Talk:Driscoll's/Archives/2014

This is an archive of past discussions about Driscoll's. 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.

Health benefits of berries

I removed all this:

Numerous articles attest to their health benefits, such as improving memory in older adults<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100120121552.htm</ref>, reducing high blood-pressur<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110114155241.htm</ref>, reducing heart-attack risk in women<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130114152954.htm</ref>, and generally benefitting the brain<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307145825.htm</ref>.

Not because it's bad, but because it followed a sentence which claims "Driscoll's berries are amongst some of the most nutritional and health-beneficial foods available[citation needed], high in antioxidants and vitamins." The cited sources don't say anything about Driscoll's berries, just berries in general.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

not certain where you're coming from on this. True, not just Driscoll's berries are high in nutrition, but it is informative as to their product. Reverting, but disclaiming that it is not only driscolls berries, but all companies berries of those types, that provide that type of nutritioin. That is why Driscoll grows them (duh). And no, I am not, and never have been, a Driscoll employee or related to a Driscoll employee (to my knowledge).

Also, I note lots of other editors have been complaining about your 'reverts', deleting valuable information. Youngnoah (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)youngnoah

That's not the issue. The issue is that you put a sentence sourced to articles talking about the general health benefits of berries after a sentence about the specific health benefits of Driscoll's berries, so that it makes it look as if your sources support the specific health benefits of Driscoll's berries. Do you not see how that's problematic? The article now asserts that Driscoll's has super-duper berries, but the sources don't support that at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And as for other complaints, do you not have arguments that can stand on their own merits? Perhaps there are complaints because a lot of editors insist on making junk edits, like these you've made.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)