their bio (and it's allowable by policy), but it is uncommon for someone to do so anonymously (they could carry more weight if it were known that they are the subject of the bio).


 * I don't see this as degenerating -- at this point it's a discussion, nothing more. I have made my opinions on the article known -- I think it's a poorly-written overweighted article on a marginally notable subject, and it needs substantial pruning with repsect to irrelevant details. I have the same opinion of some other biographies that have been self-submitted on WP -- I think it's a frequent problem that editors should be tackling to improve signal-to-noise ratio. In my editorial opinion, bios like this one are not encyclopedic; it blurs the distinction between a bio and a resume/advertisement, and it is disproportionately long relative to the notablity of the subject. I don't think that my opinions on this represent an extreme editiorial view; it seems as though the sentiment would be fairly common, but who knows, I could be wrong.


 * In this case, I agree that it's worth soliciting additional opinions; I'm fine with that. I'll get around to posting an open request for input sooner or later; I don't feel any sense of urgency about this. I don't think a wholesale revert of my all edits was the best long-term solution, but we're all entitled to our opinions (and the assumption of good faith). All is well. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be far more inclined to believe your protestations of good will if you hadn't chosen this article for your test case. Shell  babelfish 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Small notable event
has this ever appeared in this article? although anyone can sue, it did get news, so may be considered notable: .i will see what i can add to article. hard to find real refs beyond the dross. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It did happen. The suit never asked for monetary gain, but rather to have Coke lower the price value points to less than what would equal health hazards for the potential winner/contestant (65 points to win a Rawlins glove, but consume 65000 calories/gain over 30 pounds--not a good option for kids in the day and age of childhood obesity), and asked them to raise the age to 18 and older rather than 13. The suit was dropped when CocaCola lowered prize points on items specifically targeted to kids 13-18. http://newstribune.com/articles/2006/07/14/business/170bus35coke.txt
 * Interesting and certianly noteworthy enough to include. However, according to this report, the lawsuit did seek monetary gain -- $9.77 million. Coca Cola countered that the lawsuit was frivlous and it was apparently withdrawn without Coca Cola accomodating any of the litignats requests for changes to the program. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

http://promomagazine.com/incentives/news/mycokerewards_complaints_071906/ Clearly says that "the woman, Julia Havey, a weight-loss instructor and author on diet books, filed the lawsuit in St. Louis Circuit Court asking Coca-Cola to change or drop the program. She is not seeking monetary damages." and her own statement said the same according to the press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.176.147.126 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC) And, the article cited by Red, but clearly overlooked by read was the comment "HAD sought $9.77 million from the company in her Notice of Intent". it´s legal speak, but an intent isn'´t a lawsuit. The suit did NOT seek monetary gain, the intent requested it for a children´s health fund. And the suit was dropped when Coca Cola lowered the point values of child targeted prices, as sought in the suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.176.147.126 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, only the notice of intent asked for money, but I don't see any source that reported the money was to go for a children's health fund. I have yet to find any source that backs up the claim that Coke lowered point values; in fact, every source directly contradicts this and says Coke did not make changes and even called the lawsuit frivolous and a move intended to promote a new book.  That's not a judgement about the literal truth of any of the information, just a note of what is actually verifiable. Shell   babelfish 14:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)