Talk:Morinda, Inc./Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Company
Shouldn't this article be about the company with a
tag at the top? McKay 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to stub it out eventually if no one has any complaints. McKay 07:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
assertion of notability
it is correct that this article doesn't assert it's notability. I will add information to show that it is, in fact, notable as per the primary notability criterion. 1 hour should be enough. McKay 21:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- While, technically, saying that "Tahitian Noni is a notable company..." complies with the requirement of WP:CSD A7, the article doesn't explain why it's notable. Is it the only company which sells noni? Is it the first? Why is noni something I should care about? Your edits haven't solved those problems. While you don't need to explain at great length why noni juice is special, a sentence about it would be helpful. Αργυριου (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's easy to skirt about the rules to prevent a speedy deletion. That's what I've tried to do. I have more recently shown that it is notable because it has been the subject of multiple items in journalism. I want to add more content, but it's hard to find information that is WP:VERIFYable. Especially with the jillions of pages of people who sell their juice. Most of those sources wouldn't be considered reliable. What I want to say is something like "Tahitian Noni International is the largest producer of Noni products worldwide." that would definitely satisfy A7, but while I believe it's true, It's not WP:A. Similar with any other "claims of notability" that I can make with the company. So I'm not sure where to proceed from here, cept looking in more articles for statements to satisfy A7 and still be WP:A McKay 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I found a good one, can we get the CSD tag removed now? Was it really worth an hour of my time? probably not, but whatever. McKay 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's easy to skirt about the rules to prevent a speedy deletion. That's what I've tried to do. I have more recently shown that it is notable because it has been the subject of multiple items in journalism. I want to add more content, but it's hard to find information that is WP:VERIFYable. Especially with the jillions of pages of people who sell their juice. Most of those sources wouldn't be considered reliable. What I want to say is something like "Tahitian Noni International is the largest producer of Noni products worldwide." that would definitely satisfy A7, but while I believe it's true, It's not WP:A. Similar with any other "claims of notability" that I can make with the company. So I'm not sure where to proceed from here, cept looking in more articles for statements to satisfy A7 and still be WP:A McKay 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Possible Contamination/Poisoning in Spain
User:Caterpillar1985 added information that the warning in Spain had been lifted without any citations. He might have been referring to an article by Mulilever[1], which is incredibly biased and does not state a source for the study either. So I am removing this information and updating it with other reports I have consulted with, unless Caterpillar1985 or anyone else can help verify the matter with reputable information. Thank you. --Email4jonathan (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jschelin recently added the following text without citations, which I have removed until otherwise supported: "It should be noted that the bottles in question were manufactured in Mexico. The company Tahitian Noni International does not have any Noni Juice manufacturing facilities in Mexico and in locations where it is manufactured, each batch of juice is independently lab tested for quality at least 4 times." Plus, whether or not the products are test four times in a lab is irrelevant. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Added a link to the Spanish Health Ministry page where they clarify the contamination issue. Spanish authorities have lifted their alert and are simply urging consumers to make sure their bottles bear proper labels, and that they purchase futures bottles of juice through approved distribution channels. I'll add more info as it becomes available. Thanks! Tnicorp (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It should be make more clear in the article that these bottles where FAKE. Given their origin and content it is quite safe to assume that they where used by drug smugglers in order to avoid customes. Why and how bottles containing pure cocaine ended up with noni consumers is open for speculation, however it is safe to assume that the smugglers did not intend for that to happen... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.34.41 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
User:dslawrence removed argumentative information about product claims and modified the information about conversion to the name "Morinda Bioactives" as that has now taken place. (talk) 23 April 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC).
Overlap with Noni juice
This article and Noni juice seems to have been written in parallel, but are about almost the same thing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)