Talk:The Beachbody Company/Archives/2013

New Page Insanity?

Does anyone else think that Insanity is worthy of its own page? P90X and Insanity are quite similar products, with similar sales/coverage. FitnessismyGoal (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent reversion of edits by Tharskjold

Hi, I just rolled back a series of good-faith edits made by @Tharskjold: I had a few reasons for doing so. Firstly, the additions seem to promote the subject more than they describe the subject objectively. Unsubstantiated phrases like "It was dubbed 'the hardest workout put on DVD'" bothered me, as did the addition of the subjective word "extensive" in "Beachbody LLC markets an extensive line of dietary, performance and recovery supplements". Further, while the "key people" parameter already seems needlessly ambiguous on its own, the addition of a few more "key people" is not explained in prose, so there's no context for understanding what makes any of these people "key". Are they CEOs, or salespeople who just want their names in a Wikipedia article? Lastly, inline links to shakeology.com and teambeachbody.com as "references" seem unnecessary promotion to me, as I don't think anyone is likely to dispute that "shakeology" is one of their projects. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, 'the hardest workout put on DVD' http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/insanity-the-rise-of-the-supercharged-home-workout/275907/ is just one of pages where it is referenced. Is it a reference you require? Then just say so. So now if someone is researching Beachbody before buying or getting involved with company, and they look for Beachbody and want the toughest workout the will have no doubt, so it is informational. Instead of "extensive" how about I dumb it down to "a lot of". Really? The fact that you use "bothered" just shows you approach your duty on here with bias. It bothers me that liberal/socialist write ups get no editing to speak of and when comments are made up the chain about bold faced lies and opinions with no reference anywhere, nothing changes with them because its the only way extremists can fight the truth is through misinformation. I definitely agree with the extensive list of founders. There should be only 3-5. This is aligned with Wiki businesses and should have some information about the company and products. My wife is a local (MLM) representative of Beachbody. I checked out the site to see what it had and seen that from an informational point of view it was incomplete. That is the purpose of being a contributor to any Wiki items is to provide info where there is not or correct mistakes. So I do not have an alterior motive i.e. "or salespeople who just want their names in a Wikipedia article". It is apparent that you did the "easy" and made assumptions without doing any research. i.e. 'the hardest workout put on DVD' was all over the internet when I Google it. I hope you have done some contributions and aren't just doing the, "When you can't do it well....teach" "When can't do it at all...critique" (talk)

@Tharskjold: Okay, so you've accused me of bias, suggested that because I have critiqued I must be incapable, and then launched into an irrelevant, confusing rant about "liberal/socialist" something-or-other. Got it. Moving along to more constructive and civil discourse, a few points to consider: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Articles must be written from a neutral point of view. You said, "if someone is researching Beachbody before buying...and want the toughest workout the will have no doubt" That sounds like a non-neutral promotional motivation to me. A neutral point of view would report different views about the subject, which might include negative reviews, criticism from doctors, etc. Kind of a moot point here, because the Atlantic article you've provided as a reference indicates that the source of "hardest workout" is the company that puts out the DVDs: "Billed as the hardest workout ever put on DVD". Repeating a promotional claim doesn't make the promotional claim a fact.

My objection to "extensive" is not that it's a difficult word to comprehend, rather that it is a subjective term. I said that in my first post. What's "extensive"? Is two items "extensive"? Is fifty items "extensive"? More appropriate for an article would be a number: "There are twelve eggs in a carton" vs. "There are a lot of eggs in a carton". My objection to the list of "key people" is that we need to know who they are in the body of the article, otherwise the information is meaningless. Is one a CEO? A CFO? Owner, co-owner? Anyhow, if you don't agree with my points and still think that I'm a biased incompetent, I can live with that. You can always formally request a third opinion or file a request for comment to get more feedback. Please note though, that since your wife is a Beachbody rep, you likely have a conflict of interest. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)