Talk:Pomegranate juice

Possible health benefits and risks
Have we used the title "health benefits", it would've amounted to a POV statement, as it fails to note that there're risks associated with consumption of the juice, primarily due to its high caloric content.

For those who wish to benefits from its alleged health benefits, the entry now informs about the (proven) health risks, which are particularity important given the obesity epidemic in the US.

Rather than make general statements about caloric content, the entry now provides specific information to allow the reader to assess the health benefits and risks of the juice. One way is by providing comparison to other beverages and their caloric content.

As always, the discussion page is the appropriate forum to discuss changes, especially those involving deletion of well-referenced, valid information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TippTopp (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 October 2009‎


 * I see the usual Wikipedian hostility to any natural therapy not patentable by the pharmaceutical industry strikes again, and spills over into this talk page. The editors here are downplaying and avoiding pomegranate juice's "alleged" benefits and playing up it's "risks", as if having calories is somehow unique to pomegranate juice! This comment in the article: "There have been no large clinical trials showing that antioxidants can prevent heart attacks or other major heart-related events.[2]" is another example of more flat-earthism. This article cites several large trials by reputable organisations, i.e. Cambridge, Harvard, etc. If the obvious and overwhelming evidence of the benefits of antioxidants are not considered "proven" by Wikipedia then nothing else under the sun is proven either. Of course disinformation studies influenced by the pharmaceutical industry and obtuse conservatives in the medical establishment to muddy the waters against natural remedies is usually regarded as "neutral POV" by Wikipedia. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Claims of conspiracies are not a substitute for evidence. WP:MEDRS outlines what sources should be used and what prominence to give them. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The abundant blatant biases on wikipedia (in the face of attempts to be NPOV) are the evidence. The inability of "editors" on here to synthesize and interpret sources along with their ideological blindness is gobsmacking. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. since when are Harvard and Cambridge not "reliable sources"? (Answer: when it doesn't suit the ideological agenda of a cabal sitting on a wikipedia page to enforce their one-sided POV)121.73.7.84 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see my edit has been reversed again to the old biased article with no explanation. Here are some studies of the benefits of pomegranate juice. I realise that i'm probably talking to a wikipedian brick wall regardless of this research - which is why wikipedia has become such a sham.


 * Pomegranate Juice Reduces Damage to Tissues, Inflammation and Infections: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101119083126.htm


 * Pomegranate juice consumption inhibits serum angiotensin converting enzyme activity and reduces systolic blood pressure: http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150%2801%2900412-9/abstract


 * Pomegranate juice consumption for 3 years by patients with carotid artery stenosis reduces common carotid intima-media thickness, blood pressure and LDL oxidation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15158307


 * Pomegranate Juice may improve erectile dysfunction: http://www.wonderfulpomegranateresearch.com/media/pdf/health/ED_2007_Forest_Improvement_in_ED_016.pdf


 * Pomegranate Favorably Modulates Gene Expression: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/nov2009_Pomegranate-Favorably-Modulates-Gene-Expression_01.htm


 * Safety and Antioxidant Activity of a Pomegranate Ellagitannin-Enriched Polyphenol Dietary Supplement in Overweight Individuals with Increased Waist Size: http://www.wonderfulpomegranateresearch.com/media/pdf/health/HH_2007_Heber_Seeram_Wyatt_JAgri_Food_Chem_POMx_Safety_OX_Activ_029.pdf


 * 121.73.7.84 (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a scam to use a cabal of editors to reverse edits on weak or even patently false grounds and then threaten to have me blocked for reversing edits three times, when they've done it more. Talk about working the system! It is also blatant bullying. That is not the way to create an "encyclopedia". 121.73.7.84 (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please focus on content and refrain from using Wikipedia as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I appear to be the only one actually doing anything about content. The article has been reversed so that not a single word has been altered from when I had the misfortune of first reading it, despite my research and input. Furthermore it is impossible to discuss the content of an article without a recognition of the motivating mentality behind its content. I will come back in a few days and re-edit the article and i expect constructive cooperation, not obstructivism, opposition and bias. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of attempting to edit the article once again and risk being blocked, I suggest you discuss the matter here.
 * The following Wikipedia policies and guidelines have been brought up in objection to the changes: WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, and WP:SCG. Shall we discuss them and how they apply? --Ronz (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To start with i don't see that the citations offered in the current article are more reliable or more "scientific" than most of the links I provide, yet somehow all of mine get dismissed. In any case it is the article's biases and emphasis which is the main problem, not its sources.
 * In terms of NPOV, how can the current semi-attack page possibly be considered neutral with its emphasis on negatives and diminishment of positives. Furthermore i've got one hand tied behind my back because authoritative sources on natural therapies are excluded as "reliable sources" by the systemic bias in wikipedia against natural therapies. In any case I don't think the reliablity of the source is going to matter because the flawed opinion of some staff writer for WebMD seems to be considered a more "reliable" source than Harvard or Cambridge Universities.
 * In any case, the status quo here has won (as usual). I'm not going to risk being blocked. Clearly i can't (and won't) work the system like others who are attracted to rules lawyering to get their way, and this has already descended into its (usual) folly of bureaucratic obstructionism. I try to avoid contributing to wikipedia these days, but it IRKS me that every time i do a search on google, Wikipedia comes up at the top, disseminating its disinformation and ideologically-riven "neutral" biases. Few people who do google searches have the critical thinking skills to interpret obtuse wikipedia-style information and if somehow people with critical thinking and synthesis ability do venture to edit wikipedia they give up in frustration pretty fast.
 * 121.73.7.84 (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that: http://pyropus.ca/personal/writings/wikipedia.html 121.73.7.84 (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "i don't see that the citations offered in the current article are more reliable or more "scientific" than most of the links I provide" That's no excuse. If there are problems in the article, let's fix them.
 * "how can the current semi-attack page" You appear to misunderstand NPOV. It doesn't mean that we arbitrarily balance various viewpoints to create an article, instead "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
 * "In any case I don't think the reliablity of the source is going to matter because the flawed opinion of some staff writer for WebMD seems to be considered a more "reliable" source than Harvard or Cambridge Universities. " This compares a reliable and neutral source to a biased and outdated source, using a fallacious appeal to authority. Let's not waste time with such arguments. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Anon, there are two problems with the sources you cite. Some of them are good studies published in solid journals, but they are individual studies, not reviews -- see WP:MEDRS about this.  Others are simply not reliable sources for medical research: nutraingredients.com is an industry newsletter; healthdiaries.com is a blog aggreagor; nzherald.co.nz is a newspaper; lef.org is a supplement vendor. Instead of attacking the good faith of other contributors, you need to understand WP's editorial policies first.  What exactly are the "authoritative sources on natural therapies" you have in mind? --Macrakis (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Juice Production
I'd like to learn more about the pomegranate juice production process. Plus I think it would be a great addition to this article. Does anyone have information or know any sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.233.159 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the information might show pomegranate in a favourable light, so it will inevitably be deleted from this page. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Traditional Uses
Research has recently proven the many (possible) benefits of pomegranate juice. However, pomegranate juice has been used medicinally for centuries. I think that this page would be greatly enriched if traditional uses of pomegranate juice was incorporated. For now I have just linked this page to the Pomegranate page.Jvar7 (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Research? What research?
 * Proven? How?
 * Used for centuries? Says whom?


 * I don't know what you're selling, but information doesn't go into Wikipedia because you think it'll "enrich" the page. Claims must be supported by reliable sources; medical claims have a somewhat different set of rules (see WP:MEDRS). External links are allowed by policy, too. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 05:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Pomegranate Juice (2019).jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Pomegranate Juice (2019).jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 27, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-09-27. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Overt lack of neutrality within an article created merely to downplay the potential and probable health benefits by masquerading as just an article about pomegranate juice in general
This article is clearly just designed to diminish the reported health benefits of pomegranate juice under the guise of being an article about pomegranate juice as a whole. Clearly disingenuous and biased. The lack of neutrality here is some of the least subtle I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia. Dexedream (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)