Talk:MonaVie/Archive 2

Medical advisory board
Someone added a list of advisory board members with a source, but the names at the source were entirely different. I changed the list to the sourced names. Different names will require a different source.  Will Beback   talk    20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

pyramidschemealert.org
Some new material was added using this source: http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/psamain/news/AmwayMonavieSchemes.html That site does not appear to meet the standards of WP:RS or WP:BLP. Since the material concerns a living person, it needs to use only reliable sources. I'm gogint to delete it for now, pending a better source.  Will Beback   talk    21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The reliable source was right there in the article if one took the time to actually READ the thing. "A recent Forbes magazine article details the scheme and documents that 99% of the consumers who are buying into Woodward's Team income plan never earn a profit." and then goes on to quote the Forbes magazine article.  Less than one minute of searching of Goggle coughed up Emily Lambert and Klaus Kneale "Climb to the Top" Forbes Magazine August 11, 2008 never mind the site has its own copy that it provides a link to.  But I wanted to do this the "hard" way to see how reliable the archive version was.  I added a little more of the direct quote to try and get more NPOV as Forbes is painfully bias in this article but then again it is Forbes a highly regarded business magazine.


 * It is bad enough when us regular editors mess up like this but it doesn't help Wikipedia's image when administrators flub it this badly as they are the standard we are to aspire to.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If Forbes is the ultimate source then we should cite Forbes.   Will Beback    talk    08:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a link to http://www.pyramidschemealert.org's copy of the Forbes article provided in the article originally used. I put in a Newsweek article references while I was at it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's much better. Those are impeccable sources. Thanks for fixing it.    Will Beback    talk    10:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, sources might be OK, but the edit makes zero sense at all. Follow the cite and you'll see the article is about TEAM, not about MonaVie. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Insider, but the article in several places states what the connection between TEAM and MonaVie is. "Team, rather, sells things that help people sell things like MonaVie.", "Most Team members spend more buying its motivational aids and MonaVie's juice than they ever take in." and "Team is one step ahead of all these juice selling schemes. It is a pyramid atop a pyramid. It is selling motivational aids to help MonaVie vendors move the juice." Never mind the Newsweek article that show by their own tax records only 0.1 percent made more than $100 a week.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the section you quoted was essentially about TEAM, not MonaVie. It made no sense the way you included it, implying that MonaVie was "a pyramid atop a pyramid". Entirely apart from which, MonaVie uses a binary system, which isn't even remotely pyramid shaped, but such is the standard of Forbes these days :(--Insider201283 (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was an exact quote from Forbes. If anyone was implying anything it was Forbes.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So if Forbes did an article on Coca-Cola that said "It's dark and fizzy with bubbles" then we should put that it in the article? The quote you gave was not talking about MonaVie, it was talking about TEAM. TEAM is not MonaVie. If you're either too ignorant of or too POV about the topic to even see something that basic, then I suggest you focus your energies elsewhere. Otherwise, please do some more NPOV research to understand the topic. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Insider, you are straw grasping. I quoted as much of the article as was relevant with no interpretation--nearly an entire paragraph.  User_talk:Insider201283/Archive_2 shows that you have had COI issues regarding MLMs in the past and given your antics over at MLM (including claiming a peer reviewed paper wasn't) it appears you still have COI issues regarding anything negative regardless of source.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Insider, you are right that the Forbes article talks mainly about TEAM, but it also refers to monaVie several times. By the way, it doesn't imply that MonaVie is "a pyramid atop a pyramid". Since TEAM sells products that are supposed to help MonaVie vendors sell more, the sentence refers to both companies, TEAM is the pyramid on Top, MonaVie is the pyramid at the bottom. --McSly (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * McSly, I'm not referring to what the Forbes article says per se, I'm referring to how Bruce put it in this article. The quote he took out and placed in the WP article never even mentioned TEAM. So we have an article on MonaVie, a section on criticism, and a quote that starts "it's a pyramid on a pyramid". What's the "it"?--Insider201283 (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The more I dip into this article the more mistakes I am finding. TEAM is actually a private organization; it says so in the Forbes article. In fact the Forbes article is about TEAM and not MonaVie. The article also says that TEAM sells to other businesses ("about 90% of Team's sales tool revenues come from people who also sell MonaVie juice”). TEAM makes its money from selling motivational material. If the writers of this wiki page continue to use this misleading information then it they need to lump it all into a single category. The category could look something like the following:

MonaVie’s Distributor Struggles
 * Company executives have repeatedly acknowledged ongoing problems with Monavie distributors making unlawful claims that the juice can treat and prevent diseases. A Newsweek article published August 2, 2008, noted that CEO Dallin Larsen “realizes that his sales team can get him in hot water with the Feds”, and in reference to the company's ability to investigate distributors suspected of making false claims, Larsen commented that “it’s next to impossible; like herding cats.” [21] A November 4, 2008 statement from the company noted: “many distributors, perhaps unwittingly, have engaged in methods of advertising that are in violation of MonaVie’s policies. Such actions put our business and yours at an unnecessary risk.”[45] In a May 14, 2009 Bloomberg News article, Monavie executive vice-president and cofounder Randy Larsen was quoted saying that "the company is struggling with independent distributors who promote the juice as a miracle drug.” [46] Issue Relating to Some Distributor

This section could include the issues relating to TEAM and the issues relating to independent distributors making false claims. By creating this section we will not be “candy coating” the article but rather putting in context all of the issues that are being argued here.(sorry for the long winded post.Ott jeff (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think to do so would be misleading and whitewashing. The sources quote company executives as saying that the "company" is struggling with these false/illegal claims. It's not the distributors that are struggling. I also fail to see any of the "mistakes" you speak of. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rhode Island Red, you are blinded by your own point of view; I have read what Ott Jeff has proposed and it makes perfect sense. Ott Jeff, I would ask the Administrators for a second opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.173.154 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lipid Peroxidation and Serum ORAC Results
Recent edits regarding lipid peroxidation and serum ORAC results for Monavie were incorrect. The text of the research article states the following: p. 8328 -- “ORAC testing did not result in a trend toward increased antioxidant activity”; p. 8331 (re: lipid peroxidation) -- “The difference between JB (Monavie) and PL (placebo) did not reach statistical significance at 1 h (p < 0.11) or 2 h (p < 0.22)." I have restored the original text which reflects these findings accurately. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're misreading the results. The ORAC quote is with regards the pilot study and establishing what methods to use in the main study. ORAC was not even measured in the final study. As the abstract clearly states -
 * A within subject comparison showed an increase in serum antioxidants at 1 h (p < 0.03) and 2 h (p < 0.015), as well as ''inhibition of lipid peroxidation at 2 h (p < 0.01) postconsumption'
 * This is also reflected in the body of the study and you are being extremely selective in your quoting. The quote you give above for example, is in a paragraph that begins -
 * Consumption of JB resulted in a decrease in lipid peroxidation in vivo.
 * This is the exact opposite of what you are claiming, which refers to between group findings and not the paired analysis. The between group analysis was clearly trending towards significance, and the paired analysis made it clear. I am reverting
 * --Insider201283 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, re the text you included, ALL subjects took MonaVie at some point in the study - it was a crossover study - so the text didn't even make sense. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have two different details on the table here, so let’s address them one by one. First, let’s go over a few significant details relating to the recently deleted statement about Monavie failing on the ORAC test. ORAC is a widely recognized test for antioxidant activity (and is often quoted in Monavie advertising); the test was conducted by an outside contract laboratory (Brunswick Labs), unlike the rest of the tests in the study, which were conducted by a group affiliated with the Monavie company,; the Jensen et al. article made the statement clearly that Monavie did not raise the ORAC score in serum; the authors resorted to the CAP assay after Monavie failed to show an effect on ORAC scores. In the last round of revisions, the statement about the ORAC results had been replaced with a redundant statement abut the findings from the CAPe assay, which had already been described in the previous sentence.


 * Secondly, with regard to the lipid peroxidation results, the text of the article by Jensen et al. specifically states that there was no significant difference in lipid peroxidation between the placebo group and the Monavie group – this between-groups analysis was the primary endpoint of the study. Looking at the graph, it is also plainly evident that there was no change in lipid peroxidation in the Monavie group. On a side note, I disagree that there was a trend towards significance for the between group analysis (the p-values were 0.11 and 0.22 – clearly non-significant). The text does note that in a secondary analysis, in which data for each subject’s response to Monavie was compared to the same person’s response to placebo, a significant reduction of lipid peroxidation at 2 hours (but not at 1 hour) was evident; however, this paired data is not even presented in the article; only the between-group data.


 * I have modified the text in accordance with the considerations above, as follows:.


 * In a company-affiliated study, the antioxidant activity and phytochemical content of Monavie Active juice were measured in vitro. It was reported that the juice had an ORAC score of 22.8 μmol/mL and that it contained 0.47 μg/mL total proanthocyanidins and 1.48 mg/mL total phenolics. The same article described the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study designed to evaluate the effects of Monavie Active juice on serum antioxidant activity and lipid peroxidation in 12 healthy adult subjects. The study included two tests for serum antioxidant activity: the ORAC test and the CAP-e assay (a method newly developed by the study authors). Monavie did not increase serum antioxidant activity as measured by the ORAC test but led to a modest increase in activity as measured by the CAP-e assay. The effect of Monavie on serum lipid peroxidation was equivocal. Lipid peroxidation did not differ significantly between groups at 1 hour and 2 hours following consumption of Monavie juice or a placebo (purple dyed potato flakes in a capsule). However, in a secondary analysis, in which each test subject’s response to Monavie juice was compared to the same person’s response to placebo, a significant reduction of lipid peroxidation (approximately 20%) in serum was observed at 2 hours post-consumption. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better, but still noton't have it right. You claim for example that "the study", which you have described as "randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study " included two tests. It didn't. Only a pilot study included the two tests and it had no randomizing, blinding, placebo, or crossover. ORAC was not measured at all in the main study as they felt it wasn't an appropriate measure. Unfortunately they don't go in to details about that decision. The findings of the pilot study and the main study need to be stated separately. --Insider201283 (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'll tinker with it some more to address this. BTW, it's not that the ORAC test was deemed inappropriate; it just didn't yield positive results so the investigators switched to a different test. Personally, I put more faith in the ORAC test results. The ORAC method has been well validated, whereas the CAP-e assay has not. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "inappropriate" was a poor choice of words, but clearly there was an issue with it, as no matter what your opinion of the value of MV it should have increased serum ORAC. Pretty much any anti-oxidant rich liquid should do so. That's why it's unfortunate they didn't expound on this issue further in the paper. In theory, while new, CAP-e looks to be a better measure of whether that increased anti-oxidant status actually does much biologically. So while CAP-e may be better it's very curious that ORAC showed nothing. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be hesitant to refer to Monavie as an “antioxidant-rich juice”. The data from the Jensen et al. study showed that its phenol and proanthocyandin content is relatively low. It was also consumed in fairly small amounts (4 ounces), so it’s not surprising that it didn’t increase ORAC in serum. There is also the report from Men’s Journal, which contracted an independent testing lab (Chromadex) to analyze Monavie; they too found that it was low in antioxidants.
 * Somewhat off-topic but I (speaking as someone who has actually used most of the common antioxidant assays in the lab) strongly disagree that the CAP-e assay looks to be better than the ORAC test or any other existing assays for antioxidant activity; quite the opposite. The CAP-e assay measures resistance to oxidative stress in isolated red blood cells, which do not have complex membranes like most other cells. It’s very easy to get antioxidant uptake in isolated red blood cells; much less so with other cell types. Red blood cells are also not a common in vivo target for oxidative injury. I doubt that the CAP-e assay will ever gain general acceptance among free radical biochemists; it certainly hasn’t received any attention from the antioxidant research community so far.
 * Looking at the Jensen et al. study objectively, we see that Monavie failed on a widely accepted test of antioxidant activity (ORAC) conducted by an outside independent group (Brunswick Labs) but showed positive effects in a novel and as yet non-validated assay (CAP-e) conducted by a group that is affiliated with Monavie. That, in part, is why I would be reluctant to give too much credence to the CAP-e findings. Nonetheless, I think the latest changes I made today should do the trick regarding the details you raised previously. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Comments
Am I missing something or did Insider201283's attempt to archive comments result in their deletion. I hope that was an accident. The edit can't be undone either. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored them manually. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes it looks like an accident, the archive was created but the link to it was not properly done. it's all fixed now. No reason not to assume good faith. --McSly (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Distributor Earnings
A new article was pubished today in the Hartford Courant which coincidentally had a breakdown of distributor earnings stats, similar to what was added recently in our article (the editor's summary based on the company's income disclosure statement). I substituted the exisiting text on earnings with the breakdown presented in the Hartford article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pyramid Scheme and Orrin Woodward
I have added information from Forbes about Orrin Woodward and the pyramid scheme status of MonaVie. Although only the FTC can charge MonaVie with it, I have added information about this within the controversy section. If someone has the stats on how much sales are from outside the company, it would greatly help the controversy section. If not, I will add when I can. Thanks. -askpeeves1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.226.241.5 (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The FTC has explictly stated that "outside sales" vs "internal consumption" plays no role at all in determining whether something is a pyramid or not. Any "controversY" is a furphy promoted by a number of anti-mlm zealots. I'm no expert on the MonaVie comp plan, but it this also makes rational sense - in most MLMs if you're a legitimate buyer of the products it makes perfect economic sense to register and get distributor pricing. Why pay more if you don't have to? Logically of course this also means that the more legitimate market demand an MLM product has, then you'd expect fewer "outside sales" and lower "average incomes". In contrast, anti-mlm zealots use the former as evidence nobody wants the products, and the latter as evidence the business opportunity doesn't work. While those conclusions may or may not be true (I suspect it depends on the company), it could also be evidence of high consumer demand! --Insider201283 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I doubt that a company could be termed a pyramid scheme if outside sales were 100% and internal consumption was 0%, and I'd love to see where the FTC has explicitly stated that in this case there were other factors that could still make this a pyramid scheme. And are you suggesting that if there was high market demand, people would NOT be selling outside the company because the juice would be just oh-so-good they would keep it for themselves and not sell?  I suppose it comes down to how much of the company is actually looking to make a profit by selling the juice (employees), and I suspect 'distributors' versus 'preferred customers' are the distinctions. If you (someone other than you, insider201283) are distributing for MonaVie, and you are contributing more to the company from buying the juice than gaining profits from selling it, either you love the juice and you're just trying to break even or I think you're wasting your time. -askpeeves1
 * Being a pyramid scheme actually has little to do with product volume at all - it's whether you make money by recruiting people or not. As such, 100% external or 100% internal doesn't matter. The latter would just be a shoppers club, and if it has legitimate products that's perfectly OK. I'm a little confused by one of your comments though - are you suggesting that if someone really likes a product, that not to be a salesman for it is somehow disingenuous? I really really really like chocolate, but I've never had an urge to be a chocolate salesman. Some MLM companies, including MonaVie, are trying to actively distinguish between who is actively trying to develop a business and who is just in it for the product, but it's a constantly moving divide. With regards your last statement, how about a third choice - you love the juice and want it cheaper. You're not interested in "break even" because you're not running a business - indeed, just like any other product purchase for personal use, you expect it to cost you money. If you're buying a product because you want it, and registered as a distributor (and perhaps even doing a bit of "work" on the side) to get it cheaper ... and you successfully get the product cheaper, as was your goal ... how is this "wasting your time"? Seems a perfectly rational choice to me. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS here's the FTC letter--Insider201283 (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Product volume would be amount of product sold, not percentage of product sold to the public versus internal purchase, so I refute your first statement as I find it hard to see the connection. And the latter is actually, and basically, a traditionally business, not JUST a shoppers club.  Sorry I edited this part, yes it is a shoppers club, I have no problem with that.  But as with businesses, there must be employees (or even one owner), and I doubt the employees are forbidden from purchasing their own product.  The chocolate analogy also confounds me, as I don't see how I suggested that at all...and no, that if you want to purchase the product in this company and not sell, you are a preferred customer, and if you want to sell the product (and also buy it, as you are required to regardless) you are a distributor.  Preferred customers are not considered internal as far as I know.  And as for your third choice, it's pretty much cleared up by my preferred customer remark I think.  Your third choice commits you to buying the juice (at a discount, yes) for month periods.  "Wasting your time" referred to spending more money on the juice than selling it provides you, if your choice was to become a distributor.  If you are a preferred customer, you are external, and get a discount as well.  The discount for a distributor, mind you, is around 10 bucks per month ($120 a year).  The approx. cost of one month's juice.  I read the letter.  If the juiec is a cover for required fees to participate in the business, it is a pyramid scheme.  If all of the distributors are selling the product because they truly would buy it regardless of the ability to sell it, then it is not.  I doubt the latter. - askpeeves  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.226.241.5 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Read this for more information: http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/dvimf16.shtm - askpeeves1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.226.241.5 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's product sold to a legitimate consumer. If it's sold to a "distributor" who sticks it in the garage, then there's a problem. Being a "distributor" over and above "preferred customer" allows you to earn bonuses which can be applied against your purchases. It can be sensible to do even if you have no intention of developing a large income. You are correct, if the juice is a cover for "fees", then it can be a pyramid scheme. I also doubt all of the distributors are buying the product because they want it just for themselves or think they can sell it. Some are likely buying it because they think it will make them rich. If significant numbers are doing this, then you're heading into potential pyramid territory, and it's one of the reasons Amway gave for kicking Woodward et.al out. Whether that's the case with MV or not, I've no idea. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding today’s additions about Woodward and TEAM by 161.226.241.5: I think some of this information is notable but it seems a bit unfocused in the present form and IMO detracts from the flow. My suggestion is to merge all of the info about Woodward and TEAM at the end of the criticism section, possibly under a new subheading “Orrin Woodward/Monavie TEAM”. The Forbes article essentially characterized Monavie as a pyramid scheme and was critical, in great detail, of Woodward’s sales tools business, so it makes sense to deal with this in the Criticism section only. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi 161.226.241.5 -- I took a whack at rewriting and reorganizing as outlined above. Look OK to you? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That flows much better, though I'm not comfortable with the use of quotes like this, it seems to me to verge on OR to push a POV. Part of that is of course Forbes error, not yours. For example, they complain about the FTC not definining "retail" - but then why should they? It's already well defined in law as "a sale to an end user". It's the anti-mlm zealots who have tried hard to make it mean something else, and to a certain extent, as shown by the Forbes article, they've succeeded in convincing some people. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks Rhode Island Red. And Insider201283, it's the mlm zealots themselves who are apparently trying to convince us that counting your employees as retail customers, while the employees are trying to make a profit somehow, is sound practice.  Regardless of which of us is right, it's definitely a controversy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.226.241.5 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm ... MLM agents, reps, whatever are not employees and not even close. The use of that term indicates you have little understanding of the business model, you might want to read up some more. Furhtermore, there's two types of "sales", wholesale sales, which are purchases for the purpose of resale, and retail sales, which are purchases by the end user. If a Volvo dealer buys a Volvo for his own use, it's still a retail sale. If an MV distributor buys MV for his own use, it's still a retail sale. If you still struggle with this, then simply ask yourself - who is responsible for paying any retail sales tax? --Insider201283 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Employee: a worker who is hired to perform a job. If you view commissions as payment, then they are indeed employees.  I was under the impression that "wholesale" meant by the case.  If a Volvo dealer is required to purchase 4 Volvos a month, and sell them if he wishes or keep them and use them himself, and gets paid by getting other people to buy Volvos to sell themselves, think about it...it's an unsustainable business model.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.226.241.5 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * MLM agents are not "hired". They are independent contractors who have purchased various rights, including distribution and sale rights, what they then do with them is up to them. "wholesale" does not mean "by the case", it means it's been purchased for resale. Purchasing single units for resale is rarely sensible, since there'll be little in the way of markup available for profit, so it will normally be in volume ("by the case"). People sometimes use the term as shorthand for "wholesale price" - ie, getting the same or similar price as a wholesaler. Your Volvo example isn't that far off from exactly what does happen in the car industry. You purchase cars at dealer price and resell them at a markup. If you don't purchase certain volumes (eg "4 a month") then you will lose your dealing pricing. What the person who buys the car off you does with it is their business, but clearly there's a point where you can't add markup and still have an expectation to be able to sell. If everyone who is ever going to buy a Volvo has bought one, and not going to buy another, then you have market saturation for that product. Same principle applies to MLM as to normal business. If there's no more market for your product then you need to change what you're doing - you respond to market forces. I'd suggest MV has recently done exactly that with their introduction of an energy drink. The "premium juice" market is getting pretty competitive, at the same time as getting tougher due to less disposable income - ie the market has changed and is tougher. So you do some different or die. For some reason, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people seem to think companies that use MLM for the compensation plan are under the same stresses as any other business (ie market conditions change), but somehow can't respond like every other business has to - by changing. They not only can, they do over and over and over again. Looking at Amway in the US, which is currently transforming itself from an internet shopping portal to instead aiming to be the #1 health & beauty company in the world. Two decades ago they were best known for selling soap. Markets changed, Amway changed - just like any other business.
 * May I respectfully suggest to all that we keep the comments here focused more on tangible issues that pertian directly to content in the article, rather than engaging in purely theoretical discussions. As much as I find many of these tangents to be interesting, they are off-topic if they do not deal directly with content proposed for inclusion in the article. I agree that there is murkiness and controversy surroundng the issue of what constitutes a retail MLM customer, but if the point is not being applied to content in the article, then it is OT. As long as we quote from reputable secondary sources on this issue, everything should be OK. BTW (sory can't resist) a Volvo dealership ordering cars from HQ does not constitute a retail sale -- it is clearly wholesale. Similarly, if a distributor buys Monavie at wholesale price and consumes the drink themselves, this wouldn't regard as a retail sale either because the product was not purchased at retail price. Monavie LLC could avoid this conundrum simply by offering a "preferred customer discount" rather than requiring people to sign a distributor agreement in order to obtain a discount on the product. IMO, the company lept into the abyss by intentionally blurring the distinction between customer and distributor. but as I said before, this is speculative and does not really pertain to the article as it stands now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you a wrong. A volvo dealer would buy wholesale from HQ, and then make a retail sale to himself. A MV distributor, if they are operating a business, is making a wholesale purchase from MV and a retail sale to themselves. If they are not operating a business, then it's a retail sale for MV or, arguably, for their sponsor. In all situations, any purchase for the purpose of consumption by the purchaser is a retail sale. MV is actually one of the companies in the forefront of trying to categorise people into their correct roles by what they're actually doing, and giving them a different name and excluding them from income statistics if they're really just a "preferred customer". This stuff does pertain to the article as having at least a basic correct understanding of the business model and it's legal status obviously contributes to better editing, however you are right that we shouldn't let it distract too much. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm new here so forgive me if I'm not posting this in the right place or the right way. There's a new article about MonaVie that I thought would be relevant, written by an independent industry expert. I'd like to include it, but not sure if it's appropriate and/or where to put it. Here's the article: Monavie ReviewElliegant (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to WP. The article you mentioned does not come close to meeting WP policy regarding reliable sources and therefore does not merit inclusion. When you want to start a new subject thread, just hit the "New Section" tab and include a descriptive title Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Red! I found the New Section tab your told me about. Gonna dig into the editorial guidelines now. Thanks for your help.Elliegant (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Earnings Section
The information about earnings are facts, and not controversial in the least. I created another section to house them, and added a strange rebuttal from the exec vp. 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. made a few small tweaks. OK? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The last phrase is POV and OR. "break even" and "lost money" are terms that apply to businesses. You are (falsely) assuming that by being labelled a "distributor" by MV, that means you're "in business". I can assure you the IRS would disagree. If one is maintaining distributor status for perks other than the ability to earn a profit, then a membership fee is not for example "a loss", you paid for something in return for certain rights, and you got what you paid for. I'm sure the reader is capable of making their own conclusions, incorrect or otherwise, from Marsh's comments.--Insider201283 (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is more of a issue of people not taking the time to see if they can fill out the 1040 Schedule C or if they do they find out they haven't kept good enough records to make effective use of it; membership fees are covered in part II of the 1040 Schedule C. The IRS even uses line 21 on the 1040 to cover illegal income (per Publication 17--the manual on how to fill it out).--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another issue is not knowing that working for a MLM in the US also requires the filing of a 1099 before you do anything. I would hazard a guess that many would be MLM workers don't even know what a 1099 even is or that they need to fill out a 940, 8109, and most likely a UC-2 if they do manage to make a profit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors: please review the following two paragraphs before considering restoring this page
This article is a complete mess. I am a student at Ryerson University in Toronto. I have been reviewing it and checking the quoted references for a project that I am working on and have found statements that are listed as facts but are in fact incorrect; many of the quoted references do not match their corresponding paragraphs or there is no information at the end of the quoted link; the information is attempting to cast this company in a poor light (an example of this can be seen in the first paragraph under controversy; this section leads the reader to believe that the company has 5 lawsuits filed against it but when you read the quote references you find that MonaVie was actually the plaintive in three of the 5 lawsuits. There is an obvious battle being waged here between those who believe in the company and those who do not. In the interest of providing accurate information you need to remove this article completely or have it written and allow it to be edited similarly to other MLM company pages (i.e. Amway, Avon, Pampered Chef). I have no vested interest in this company and am only reviewing this article for a proposed project that will look at government regulation of the MLM industry. Ott jeff (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that the article is a complete mess and you haven't shown any/enough specific examples to back up your assertion. If you find any faulty citations or misattributions, you can identify them here and someone will take care of it if the issue is legitimate. As for your comment with respect to the 5 lawsuits, that section of the article (Litigation) already clearly specifies that Monavie was the plaintiff in 3 of the suits. As for "allowing the article to be edited", this is already allowed as per WP policy. You might want to take some time to familiarize yourself with the 5 Pillars of WP and spend some time in the WP:sandbox geting up to speed. You posted your comment initially on the article page, which is not allowed under WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rhode Island Red ~ I strongly disagree with your assertion "As for your comment with respect to the 5 lawsuits, that section of the article (Litigation) already clearly specifies that Monavie was the plaintiff in 3 of the suits." This why then does this article’s opening paragrapg lead reads to believe that Monavie is being sued but then does not clearly explain until a subsection buried deep in the article. It is intentionally misleading and is one of the reasons that I question the motives of the writers. 174.88.221.156 (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I strongly urge you to refrain from questioning the motives and intentions of other editors. One of WPs central policies is the assumption of good faith. Secondly, if after discussing this point, a consensus of editors feels that the current wording in the lead paragraph regarding litigation is misleading, then it can be revised, for example by clarifying that Monavie was a plaintiff in some of the suits. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rhode Island Red, you folks need to take a look at this more closely. All the URLs that use the referenced quote all relate to other marketing organizations that are selling a similar product. I question the motives for that reason. Have you actually looked into this, have you actually tried to follow the links or googled the quote to see where it brings you?
 * I am a university student studying at Ryerson University in Toronto and I am looking at MLM and government regulation as a project. With all MLM companies being similar I would expect to read similar stories on WD not that is not the case. This one story has odviously been writen as a negative and shows a huge bias. When I read the story it made me believe that the company was being sued by everybody. I actually had to follow the quoted references to find out the truth, I would question whether anyone else would put the effort into the research as I have. I would expect that someone reseaching MonaVie would read the first paragraph and automaticly assume the worst.Ott jeff (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you already explained that you are a student at Ryerson University in Toronto; that’s neither here nor there. You are claiming that the article as a whole shows "a huge bias" (going so far as to suggest that the whole article should be deleted) and yet the only examples you have presented are a dispute over some of the wording in the article’s lead section, and a dispute about a reference link that you said was dead, when in fact it wasn’t. The URLs in the lead section to which you referred are U.S. Federal Court documents and newspaper articles. Do you have any legitimate examples of bias or incorrect citations to back up your assertions? Overall, I suggest that you focus more on specific actionable details rather than sweeping generalizations and questioning of motives. Please review the guidelines for proper use of the Talk page Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rhode Island Red, Someone, maybe you, has made a change to the opening paragraph. The change does not show MonaVie is a better light but it is factual and that is all I have been suggesting needs to happen. I am not advocating for or against MonaVie but rather for an unbias article. Thanks for your helpOtt jeff (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Showing Monavie or any other product "in a better light" is not even remotely the goal of a properly written WP entry. You seem to be missing what I'm saying to you. Please re-read my previous posts and the 5 Pillars. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW Ott Jeff, was that your edit today under the name Wikibehrjeff? I am suspecting sock puppetry, which you have alredy been warned about. I advise you to proceed with caution from this point on as you may be getting close to being blocked or banned from editing on WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rhode Island Red, the other person (Wikibehrjeff) is not me, check the users IP. Once again i do not want to show MonaVie is a better light, that is not my intention. I just wanted the article to be factual, which it now is because of your edit. Again, thank you (and I mean that sincerely). Ott jeff (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I have re-read your post about sock puppetry, I take offence to it. You need to remove the statement as it reads like a person attach. I have been a member here since 2006, thank you very much, and I am not a once around user. I did memtion that I was a student but I didn't memtion that I am a adult student doing post grad. In the future please reframe from a personal attached and threats.Ott jeff (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your account history shows that your first edit was on October 21, 2009 and that you have edited this article exclusively (see WP:SPA). It seems clear from the edit history, as I explained above,, that you edited this article under two different user names (almost identical SPAs -- Ott_jeff and Ott_jeff1), in the same 24-hour span (October 20-21, 2009), on the same section of the article (the lead section) (and if you really have been a registered user here since 2006, as you said, then it would appear that you are using at least 3 different user accounts). These very compelling reasons are why I warned you (note, warned, not accused) about the seriousness of posting under two different user accounts (WP:sockpuppetry). It is strictly forbidden and can result in a block or ban. Your conduct, aside from the SPA isues, at least borders on tendentious and disruptive; you are putting yourself on thin ice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rhode Island Red, why not simply admit the you made a mistake when you charged that I was Wikibehrjeff and then move on. You are right that I had to register another account (ott_jeff1) when I was unable to remember my password for ott_jeff but I created it under advice from wiki. That account is nolonger active as I was able to find my previous password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ott jeff (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to review WP:sockpuppetry and take appropriate steps regarding your use of multiple user accounts. That being said, I think it would now be best if we kept the discussion focused on article content as per WP:TPG, assuming there is anything left to say about the concerns you raised at the inception of this thread. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Monavie Lawsuits
Disagreement about the validity of the information provided in the opening paragraph; the statement "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy" and all of the details that follow the statement are merely an opinion. The article has a sub-section entitled "criticism" which is where such statements should reside. As a comparison, take a look at [] (Amway) and notice that the writers of that article make no mention of Amway's controversy and the lawsuit that they have defended against MonaVie and alike. It should be noted that the lawsuits file against MonaVie were the result to MonaVie first filing suite against the other companies (see paragraph 12 in the following link) [].

There is no place in Wikipedia for half truths and bias opinions. Please remove the controversy section of the openning paragraph and reserve opinions for the "criticism" section. —Preceding comment added by Ott jeff (talk • contribs) Ott jeff (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a battleground, but controversy of some sort is a routine part of editing, Ott jeff. I've made edits to hundreds of articles about businesses ... comments other editors might make are always in the back of my mind. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia makes a big deal of "assuming good faith" (it's on the main page of the community portal).


 * There are many factors in editing Wikipedia. The one that the established editors are reacting to in this article is WP:UNDUE . It reads in part "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."


 * When a company is unusually controversial, is it reasonable to say so in the opening paragraphs? I would say so. It is ok to bury the information later in the article, where it is far less likely to be read? Where the reader's conception of the overall situation is already largely established? I'd say it is not.


 * Two editors active in this article User:FisherQueen and User:Ohnoitsjamie, are not only extremely experienced, but also administrators. One is allowed to disagree with how exactly they choose to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints", but it's a safe bet that ... at least loosely ... they reasonably represent the views of the Wikipedia's administration.


 * Amway: Wikipedia guidelines are complicated, and, confusingly, some are more flexible than others. So it's natural that editors look at similar articles and just copy the style, etc. However just because one article is wrong is no reason for another article to be wrong in the same way. I.e., bias there doesn't mean that you can be biased in MonaVie in the same way. (In fact, I'd be inclined to add a sentence to the intro Amway article -- since the article (later) reads "the Amway business is run in a manner that is parallel to that of major organized crime groups"!) But we don't need to fix the Amway article to fix this one. Piano non troppo (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ott Jeff -- with respect to the following statement you made: "It should be noted that the lawsuits file against MonaVie were the result to MonaVie first filing suite against the other companies (see paragraph 12 in the following link) []." Am I missing something here. This article you linked to describes how Monavie was sued by Imagenetix for $2.75 billion for faslely claiming that the juice contained Celadrin. It says nothing about Monavie suing Imagenetix first, as you had suggested. Also, I changed the title of this thread to something more descriptive of the content issue; please follow this example in the future as it makes it much easier to keep track of the various discussions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'm involved in this article; I just happen to have it on my watchlist and find myself frequently reverting the more obvious attempts of employees of this company to whitewash the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Transparency The section was so named because User:Ott_Jeff requested a third opinion on this dispute, and I asked him on his talk page to write a summary of the dispute here, instead of on WP:3 (as he had originally done). I was waiting for the other contributor to post his/her side of the dispute here, but clearly there are more than two editors involved here, so a WP:30 is not needed. I will remove it from the Third opinion request page.

But, as long as I'm here, the information about the lawsuits should be included in the article in order to achieve WP:NPOV: all viewpoints must be presented. IIRC the nexus of the dispute was actually about whether this information should be included in the lede, and it should. According to WP:LEDE, "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Mildly MadTC 01:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have an issue with including descriptions of pending lawsuits, since cases might resolve in judgments of completely guilty, completely not guilty, or anything between. (Or thrown out of court, or resolved by undisclosed arbitration.) Wikipedia doesn't want to be in the situation of slurring the reputation of a company that is later absolved of wrongdoing. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I think it's a fairly straightforward matter to discuss a pending lawsuit as long as it is done in a way that does not imply an outcome a priori; e.g., "Company X filed a suit against Monavie alleging that...". Secondly, unless I'm mistaken, all of the suits have been concluded: e.g., Fruitology, Amazon Thunder, and Imagenetix. The Amway/Quxtar arbitration award has been upheld as well. Don't realy see that there is significant room for confusion here. Rhode Island Red (talk)
 * If the suit has concluded, then it definitely enters into territory for potentially useful and valid Wiki material. Pending suits might last indefinitely, but still get into news and magazines ... so ... maybe a case-by-case basis... Piano non troppo (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * the thing is that they are discussed in the lede and then under the Litigation section. If they are to be discussed in the lede then go into detail, as spelled out in the lead section which states "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." Ott jeff (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The court cases themselves are primary sources. They can be included in the references section, but they should not be used to directly reference the controversy in the lead section of this article. I would like to remove the court cases, and move them to the references. The controversy itself can be referenced to a couple of sources; it really does not need 9 or 11 references. There is either controversy or not. How about editors pick 2?--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there appears to be only one article about a single lawsuit (maybe multiple filings), and 6 links to other court cases. This is simply original research and all court cases should be removed. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede
I understand that there are people here who want to controll what people read and want to steer this article in a particular direction. The changes that I have been made follow the style of the other big mlm wiki page amway. The article has been properly cited, is on point, and factually correct. Please justify your reasoning for any future changes. Ott jeff (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - you reverted an edit of mine that I did justify. You don't own this article, and I don't see that you have consensus to delete well-sourced information that many other editors have restored.  Dawn Bard (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just looked at the rewrite of the lede and it is now very lopsided and does not accurately summarize the bulk of what's written in the article. Consequently, I reverted back to the last stable version. Also, the lede should not contain details that are not discussed in the rest of the article. It is supposed to be a brief summary, nothing more. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * “I like it the way it was" is not a good reason to undo this edit. As I have stated many times, the changes that I have made reflect that of the Amway page. To add criticism in the opening paragraph and them include a criticism section is nothing more then an opinion and a bias one. I am the only person editing here that is completely impartial.Please reframe from your constant vandalism. Ott jeff (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "But the Amway page is different" is not a valid reason to override consensus, take ownership of the page, and delete sourced information. And restoring the consensus version of the page is not vandalism; you're the one in violation of the three-revert rule, here. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Ott Jeff: pointing to other (possibly) inadequate articles is not the way we operate around here. Please read WP:LEAD, which states that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." You are also reverting strongly against WP:CONSENSUS and are at great risk for being blocked for edit warring. I suggest you stop and read up on our policies and guidelines before editing again. --Slp1 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that anyone here is making an "I just don't like it" argument. The reasoning seems to have been well articlated. The edits to the lede did not conform to WP:LEDE. What works for Amway doesn't necessarily work for Monavie. A good article is constructed based on facts/commentary from reliable, indepdendent, third-party sources. The weight of details in the article should reflect the weight of facts/opinions among the sources cited. There is a lot of reliable, independent, secondary source commentary about Monavie, and some or most of it may reflect poorly on the product. Nonetheless, a properly written lede will relect these not-so-positive details and weight them accordingly. I think the lede can probably still be improved, but certainly not by whitewashing it or edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ott Jeff, your comparison to Amway is valid. I just changed the Amway article. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * An article that cherry picked the research ... is offensive. The people who are quoted in this article as questioning the product's value, novelty, and the legality of health benefits, these people all sell similar products (not exactly credible sources). Also the lawsuit filed against Monavie was retalitary and these types of lawsuits are filed against every American company. The writer of this paragraph has choosen to mislead readers. You are distoring facts to sell an idea, it is disgusting. Ott jeff (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) To which article(s) are you referring? The sources describing the lawsuits so far--Newsweek, Men's Journal, Forbes, ChromaDex (an independent lab), the FDA, and other medical professionals--are unquestionably reliable and neutral. Mildly MadTC 21:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Newsweek article makes no mention of lawsuits and only uses a third party website called purplehorror.com as a source for controversy (a website that has no contact information and does not tell readers who owns it (not a credible source). The article does say that the FDA was satisfied that MonaVie was not falsely promoting its product (it is deceptive to say otherwise). The Forbes article relates to an independent distributor the and not MonaVie, if you have an issue about an independent distributor then write and article about him and not MonaVie (the article actually is more and Amway).                  According to WP:BLP allegations against living people and active companies are supposed to be deleted *immediately*, not left while it's argued in talk. Ott jeff (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed the name of this section to Lede from Introduction.


 * And the Newsweek article isn't used as the cited source of any lawsuit information as far as I can see. All of the other information in the article is the work of the reporters... that's generally how these things work.  It's considered a reputable publication.  The wikipedia article does mention distributors as the sources of these claims, not the company itself.  It's a valid point of concern and controversy, and it's not misleading, so it belongs in the article.  The information contained in the Forbes article is also relevant for the same reason.  In reference to WP:BLP, the article states that the BLP policy does not apply to companies, corporations or other entities (or such is my interpretation of it, anyway).  Beyond that, the MonaVie article appears to comply with the BLP anyway.  Could you please quote the relevant sections of BLP that you feel have been violated, and where the article is in violation of the policy? - Jonathon A H (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read completely all of the comments you will see that what is being argued is that the lede is being used strictly to lead and trease the reader and make them have to going fishing to find the facts. "lede While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." This lede as it is written does just that; the reader has to do research to findout that the Amway lawsuit came as a result of MonaVie suing them first. Also the Imagenetix reference when reviewed externally you findout that the lawsuit was a business disput and that 14 days later Imagenetix annouced a business relationship with MonaVie and praised the organization. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.173.154 (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what you mean "tease" and not "trease". You are right though, this is what I have been saying all along. Ott jeff (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Another issue with the lede is the use legal cases to show controversy. WP describes controversy as "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate". All of these lawsuits had been settled within days of their filing, not exactly prolonged and not exactly controversial wouldn't you say. All of these should be relegated to the litigation exclussively (with the expectation of the Oprah and Dr Oz case which I have not been able to find the status of). Ott jeff (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Under the heading "Misleading advertising and health claims" this article talks about MonaVie being warned by the FDA for issues relating to its website but in actual fact the warning was not directed at MonaVie but rather to an independent distributor named Kevin Vokes and his private website. By reading the following FDA link you will find that it contradicts this wiki summary and also the cited of the articles: (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/CyberLetters/ucm056937.pdf). In light of this new information I would expect that any reference to the Newsweek and Palm Beach Post articles will now be removed. Ott jeff (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? The section clearly states that these claims are made by distributors, not MonaVie itself.  The section uses Mr. Vokes as an example of such claims, and the sources given are used to properly cite this example.  Furthermore, the section also has MonaVie's response to the claims made by its distributors, so offers balance to the criticism.  The section title could, perhaps, be changed to Misleading advertising and health claims by distributors to be more specific, but the information contained in the section and the sources cited are valid and relevant when discussing the product. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You may not see an issue with misleading readers but I do and every reader should too. The statements from the article says that the “FDA warned MonaVie about its website”. This is completely false and it’s an outright lie. How can you possibly cite an article which has such a blatant false statement as one of its major points? All reference to the Newsweek article should be removed. Ott jeff (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it a case of intentionally misleading readers. Quotes used come directly from the articles cited, and the articles cited are based on the letter from, and communication with the FDA.  I will agree that the quote from the article stating that the FDA warned MonaVie could probably be removed, I think it would be unwarranted to remove the article altogether.  You'll note that the information contained in the Newsweek article also makes MonaVie's position on the matter clear, states that the FDA exonerated MonaVie, and contains relevant quotes from MonaVie's founder on problems regarding claims made by distributors.  While stating that FDA claims were made against MonaVie may be inaccurate (are we certain that the incdent mentioned in the Newsweek article is the same as the one involving acai-berry.com?), I think it's an honest, and understandable mistake (and an easy one to make if the acai-berry.com site appears as it does now, stating that it is 'MonaVie' approved), and the Newsweek article does offer a balanced discussion (once again stating that the FDA is satisfied with the handling of the situation and noting concern from MonaVie's founder on the situation). Also, the link to the letter from the FDA is already cited as a source in the criticism section. - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only does this statement affect the Criticism section is also has an affect the lede where it is stated “and the legality of health benefit claims are questioned” This statement is not supported anywhere else so it too needs to be removed.Ott jeff (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no valid reason to exclude the Newsweek article. The suggestion is farfetched to say the least. The FDA quite clearly did warn Monavie Inc. about the offending website and Newsweek said so explicitly: i.e.,"the FDA warned MonaVie about medicinal claims on its Web site". The company's name is also on the FDA warning notice. Nonetheless, the WP article does clarify that the violation involved a particular distributor. I revised some of the details about the FDAs ultimate response. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the FDA warning, and not just the Newsweek article. The FDA letter is strictly confined to a privately owned website of an independent distributor. To suggest that MonaVie was warned is a complete fabrication. Please read the letter and make the change. Here is the link once again: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/CyberLetters/ucm056937.pdf Ott jeff (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously I read it. Monavie Inc was one of the recipients of the FDA warning; henc, they were "warned". Two secondary sources refer to the company as being warned by the FDA. Pretty cut and dried I would say. Monavie was warned. What else is there to dicusss? Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rhode Island Red, you are interpreting the information and providing an opinion, please reframe from doing so. Ott Jeff has made a very valid point here. I reviewed the letter that was issued by the FDA and looked at the FDA warning site. The warning was clearly directed at an individual as it is start: “Dear Mr. Vokes”, and uses “your website” when describing the issue. MonaVie is cc’d at the bottom of the letter in the same way an employee would cc a senior manger.  Furthermore the two outside sources that you refer to have made the same mistake as you; if this were a laboratory and the data provided were incorrect then the outcome of the experiment would be tainted. The referenced material is exactly that, it is tainted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.173.154 (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right that it is cut and dried, but not the way you think. As the previous poster stated the journalists had made the same mistake as you. The FDA letter was sent to Mr. Vokes and asked him to make changes to his website; three wrongs does not equal a right. At the bottom of the letter they carbon copied MonaVie. Ott jeff (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again..."Newsweek said so explicitly: i.e.,'the FDA warned MonaVie about medicinal claims on its Web site'." It's WP:OR and unsupported assumption to say that the journalists at Newsweek made a mistake and that the WP article should therefore not mention that Monavie was warned by the FDA. It's not our role to make such interpretations of published secondary sources. Besides, Monavie Inc was named on the warning letter, in addition to Mr. Vokes. How does that leave any room for further argument? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the only creditible piece out there is that of the FDA itself! It was the FDA that wrote the letter of warning and it is this letter that Newsweek is quoting. Anyone can see that the letter was addressed to Mr Vokes and his website. When a letter is carbon copy it is done as a courtesy. The link to the FDA letter is the supporting document. I can see at least one other person that argrees with me. I would suggest that you are mistaken and that the change needs to be made. Ott jeff (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The FDA is a regulatory agency and as far as I know, they do nothing out of courtesy. To suggest that Monavie being listed on the FDA complaint represents a courtesy would seem to be original research, and it overriden by a secondary source (Newsweek) that says that the FDA warned Monavie. You can't say what investigation led Newsweek to their conclusion; again, to suggest otherwise is WP:OR. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdenting for convenience Rhode Island Red is quite right. Legal bodies such as the FDA do not cc official notices merely as a courtesy. Sending a cc effectivley states "We want to make sure that we know about the content of this, so that you cannot ignore it and subsequently claim ignorance." In other words sending a cc is a warning, as stated. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regulatory agencies in the US do indeed cc as a courtesy to stated stakeholders. It is sometimes required by law. The important point here is that the Newsweek established the notability of the FDA notice. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the distinction being drawn between "courtesy" vs. "warning" here. Interpreting this as a courtesy instead of a warning would be OR. In my expereience, the FDA does not notify uninvolved parties. If Monavie is named, they are being warned. Moot point though, since it is specifically mentioned in the Newsweek article that the FDA warned Monavie. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC).
 * The point is it's original research on our part to decide whether or not MonaVie is warned, and, yes, "based on your experience" is what OR means. A named party or a declared stakeholder, even a self-declared stakeholder may be cc'ed without that being considered a warning. It's up to the news to tell us if it is a warning. I suspect that actual warnings require more than a CC, based on my experience. For this and for the court cases, they can only be used if they are discussed in secondary or tertiary courses, if that information is relevant to this article, and if the primary source is then relevant. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed that there is a whole paragraph dedicated to criticising Dallin Larsen but nothing on the other side of the issue. Dallin Larsen was a founding member of Usana vitamins and served as their president, he was the ernst and young businessman of the year for Utah in 2009 and most resently was named the the ernst and young entrepreneur of the for emerging business category. I wonder why this information is not note worthy to the editor who control this page. On anither note, I notice that the lede talks about amway suing monavie but makes no mention of monavie being the company that sued amway and that the following day iswhen amway launched their suit. (Unsigned comment by 68.171.234.54 01:07, 2 December 2009)
 * First, the paragraph is not dedicated to criticizing Dallin Larsen; it simpy relays the facts of his association with Dynamic Essentials/Royal Tongan Limu juice, as relayed by other sources. Second, the article already mentions both Larsen's previous connection with Usana and the Ernst Young award. Lastly, the article already mentions that Monavie filed their suit against Amway "preemptively", and the dates are shown for the respective lawsuits in the the bibliography. Lastly, no one editor "controls" the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The court cases need to go: OR
In most cases in this article the lawsuits filed against MonaVie are used as sources of information about the company. However, the relevancy of lawsuits, even when they are through and the court has published an opinion, requires interpretation by another party prior to their being used as a reliable, secondary or tertiary source in an encyclopedia article.

When editors say that the company is controversial and add multiple lawsuits filed against the company as direct support of the controversy the editors are providing their original research and opinion about the company. Wikipedia has a policy of No original research, and all of these lawsuits must be removed and the underlying statements that are supported solely by the lawsuits must be removed.

If another article discusses the lawsuit, a reliable secondary or tertiary source, for example, then the lawsuits can be included to support statements derived from the secondary or tertiary source. An example of this would be a full quote from the court case that is referenced in the reliable source.

I will, of course, listen to community input on this. However, I plan to remove all of the lawsuits that do not meet the requirements for proper referencing of a wikipedia article.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick policy note: primary sources can be used (see WP:PRIMARY), but only for descriptive purposes. As you say, reporting on the cases would be preferable. -- B figura (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There do appear to be a few sources in the news: . Not sure how pertinent the scope is, but wanted to point them out. -- B figura (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and some used in the article, but the whole section on litigation is someone's personal gathering of the court cases. It's not based on their significance as reported by reliable sources. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? To take the first paragraph in that section as an example, I don't see any original research. Any person without specialist knowledge could read the source and establish that the claims asserted in the paragraph are true. All that's being asserted there is that there's a lawsuit, the amounts, and the disposition of part of a case. It seems an allowable use of WP:PRIMARY sources. -- B figura (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are ALL lawsuits significant? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I didn't realize that was your issue (since you mentioned NOR as your main point). However, if you're getting sued by Oprah, I'd say that's a pretty good example of a notable lawsuit. -- B figura (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At least two of the lawsuits were covered by secondary sources: Oprah and Imagentix. Oprah is a big deal obviously, and the Imagentix suit sought the remarkably high sum of $2.75 billion (over a false advertising complaint). Th Amway suit also alleges false advertising, as have many other secondary sources. Discussion of such issues seems to be more prevalent/notable in secondary sources than any other aspect of the the product/company. (Unsigned 03:57, 20 November 2009 Rhode Island Red)
 * It would be nice if we could balance all of this with respect to the lede too. The lede was kind of put together by committee in a push/pull exchange over time, but it could flow better. It should be roughly based on the weight and notability of details in secondary sources. That's mainly the critical pieces by Newsweek, Forbes, Men's Journal, FDA, etc. Maybe not all of the court cases need to be mentioned, but Oprah and the $2.75 billion Imagenetix suit certainly seem notable enough at least. Lastly, perhaps include the entry about #18 on Inc magazine's private company list, although I don't think that a ranking on a list is anywhere near as notable as investigative journalism like Newsweek and Forbes, etc. When I step back and look at the weight of the commentary from secondary sources, I see mostly discussion about issues of a product that's not all it's cracked up to be, misleading advertising, poor success rates for distributors, pyramid scheme issues, and the company's inability to control misleading claims. Am I missing something? Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, sounds good. Let's attach the two lawsuits with the reference that they are mentioned in, in the sentences that mentions them, and remove the rest. I think most of this article is irrelevant to anything and it should be cut down quite a bit. This company is notable, but it's not as big as this article makes it out to be, so let's get the article in scope, mention the court cases where appropriate and whittle the fluff down as much as possible. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just reread the Imagenetix story, and it remarks on the size of the $2.75 billion Imagenetix suit and it discusses the suit with Amway/Quixtar.


 * "Robert FitzPatrick, president of consumer watchdog group Pyramid Scheme Alert, said the requested judgment is one of the largest amounts he's ever heard of in his 10 years of tracking the multilevel marketing industry. 'I think it would take any multilevel marketing company in the world out of business if they got anything close to that figure,' he said. MonaVie also is facing a lawsuit by Quixtar North America, a sister company to Amway Corp., a multilevel marketer that also sells nutritional products. MonaVie in March had filed a federal lawsuit in Salt Lake City against Quixtar and Amway, asking the court to rule whether non-compete agreements extend to the companies' distributors. Amway countersued the next day."


 * This pretty much justifies the discussion of most if not all of the lawsuits in the body text of the article. Lede should probably mention Oprah, Imagenetix, and Amway/Quixtar (at least). It really does seem that lawsuits are kind of a defining characteristic of this company. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not justify their discussion throughout the article. Whatever you use from the secondary source, if it mentions that specific lawsuit, and that court case is relevant to what you are using that reference for, then it is fine to include the lawsuit IN THAT REFERENCE. However, this does not mean you should discuss the court cases directly as is discussed in the litigation session. Simply use each case when and where it is appropriate and in no other location. Just like everything you use in wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia. That's how encyclopedias are written. They are not a synthesis of additional facts or speculations by their editors.
 * Also, don't work to hard to include every bad thing you ever heard of about this company. The article stinks of a an edit war. It's time to get a neutral, factual, accurate wikiepdia article. I have asked editors at AN/I to volunteer to check the article after it's rewritten. Let's aim for factual and accurate, not skew piece. If you can't write it from a neutral point-of-view, then that will be as much of a problem as another editor writing it as a love fest. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it a bit differently. I'm pretty well acquainted with the range of published material on the subject. I work just as hard to find meaningful RS content from both sides of the fence. If you think something is not NPOV, discuss it, but don't make an assumption of bad faith OK? Nobody is trying to railroad anything. It would be great to have input from more editors. Let's have at it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's start by moving the litigation section to this page and writing it as referenced content rather than a list of the court cases. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed
These paragraphs, which open the section on litigation included only information from the court cases, not outside references discussing their relevancy: (--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

On July 11, 2007, Monarch Health Sciences, the company that launched MonaVie, filed a lawsuit with the Utah district court against rival açaí juice manufacturer Amazon Thunder, alleging that owner/founder Todd Reum had made “harmful, false, and defamatory statements" about MonaVie which "purportedly injured Monarch’s reputation”. The suit sought $75,000 in damages. On November 15, 2007, the Utah district court ruled to dismiss the case against Reum.

On November 8, 2007, Monavie, Inc. filed a trademark infringement suit against Fruitology, a rival acai beverage (Fruitavie) manufacturer, in Utah District Court. Monavie voluntarily dismissed the suit on March 20, 2008.

On March 17, 2008 MonaVie preemptively filed a lawsuit with the Utah district court asking for a ruling as to whether Quixtar Inc. and  Amway Corp. had been over-reaching the boundaries of its non-compete agreements and address whether or not such agreements are enforceable for independent distributors.

I can't remove them, because they are linked throughout the article. Is there anything right about this article? The FDA reference is also a primary source and needs used where it is specifically referenced, not as a list of 7 claims to show that this product is crap.

Please, pick two references only for each of the lead sentence about controversy about this company, and use the rest elsewhere in the article. It just looks like the result of a serious edit war, not an article that is intended to be read. The references numbers list is almost as long as the sentence in each case. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fruitology and Amazon Thunder are definitely the least important, although I'm not convinced that there is necessarily atrong policy reason for removing them. They do exist and it would seem reasonable to present them with basic details that would not constitute WP:OR. Nonetheless, I'm open to the idea. The Amway/Quixtar v. Monavie et al. suit seems notable though, since the legal problems between Woodward’s Monavie TEAM and Amway/Quixtar are discussed in the Forbe's article. Also, there are dockets on the latest $25 million arbitration judgement against Woodward and senior members of Team Monavie. Monavie is mentioned here. Here are the docket details: Here are additional key pages from the docket. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, as for the picks for the lede, I'd say Newsweek, Forbe's, and Men's Journal for the general criticism, and for the lawsuits Oprah, Imagenetix, and probably the Amway/Quixtar/Monavie Woodward lawsuits. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * None of them have to be removed, they simply have to be tied directly into a source. You can't just quote a lawsuit, that's OR. BUT if the lawsuit is mentioned in one of the magazine articles AND you discuss that particular lawsuit, the case can be linked ALSO.
 * So, for the lawsuits, the lawsuits themselves cannot be mentioned unless and except if they are mentioned in another source and that mention is discussed in this article. How about, for the lead, just Newsweek and Forbes, add the Men's Journal source when the information is fleshed out later on. And, as for picking which lawsuit, in the lead, how about just pick the one lawsuit first or most prominently mentioned in each source? Unless, the lead includes the lawsuits for different reasons. I don't know what the lawsuits are for-again, this article is so cluttered the information cannot be gotten.
 * So, either mention the controversy in general, then the two leading journals (substitute Men's Journal for one of the others if it is not American, of course), then the main lawsuit mentioned in each journal. Or, go by what the lawsuits are about, if one is for pyramid schemes, another for false health claims, and a third for marketing (examples I picked at random, not necessarily related) AND the journals mention all three of whatever themes, include one lawsuit for each theme, mention the themes in any logical order, like according to their mention in the articles, and place the lawsuits at the appropriate location. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * These legal cases are going to pile up faster than we can figure out what to do with them. This story, published a few ays ago, is really bizarre. The Bahamian finance minister was in a big scandal last year after he was accused of violating Bahamian law by rigging the countries duty tax to give Monavie, which his sister-in-law distributes, a preferential tax rate. Made big news in the Bahamas last year. Now the story is back in the news again; the minister is suing his accusers for defamation. Truth is stranger than fiction in the case of Monavie...what an odd duck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs)
 * There's no hurry. Every individual lawsuit against the company does not have to be included in the article. The article is already far larger than the company merits. What we need is a credible section on the legal controversies that is well written text, rather than a list of lawsuits, that a reader can actually read. We are far enough from having that, that adding more lawsuits isn't something to do right now. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading all the comments and have been following the discussion. I must commend all of those who worked so hard to have ott_jeff banned from wiki. The best way to deal with people who disagree with you is to eliminate them. If you all work hard enough you can stiffle all conflicting oppinions, what a wonderful place you will have created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.173.154 (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to post such comments. If you take issue with the user's block (which would be surprising unless the objections were coming from the blocked user or a sock puppet) you can take it up at ANI. This page is for discussing article content and how to improve the article. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Image of bottles
I removed the image of the bottles. The bottles aren't award winning designs and were essentially being used to advertise the product in this article. That's not fair use. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to discuss the issue, but the company logo is usually as far as one can go for a small article on a somewhat known company. Or someone could shoot their own picture of the product and upload it with an appropriate license. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's a licence issue or it looks like it crosses the promotional line, then do what's right and yank it. I think it helps a bit with recognition but I don't feel strongly either way. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I yanked it for the licensing issue. I do like a picture of the product in the article, and it was an excellent image, but it has to meet very specific requirements for fair use, and this did not. The company logo does, however. It would be nice if someone came up with a picture, though. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

MORE Project
IP69.226.103.13 Quick question. I noticed back in November information on the MORE project was removed. I am not sure what the reason means "charitable project's notable not established" Can you please explain what that means? Thanks sunpacer 08:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpsullivan1967 (talk • contribs)


 * All activities of a company are not part of the article, Jeff. Almost all companies donate to some charity or another. If the charity or the company's donations are particularly notable, listed by outside reliable sources as notable, then they can be included. It's the same for everything in this article. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  18:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So would this piece of information be notable? "MonaVie is committed to paying 100% of the MORE Project’s operational costs." http://www.themoreproject.org/about-more/monavie-and-the-more-project/ and "Indeed, since MonaVie founded the MORE Project has expanded its reach and scope in myriad ways, which simply means that more of the people in such extreme circumstances are being given the opportunities they would never have gotten otherwise, to change their lives and become productive, happy members of society." http://www.themoreproject.org/about-more/our-story/ Just trying to make sure before I add something that will just get deleted, as some of my other edits have been. Thanks Cuse Fan (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability is not established through first party sources. Find a reliable third party source. Yes, most of it is getting deleted as most of it is purely trying to use wikipedia to promote this company. It's getting tiresome. The article should probably just be deleted to give the sock farm a break in its breeding cycle.
 * If you can't find it in the news, but only on the MonaVia and friends' company websites it's not reliable. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  18:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I take offense that I am part of a "sock" farm. I am not trying to promote anything. I am simply trying to add some information that is not currently included in this post. It seems there is an effort to only show "negative" on this company. I have used Wikipedia a lot in the past, and am now realizing that it is not a reliable source of information. It is controlled by those that want to further their own agenda. I agree, delete the article. It would be better for all involved. Cuse Fan (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The information is not the sort of information that someone will come looking in an encyclopedia for. It's not heard of anywhere on the internet or in press source databases, so, why would anyone know about it and come to an on-line encyclopedia to find it? The information that tends to be added and re-added to this article is obscure and not the sort of information anyone besides a dedicated writer of the article is likely to know about or seek to find. The control tends to keep going back to adding obscure, unsourced information to make the article as long as possible with as many links to MonaVie as possible. If you're not a sock, then it would be nice if you didn't act like the other editors who keep adding links, making the article longer, and putting in more obscure unsourced information. Please feel free to nominate the article for deletion! -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  19:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your enlightment and comments. I was simply asking some questions being new to Wikipedia as a contributor, but you had to make it personal. You have succeeded in driving a new contributor (1 day) away from Wikipedia with your insinuations and accusations. You seem to have much more time on your hands than I do to argue over these petty things. Good luck to you and all your fellow contributors. I will now take all information found on Wikipedia with a BIG grain of salt, since all contributors are not welcome. You can nominate this for deletion, as somehow, I am sure I would request incorrectly and be flogged for it. Cuse Fan (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This wasn't really apparent since the template was missing, but this page has been nominated for deletion before. If you want to take a look at the previous AfD's, you can check the links in the template at the top of the page. Also, I'd concur that the charitable activities don't seem to be notable. If you find a reliable source that discusses it though, it might be worth considering. -- B figura  (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bfigura. I didn't know remember was nominated for deletion before' although I think that's how I found it in the first place. Cuse fan/Kpsullivan1967, single purpose accounts adding SPAM and attempting to promote a product will have difficulties on wikipedia, if not from one editor, then from many. Even though the article has been nominated for deletion once, you should feel free to nominate it again if you can argue compellingly that it should be deleted. I would gladly support your AfD if you choose to nominate. Any information you find on the web at user-modifiable sites, like wikipedia, should be taken with a grain of salt, or however you couch it. So, you learned something useful from editing wikipedia, if you came here considering it or any other website 100% accurate, and went away with the idea that it should not be considered 100% accurate. Single purpose accounts certainly contribute a very high share to inaccuracies. Even though the article has been nominated for deletion once, you should feel free to nominate it again if you can argue compellingly that it should be deleted. I would gladly support your AfD if you choose to nominate. It is targeted by too many single-purpose-accounts and deletion might be better. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)