This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nutrisystem article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on March 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please add to this page, as this is just a stub article. Thefinalprophecy 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I trust the neutrality of this article. It reads a bit like a company written history piece, & as someone else ask down below, where the critics point of view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 ( talk) 06:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I was searching for information about the Nutrisystems Diet program and found no information here on Wikipedia. It is a very popular diet with lots of customers. I added the basic information that I new on this website. I don't understand why you are tagging it for deletion so quickly. It is a worth wile topic. I just don't know enough about it to create an entire article. I created a stub article and figured that someone else could add on if they knew more. It is reasons like this that I wonder how any articles are ever created on this site. It may be about a company, but Nike has an article. I just don't understand why you delete stuff so quickly. I wanted to learn about the subject, didn't find any information about it here, and then tried to create an article for people to add on to. Delete it if you want, but this is incredibly frustrating. Thefinalprophecy 10:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
So does this work or not? Or is this the sort where you have to eat this 'with an exercise program'? PolarisSLBM 14:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a section containing the serious number of complaints and criticism that the nutrisystem diet receives from various consumer rights sites such as consumeraffairs.com
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/11/nutrisystem_problems.html
http://www.infomercialscams.com/scams/nutrisystem
-Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.178.253 ( talk) 12:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The name of the company is "NutriSystem, Inc.", singular. Why is this Nutrisystems? I suggest moving the article to "NutriSystem, Inc.", with interior u.c. "S", and making the article about the company.-- BillFlis ( talk) 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The title of the page is incorrect. It should be "Nutrisystem". The previous person about is right and that it did used to have an interior capital "S", but I just checked the website and it seems the company has switched to an interior lower-case "s". Itsamystery2me 13 ( talk) 17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Kate
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 13:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I know someone who worked for this company in the 1990s. In ended badly. Something like the company declared bankruptcy on short notice, went out of business, the employees got screw over, the company came back, but the former employees remained screwed over. It's a touchy subject, and I don't want to delve into it with them, because I don't want to work them up. However, it would be good if some non-PR company history was included here. From what I have heard, it certainly seems notable.-- Bark ( talk) 15:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I came here to say this as well. It seems like a few big edits in 2011 or so stripped of a lot of the company history sections (mergers and stuff) along with insignificant information. Nutrisystem is still a notable business. I live on the other side of the country and remember ads and stuff for it. I can't see why the whole article was scrubbed just because someone wants the future to know that it clinically isn't effective for weight loss. It is also just a food company from the "direct to consumer" era in the 80's and 90's. Jawz101 ( talk) 15:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
...It's like revisionist history has happened. The 80's kid in me remembers cheesy ads with sports celebrities. That's America baby.
Either delete the whole page or include the history. I don't associate Nutrisystem with actually losing weight. I do vividly recall cheesy commercials of football players holding up huge pairs of pants. That showmanship is classic. Either delete this article or give me Dan Marino back. Jawz101 ( talk) 15:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
...nobody came here to read a doctor's note Jawz101 ( talk) 15:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nutrisystem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The two studies cited do not conclude what the language in the article suggest. An attempt to reflect the true conclusions of the citations was reverted on a neutrality argument. In fact, the current language is neither neutral nor accurate. Fitnessmd ( talk) 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a "Wikipedia" scholar, but I have to say that I feel the language in the sentence "Reviews of the Nutrisystem program criticize the company’s approach as being not conducive to long-term weight control and expensive.[2]" is misleading because I read the referenced article, and nowhere in the article does it mention "long-term weight control" nor does the article characterize Nutrisystem as "expensive"; but rather, that it's not for those on a "tight food budget" - the word "expensive" is relative. and what might be expensive for someone else, may not seem expensive to me.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/nutrisystem-diet - Tony from Yorkshire, NY
98.4.16.15 (
talk) 21:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems like there's an ongoing issue with any attempted addition to the article that isn't critical. My last edit was reverted in less than a minute, and it seemed as innocuous and non-controversial as could be. I don't see the same effort to discredit other diet plans on the Wikipecia, either, so I'm a little baffled. I'm wondering if I could get some feedback and some effort to achieve consensus rather than the constant and near-instant reverts.
Rray (
talk) 17:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 keeps reverting [1] to a less faithful summary of the source, in particular omitting the weak nature of the evidence. What gives? Alexbrn ( talk) 09:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Despite being told and apparently agreeing that the comparisons to Jenny Craig and Weightwatchers constitute synthesis, and how his language about the lack of any "good evidence" (when in fact there is no long term evidence, good or bad) is biased, User:Alexbrn continues to edit-war his version of this article in. I have explained in the foregoing threads why this amounts to synthesis and OR; the same conclusion was drawn by an uninvolved Third Opinion solicited at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 ( talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
More heat than light.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Being discussed at
edit-warring noticeboard. Not really about improving the article.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
Having reverted as above, LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 is seemingly now reverting all legitimate fresh additions to the article with erroneous edit summaries (e.g. [2]). How is it possible to improve the article if everything gets reverted? Since the DR seems to have been abortive, I have raised a query at WP:FT/N hoping for fresh eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
|
2. Gale encyclopedia of diet systems is not a MEDRS quality source for contentious issues. DGG ( talk ) 10:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nutrisystem article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on March 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please add to this page, as this is just a stub article. Thefinalprophecy 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I trust the neutrality of this article. It reads a bit like a company written history piece, & as someone else ask down below, where the critics point of view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 ( talk) 06:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I was searching for information about the Nutrisystems Diet program and found no information here on Wikipedia. It is a very popular diet with lots of customers. I added the basic information that I new on this website. I don't understand why you are tagging it for deletion so quickly. It is a worth wile topic. I just don't know enough about it to create an entire article. I created a stub article and figured that someone else could add on if they knew more. It is reasons like this that I wonder how any articles are ever created on this site. It may be about a company, but Nike has an article. I just don't understand why you delete stuff so quickly. I wanted to learn about the subject, didn't find any information about it here, and then tried to create an article for people to add on to. Delete it if you want, but this is incredibly frustrating. Thefinalprophecy 10:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
So does this work or not? Or is this the sort where you have to eat this 'with an exercise program'? PolarisSLBM 14:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a section containing the serious number of complaints and criticism that the nutrisystem diet receives from various consumer rights sites such as consumeraffairs.com
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/11/nutrisystem_problems.html
http://www.infomercialscams.com/scams/nutrisystem
-Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.178.253 ( talk) 12:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The name of the company is "NutriSystem, Inc.", singular. Why is this Nutrisystems? I suggest moving the article to "NutriSystem, Inc.", with interior u.c. "S", and making the article about the company.-- BillFlis ( talk) 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The title of the page is incorrect. It should be "Nutrisystem". The previous person about is right and that it did used to have an interior capital "S", but I just checked the website and it seems the company has switched to an interior lower-case "s". Itsamystery2me 13 ( talk) 17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Kate
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 13:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I know someone who worked for this company in the 1990s. In ended badly. Something like the company declared bankruptcy on short notice, went out of business, the employees got screw over, the company came back, but the former employees remained screwed over. It's a touchy subject, and I don't want to delve into it with them, because I don't want to work them up. However, it would be good if some non-PR company history was included here. From what I have heard, it certainly seems notable.-- Bark ( talk) 15:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I came here to say this as well. It seems like a few big edits in 2011 or so stripped of a lot of the company history sections (mergers and stuff) along with insignificant information. Nutrisystem is still a notable business. I live on the other side of the country and remember ads and stuff for it. I can't see why the whole article was scrubbed just because someone wants the future to know that it clinically isn't effective for weight loss. It is also just a food company from the "direct to consumer" era in the 80's and 90's. Jawz101 ( talk) 15:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
...It's like revisionist history has happened. The 80's kid in me remembers cheesy ads with sports celebrities. That's America baby.
Either delete the whole page or include the history. I don't associate Nutrisystem with actually losing weight. I do vividly recall cheesy commercials of football players holding up huge pairs of pants. That showmanship is classic. Either delete this article or give me Dan Marino back. Jawz101 ( talk) 15:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
...nobody came here to read a doctor's note Jawz101 ( talk) 15:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nutrisystem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The two studies cited do not conclude what the language in the article suggest. An attempt to reflect the true conclusions of the citations was reverted on a neutrality argument. In fact, the current language is neither neutral nor accurate. Fitnessmd ( talk) 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a "Wikipedia" scholar, but I have to say that I feel the language in the sentence "Reviews of the Nutrisystem program criticize the company’s approach as being not conducive to long-term weight control and expensive.[2]" is misleading because I read the referenced article, and nowhere in the article does it mention "long-term weight control" nor does the article characterize Nutrisystem as "expensive"; but rather, that it's not for those on a "tight food budget" - the word "expensive" is relative. and what might be expensive for someone else, may not seem expensive to me.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/nutrisystem-diet - Tony from Yorkshire, NY
98.4.16.15 (
talk) 21:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems like there's an ongoing issue with any attempted addition to the article that isn't critical. My last edit was reverted in less than a minute, and it seemed as innocuous and non-controversial as could be. I don't see the same effort to discredit other diet plans on the Wikipecia, either, so I'm a little baffled. I'm wondering if I could get some feedback and some effort to achieve consensus rather than the constant and near-instant reverts.
Rray (
talk) 17:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 keeps reverting [1] to a less faithful summary of the source, in particular omitting the weak nature of the evidence. What gives? Alexbrn ( talk) 09:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Despite being told and apparently agreeing that the comparisons to Jenny Craig and Weightwatchers constitute synthesis, and how his language about the lack of any "good evidence" (when in fact there is no long term evidence, good or bad) is biased, User:Alexbrn continues to edit-war his version of this article in. I have explained in the foregoing threads why this amounts to synthesis and OR; the same conclusion was drawn by an uninvolved Third Opinion solicited at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 ( talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
More heat than light.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Being discussed at
edit-warring noticeboard. Not really about improving the article.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
Having reverted as above, LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 is seemingly now reverting all legitimate fresh additions to the article with erroneous edit summaries (e.g. [2]). How is it possible to improve the article if everything gets reverted? Since the DR seems to have been abortive, I have raised a query at WP:FT/N hoping for fresh eyes. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
|
2. Gale encyclopedia of diet systems is not a MEDRS quality source for contentious issues. DGG ( talk ) 10:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)