Talk:Usana Health Sciences/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nutrition Business Journal "Scientific Award": Not notable and not a WP:RS "scientific" source

The scientific achievement award from the Nutrition Business Journal mentioned in the article is dubious for a variety of reasons. The "Journal" is a trade industry rag; it is not a "scientific" organization, so their giving a "scientific award" is meaningless. It appears to be fluff; a vanity award. Independent secondary sources do not seem to mention this award, and I do not see any secondary sources that establish the relevancy of this to USANA. It's trivia at best and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What is your source of information that would back up your claim that NBJ is a "trade industry rag"? I can find nothing that discredits this journal as a WP:RS besides your own personal opinion. Please advise. Leef5 (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at http://nutritionbusinessjournal.com/, it's fairly obvious that it is a trade industry publication. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't debating the fact that it is a trade journal - that does seem fairly obvious. My point was why is this journal not considered a WP:RS for purposes of this article? Leef5 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether of not it is considered WP:RS would depend on the information being cited and the context. For instance, if they had a quote about matters related to business (eg, sales volume, profitability, etc.) then the "journal" might be citable in support. However, in the context of a vague award given to a company based on "scientific achievment" it wouldn't be considered a reliable source, since it's not a scientific organization. Equally as important is the question of notability. For example, if the New York Times (a secondary source) wrote an article that talked about USANA receiving this award, then it might be considered notable information. However, that's not the case. The only sources that refer to the award are the journal itself (a primary source) and the company (through press releases). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, reliable sources aren't the issue -- the award is given out by the NBJ itself, and, by WP's reliable sources rules, the NBJ can be considered a reliable source on which awards they themselves have awarded. (Similarly, blogs are not generally reliable sources for anything, but a blog can be a reliable source for what was said on the blog itself.) The question is -- is this award individually significant enough for a mention in the article? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point ArglebargleIV, I think the issue is not a matter of a WP:RS, its a matter of opinion referred to by Rhode Island Red in whether or not this award is notable enough to be mentioned in this article. I'm sure I could dig through press releases in Usana's history and come up with dozens more of awards from various sources - the question is which ones are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article? Leef5 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer would probably be none if the only sources that mention the awards are company press releases. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Could we leave it in at the moment since it's under discussion and then debate its relevance. Maybe set a time period to find out if other sources of importance make reference to it?Jean314 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is much if anything left to debate on this matter. The rationale for why it was deleted has been well-articulated and no compelling counterargument has been offered. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's translate that response: "My well-articulated reason is superior to your weak arguments". Why don't we work on this collaboratively instead of trying to insult the other editors here. Your reason for removing this sourced material is under question by several editors who are not convinced that this is not a reliable source. The question seemed to be not that this wasn't a reliable source, but whether or not this was notable. Jean314 recommended to restore the text in question while a consensus is being discussed. Leef5 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is we can try and work to a consensus. If it's in question then it should remain until we've reached a new consensus. If what Rhode Island Red is claiming about the source is true than I am in agreement but I think there should at least be an open request to validate the content before removal. I'm not nearly as Wikipedia savy as I'd like to be so what would be a reasonable amount of time to validate this source? If the situation really is as Rhode Island Red claims then I would agree that it isn't very noteworthy but I have yet to search out content.Jean314 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No insult there that I can see. No one has provided a counterargument to show that the information is notable or that the publication is WP:RS for a scientific award, so there's no reason for the information to be in the article. If you think it's necessary, we can broaden the discussion by soliciting a few experienced impartial editors who, for the sake of balance, aren't USANA SPAs, but I doubt that the consensus would differ from what I've been saying. The core issue here is that article content is supposed to be based on what secondary sources consider to be notable about the subject, and it should use sources that are reliable in the context in which they are cited. If reliable secondary sources don't consider this rather trivial award to be notable (and they obviously don't because they haven't writtten about it), then there's no overriding reason why it should be included.

If, despite these reasons, you still think it belongs in the article, then you would have a considerable burden to make a compelling case. It looks to me like you just want to be able to say that USANA got an award without looking deeper into what the award signifies, which is very close to nothing. Imagine that we're writing a biography about a businesperson, and as per protocol we're basing it on consensus established by secondary sources to determine what's notable about the subject and worthy of inclusion. You might find an old school high school newspaper saying that the subject won second prize in their grade 8 talent contest, but just because that may be fact doesn't mean that it is a notable fact. If a high-profile scientific group like the American Medical Association or the Nobel committee gave USANA an award, we'd certainly mention that. But a low-tier business advocacy publication giving a "scientific award" is more inane than if a second-rate version of Betty Crocker were to give an award for the year's most innovative neurosurgical technique. Bottom line is that the Nutrition Business Journal is not a scientific organization, so who cares what they consider to be award-worthy from a scientific perspective -- the journal is not a RS on science because science is not their area of focus or expertise (refer to WP:MEDRS for rationale). It's not even a peer-reviewed journal; it's just a low-impact advocacy rag for the supplement industry (see WP:SPIP). That's not something that you should continue to dispute either because they state as much on the magazine's "about us" page:

Nutrition Business Journal is a research, publishing and consulting company serving the nutrition, natural products and alternative health care industries.[2]

Aside from all the other problems with this award, we don't even know that the award methodology was even remotely objective or how the "winner" is chosen (eg, whether the field of contenders was limited to only those who applied for the award; whether companies that advertise in their magazine, as I would guess USANA did, were excluded, etc.). There is no transparent methodology behind this award. It's just meaningless promo fodder; it's not notable; it's not a RS on science; and and it's not encyclopedic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have already said I'm in agreement with your view on the eventual removal of the citation provided no new information is brought to light. I am simply advocating that Leef5 be given the opportunity to respond with an opposing viewpoint and that in the meantime the article stays as it has generally been accepted. By all means seek the council of other editors since it would be good to have a few more eyes on this article.Jean314 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don’t control who comments here, so it’s not up to me to let Leef respond. Leef has had ample opportunity to present opposing viewpoints, and has already responded without providing any reason to justify inclusion of the information in question.Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a busy "Real-life", so sorry if my responses are not fast enough for you to meet your own personal requirements for "ample opportunity". As far as the particular removal of this sourced text, I am going to agree that the award is not notable enough for inclusion in this article, however I do not agree that the NBJ is not a reliable source. Yet, since the material doesn't meet the notability requirement, it should be removed. Of bigger concern to me, is why Rhode Island Red is taking such an aggressive stance after just coming off a 6-month block. This is your chance to get a fresh start and begin anew with the articles you take interest to in a collaborative environment. Each of us has our own opinions and interpretations on various WP rules. Yet your first order of business on this article since your return has been a "my way or the highway" attitude. I'm asking you to please reconsider your approach/tactics. Leef5 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We all have real lives beyond Wikipedia. The situation here is that I provided ample justification for my edits, and even though you and Jean agree with the justification, it was being suggested that we leave the discounted information in the article anyway because someone in the future might someday come up with a reason as to why it should be there. I hope you can see why that makes no sense at all. As I said before, WP:RS is often context specific. NBJ could conceivably be a WP:RS in other contexts, but we’re not talking about other contexts right now, so the point is moot. As for your “bigger concerns”, they have nothing to do with this thread, so don’t go down that ad hominem road. I have bigger concerns too, like the fact that 2 SPAs have been the main contributors to this article for quite some time; but for now I won’t muddy the waters by belaboring that point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

New MLM Article

There's been an article published recently in the The Salt Lake Tribune about the MLM industry. I was wondering if you've read it and want to include any of it in the wiki articles for Monavie, Nu Skin, Xango and USANA.Jean314 (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51183138-76/average-companies-distributors-earn.html.csp?page=1

Thanks for head's up. I'm going to tread carefully on this one, as that "source" is from an anti-MLM spokesperson, so a lot of the opinion in that article is severely lacking WP:NPOV. There was some useful data in there, however, perhaps that can be gleaned out where appropriate. I also read Len Clements response to this article, he is recognized as an expert in the field of direct sales and MLM, and thought his response was interesting (minus some of the rebuttal that came across as character attack).

http://www.marketwaveinc.com/docs/OberbeckResponse.pdf

The question is how do we separate useful facts from opinionated material from a non-credible source? Leef5 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess the first thing I'd like to be brought up to date on is why you would label Steven Oberbeck an "anti-MLM spokesperson?" I get the feeling you find him to be an untrustworthy person. I'm not familiar with him so if you could provide background data that would be great.Jean314 (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)\

Oberbeck is not the source of the article, his sources are the ones I mentioned have made clear intentions they consider MLM programs to be pyramid schemes. Robert FitzPatrick is one of his primary sources in the article, who appears to run the website http://pyramidschemealert.org . Reading that site's About page, it is fairly clear FitzPatrick's opinions on MLM. In this article, Oberbeck is essentially interviewing sources that seem to have a very one-sided opinion about MLM in general. Usually, we would expect point/counter-point method, which Oberbeck did in part with a quote from DSA. I'm not against using some of the material from this source on the 4 companies mentioned, and perhaps the overall MLM article, but just saying caution may be in order to ensure we're picking material that is still WP:NPOV (i.e. stick with the facts, not opinions or interpretations of those facts). Thoughts? Leef5 (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The article has a lot of pertinent commentary and data; there is much there that is worthy of inclusion. The source (Salt Lake Trib)) is definitely WP:RS and the author of the article (Oberbeck) cannot be dismissed as "an anti-MLM spokesperson", nor is there any issue that I can discern regarding the article's credibility. The quotes and opinions of the sources cited in that article can be included. There is no issue there. Len Clements' self-published rebuttal, however, is problematic on several levels, the main one being that it's a self-published source with no editorial oversight...clearly does not meet WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oberbeck is not the point of issue, noone has said he is an "anti-MLM spokesperson" - its the sources Oberbeck uses which seem to me to be in this camp, and hence have WP:NPOV issues to be concerned about. I agree, however, there is some useful factual data in that article, regardless of the motives of Oberbeck's sources. Leef5 (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, no one has yet proposed any text for inclusion, so trying to discount the sources is, at this point, putting the cart before the horse. Secondly, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with including some of what the aformentioned people were quoted as saying in the article. Oberbeck is the source, and one which clearly meets WP:RS. Don't expect to have much luck in trying to selectively exclude information merely because you feel that some of the people quoted by Oberbeck are biased. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The addition Rhode Island Red added was sound. I went to see if I could find the income disclosure where they got the numbers from, and found that here: http://www.usana.com/media/File/Prospecting%20page/Tools/US/USANABusiness/US-AveIncome.pdf The only possible point of contention with the factual data would be the wording around "associate". The SLCT article just sums it by saying there are 165,710 associates. To me, that comes across as that there are 165,710 people trying to make money, and only earn $617 a year on average. When I read the source of the material (linked above), the wording there suggests "associate" is a legal definition based on how they signed up to receive product at a discount. There are an unknown number of these "associates" who are only product consumers and have no interest in building a MLM business. This may be a minor point, but I thought the wording was interesting in the article summary on page 3. Leef5 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there an editorial suggestion lurking in there somewhere or were you merely opining? I have to say that I don't really find it all that interesting. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nor am I concerned what you find interesting and what you do not. Your hostile tones are not appreciated in the least. I have made the relevant additions to the prior edit and moved the disclosure statement to an in-line reference following this addition. Leef5 (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No hostility intended but the talk page is best used to concisely discuss specific text proposals rather than musing vaguely about what might seem interesting, or for that matter, trying to denigrate sources that are clearly WP:RS before content has even been proposed. Have a look at WP:TPG. That aside, I offset what you added into a separate paragaraph and expanded on the issue of how the company defines distinguishes between associates vs prefrered customers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the initial points raised by Leef5 seem to have already been resolved I won't bother weighing in on them. Regarding the unregistered users adjustment to the article yesterday does the word "infinite" really provide a better explanation of the recruitment pattern than the previous entry which explained that new recruits will "recruit still others." ?Jean314 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Background and Organization

It is interesting to note that the USANA website www.USANA.com still claims that Timothy Wood Executive Director of Research & Development has a PhD in Biology. Your article refers to the discovery of several members of the executive having made false claims regarding their qualifications. <the Vice President of Research and Development, Timothy Wood, who was found to have doctorate in forestry, as opposed to biology as he had claimed,[12]>. Are these claims all verified? Am I allowed to ask this question in this forum? Nats61 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the forum to ask these questions - we only report on what other reliable sources have noted. You may wish to bring this matter up with USANA, commenting on the sources provided which indicate a possible discrepancy. If USANA are able to provide a source which refutes the allegation, then this can be incorporated - without comment - into the article also. I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The link for that reference doesn't go to an article (#18). I don't know if it is broken or just needs fixing... I found a Forbes article that states "Dr. Wood received a Bachelors Degree in Environmental Biology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He earned a Masters Degree in Environmental Sciences and a Ph.D. from Yale University. He also earned an M.B.A. from Westminster College in Salt Lake City, Utah." http://people.forbes.com/profile/timothy-e-wood/83377 It would seem that this contradict the other statement. Any feedback? Environmental biology seems like biology to me, and therefore I would like to edit the article unless someone can show me a more credible source than Forbes to contradict it. PRJtrue (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Article headers - WP:Undue weight

In some of the other sections (Consistency and Opening Paragraph/Infobox), we've been discussing getting this article more consistent with other Wikiproject Company and other direct sales and MLM articles. Currently, this article is suffering from WP:Undue weight with an overall focus on the 2007 Minkow resume allegations and not enough factual data about the company itself. User:Jean314 has volunteered to come up with some new headers using Ford Motor Company and Herbalife as a model for using headers to properly give the article encyclopedic flow and not have the undue weight issues for criticism in 2007 being the focus of the article. Leef5 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to it being mentioned in the opening paragraph then I would agree to it being moved if we were to establish a framework similar to the one which can be found at the Herbalife article. I would also expect that the sentence about their sponsorship would be removed from the opening paragraph. I would suggest a Controversy section or Criticism section to seperate the differing opinions on the company, its marketing and its products. At the moment I think it is difficult to add information which gives opposing viewpoints under the same headings. After that we can review the sources of information for new content to add to all the sections provided. What are your thoughts on this Leef5?Jean314 (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to use Herbalife as a model. I did this recently with a new article (AdvoCare), and now that the article was created, some more editors have jumped in to fill in. Since we already have a lot of content here, I don't think we'll have as much of "tweaking" afterwards unless editors disagree on the flow for some reason. Leef5 (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be working on the product section next since that will still be one of the headers used going forward. Jean314, did you still want to take the lead on reflowing this article to be more like the Herbalife one? I've got some "Free time" during the next few weeks if you want me to take a stab at it if you haven't already started. Leef5 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How about establishing some Headings and Sub-Headings to help layout what's going to go where. I know we're using Herbalife as a template but some of those won't translate and we'll need to come up with some of our own for USANA. Jean314 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, looking at the Herbalife article fresh, I'm thinking the relevant sections would be: 1. History , 2. Business, 2.1 Sports sponsorships, 2.2 Children's Hunger Fund, 3. Product range, 3.1 Clinical studies, 3.2 Scientific advisory board, 4. Criticism (instead of "Controversies") 4.1 Barry Minkow 4.2 Multi-level marketing 4.3 Products. I'll work on section 3 and see what I can dig up on their products, any clinical studies, and I know I've seen something about an advisory board as well. I think the key needs to be to move the article to a WP:NPOV and I think these headers will help keep the facts about the company in the company sections, and the criticism of those sections in the criticism section as the POV of those referenced sources. Leef5 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim this article needs to move to a neutral point of view since I feel the content is already neutral. I do agree with your suggested headings provided the content comes from reputable sources (i.e. not press releases). Would you like to go through the headings one by one on the discussion page and then update the article accordingly? I'll try to review the relevant news articles as we go through to include any other relevant points.Jean314 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made a copy of the article (minus the image) and put it in my sandbox for easy editing. We can either move the discussion to that talk page or keep the discussion here and just make the proposed edits there. There doesn't appear to have been much in the philosophical change in NPOV since I last edited WP, but I do realize there will always be a debate (hence "point of view") when we summarize a reliable source into the maintext. I know you feel the article is already neutral. And I've been around the block enough to know this isn't quite there yet as far as NPOV goes. However, I think for now let's focus on the headers and separating out POV to the appropriate sections (Criticism in this case) and let's see how the article unfolds in the Sandbox. Any other editors are welcome to participate as well of course. Leef5 (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep the discussion here and we can make edits to the copy in your Sandbox. Once we've reached a consensus on a section we can replace the one in the article with the revised one. I'm proposing a section by section approach just so we don't spring an entirely new article on the community over night. We can also keep notable information which will be re-inserted into different areas in a seperate heading so we don't lose content in the transition. Sound reasonable?Jean314 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'l be able to dive in starting later this week with the product section first. I'll have a couple of weeks to work some of the sections out before Christmas season is upon us and family is in town. Leef5 (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologize for not fulfilling my duties here in the timeline I previously specified. Some unexpected commitments came up - I will work on this as I get back into a routine this month. Leef5 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And once again I find life's interruptions causing me to apologize for not tackling this yet :) It's been an interesting barrage of edits from what appear to be WP:SPAs, but it appeared there were some portions of those edits that might hold some value (that some of the products are in the PDR is notable). So, I think I will drum up the efforts to work on the product section first, and start to split out the controversies as we've previously agreed. I think if we take this one step at a time, we can agree/discuss as we go along (vs. talking about using a Sandbox to do a full rewrite) Leef5 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize. You are not duty bound to edit the article. The PDR entry would only be notable if it were mentioned by a reliable independent secondary source. That doesn’t appear to be the case. BTW you appear to be an SPA too. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look through my contribution history. I have an interest in several topics, and have posted in my bio that in particular I am interested in MLM companies that focus on health/nutrition. And of those, public ones I find more interesting since there is more available data on them. I have no bias to any particular company. Looking at your contribution history as well, I am not any more of a WP:SPA than you are - just have an interest/fascination with this industry. Leef5 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you do the same. I merely pointed out that it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you refer to other users as SPAs, given that the term applies to you quite aptly. You've edited a total of 3-4 articles by my count, with the vast majority of your edits focused on this one product. I have more than 3000 edits to my credit on probably over 100 different articles across a range of subjects. Think twice before pointing fingers -- that's all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your consistent false accusations of me being a WP:SPA are inaccurate and constitute WP:Harassment. I will not be bullied here. Keep to the facts and let us have civil discussions and debates. I will report further misbehavior. Leef5 (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's regrettable that instead of simply making a note of what I said, you turned instead to accusations of harassment for being cautioned about WP:SPA, after you previously used the term twice to describe other contributors on this article (including applying it inappropriately to me). I pointed out an obvious example of hypocrisy and WP:SPA -- that doesn't constitute harassment; it's just a friendly reality check. Allow me to suggest two things: (1) read the definition of WP:SPA because it does in fact apply to you:

"A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy. For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and SPAs carefully in a discussion to discern whether they appear to be here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or alternatively edit for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. The community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject; at the same time it is not a platform for advocacy."

(2) Drop the SPA/harassment issue and focus on constructive impartial editing instead, and WP will be best served as a result. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am asking you to do - please drop the harassment of continuing to call me a SPA. I have read the definition and my range of edits is broad enough to not be in that category. Let us both continue on with not only constructive impartial edits, but mutual respect as well. And for the record, I never called you a SPA. What I said was "I am not any more of a SPA that you are". Let's move on. Leef5 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Review

Since we're on the topic of compensation I'd like to draw attention to a series of articles by The National Business Review which contain a lot of info which hasn't been incorporated into the article yet. The first one places some focus on the compensation system. I'll link them below in order of their appearance.Jean314 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nbr.co.nz/node/36530 http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/troubled-usanas-auditor-quits-0 http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/usana-defends-practices-0 http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/forbes-usanas-latest-critic http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/troubled-usana-faces-new-stock-woes

Seems to be some good usable content in there Jean. In the future, please start a new thread when the subject of your comment deviates from an exisiting thread. Makes things much easier to follow. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind in the future. The listed articles have been touched on very lightly in some cases but for the most part they haven't really been mined for all content.Jean314 (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Any ideas for new content from these? I know we have used them quite a bit around the 2007 timeframe when a lot of the criticism and Minkow timeframes occurred. What else can we use from these? Leef5 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We actually really didn't use them that much when they were first published. I would propose including some of the statistical findings of government statistican Murray H. Smith and the statements by Stuart Wallace for starters. Maybe even creating a "Criticism" or section to be consistent with other MLM articles such as Monavie. We could also include statements by Fred Cooper and Joe Poulos. I believe what they've said is already in the article somewhere but at least we can attribute it to a specific person.Jean314 (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Has anyone checked the references lately? There are eight statements linked to reference number 7, which is a short article in what I believe is French. How do we verify that that article supports those statements? PRJtrue (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)prjtrue,

Here's what I could find on foreign language sources: WP:V#Non-English_sources. I don't speak French, so I won't be of much help regarding translation, but it does appear we are supposed to include the original transcription (since this is a video clip), and a translation of that text. This article is probably due for a check on all the listed reference for broken links, etc. Leef5 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As is mentioned below, non-English sources are fine. You are mistaken about the requirement for transcriptions and translations. It is required for quotes but not otherwise. If there are any specific points where you doubt the verifiability of my edits, please list them and I will provide the supporting material from the program. Before you start, however, you might want to read this machine translation] of ombudsman report's which dismissed a complaint received from an USANA distributor and which confirm several of the points made in the article in text form. Slp1 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Products

Also, can someone let me know their take on this? It is my understanding that Anthony L. Almada, who is quoted in the products section, has his own nutrition company and makes his own products in that industry. Is it really fair to take the opinion of a competing company about another company. Is Sprint going to say that T-Mobile has a better cell plan than they do? I think we need to fine a more unbiased source if we are including that information about these products. PRJtrue (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Does any reliable secondary source confirm your accusation about Almada's credibility with respect to USANA? If not, it's a non-issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked up Anthony Almada's credentials before adding that section to the article and while he was a co-founder of EAS he sold his share of the company in 1994. He is currently involved with a company called Genr8 but their product does not seem to address the same market as USANAs. Their product are geared towards body building and is intentionally free of vitamins and nutrients. Since he currently runs Imaginutrition which is a consultancy agency for the industry I was under the impression he would have more to lose than gain from making his opinion on USANA known which is why I considered him a worthy source of inclusion. If this is problematic for anyone I'm happy to discuss it.Jean314 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Genr8 markets sports nutrition products, as does USANA, so they are clearly competitors. If his comments are going to be included, and they probably shouldn't on that basis, then that needs to be noted in the article. The fact that his comment is also about business economics, which doesn't appear to be his area of expertise (let alone the economics of MLM companies), is also of concern. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Forbe's article in question was written in 2007 and it credits Almada's affiliation as "president and chief scientist of Imaginutrition, a consulting firm for the nutritional supplement industry. Alamada, who has more than 30 years of experience in the industry". Where and when does Genr8 come into the picture? Secondly, the characterization of Almada's comments as being about "business econmics" and outside his "area of expertise" are is suprising to say the least, since that's clearly not the case; the article reads "The economic reality of Usana, and other [multilevel marketing] entities, mandates that their products invariably lack robust distinctiveness and convincing evidence of consumer relevance and superiority—achievable through rigorous clinical trials only—to their retail counterparts". He's commenting about the products and, regardless, there is nothing in his comments that can be seen as beyind his are of expertise. It is a massive overreach to suggest discounting the Forbe's reference in this case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Almada is also President and CEO of Genr8, a sports nutrition company founded in 2007[3][4]. I read his comment as being one of economics, essentially stating that the "economic reality" of the MLM model means companies products don't undergo clinical trials, ie they don't have the money to do it, or perhaps the motivation to spend the money to do it. ie he is making a clear statement about the economics of the business model, not the products per se. In reality a number of MLM companies, including USANA, spend significant dollars on clinical research[5][6]. Now what they tend not to do is publish those clinical trials on specific products in peer-reviewed journals (though it does happen), and there's various economic and business reasons for that, such as needing to reveal propriety formulations, and even having a strong "positive" result unusable as health claims aren't allowed by the sales field anyway. That however applies to the entire nutrition industry, including Almada's companies. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

After reading more about Almada and what others wrote here, it seems that Almada has personal and biased interests in his statements and he is stating an opinion on whether USANA products are too high a cost. I think his statements should be removed. Feedback??? PRJtrue (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What specific product/s of USANA would you say Genr8 is in competition with? While I agree they operate in the same industry I'm unable to find a product of USANAs which lead me to believe they're in direct competition with each other. I could very easily be over-looking a USANA product so if you could suggest one I'd like to look into it further. His statement is also supported by the court case and the expert from the University of Montreal.Jean314 (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My feedback is that the suggestion to remove Almada's comment is way off base. It is not apparent that Almada has any COI whatsoever, and unlesss there were and it was an egregious COI, WP editors have no place second guessing the vetting of sources by journalists in respected publications like Forbes's. Vetting sources is their job. Forbe's considered Almada to be an expert on the subject; they even stated so indirectly by citing his having "more than 30 years of experience in the industry". As Jean pointed out, Almada's comments are echoed by the Montreal pharmacology professor cited by the CBC and the court cases. I'm surpised that we're even having this conversation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can safely put the issue of Almada's credentials, expertise, and credibility to rest. Aside from being quoted as en expert source on USANA products by Forbe's, he is also quoted as an expert on similar topics by New York Times [7], he is a member of the editorial advisory board of Nutrition Business Journal [8], he was an expert panel member on a committee on deceptive advertising in the weight loss loss industry (featured by the FTC) [9], and according to the links that Insider posted, he has authored 25 peer-reviewed research papers in this subject area (which can be confirmed here [10]). And I'll reiterate that Almada's conclusion about USANA products was echoed by other sources. We really need to move onto something more productive that trying to denigrate a source that so clearly meets WP:RS. I'm hearing grousing about the article being unbalanced but focusing on red herrings like this is indeed a very odd way to demonstrate it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

One more thing...Insider's suggestion that Almada's statement was primarily economic in nature rather than being product-focused is patently untrue. Almada's full statement was as follows: "The economic reality of Usana, and other [multilevel marketing] entities, mandates that their products invariably lack robust distinctiveness and convincing evidence of consumer relevance and superiority—achievable through rigorous clinical trials only—to their retail counterparts." This is clearly a product-focused statement and in fact you could delete the first portion containing the words "economic reality" and state "their [Usana's] products invariably lack robust distinctiveness and convincing evidence of consumer relevance and superiority—achievable through rigorous clinical trials only—to their retail counterparts", and the meaning would be scarcely affected. Lastly, the "economic realities" that impact product quality fall well within the realm of Almada's expertise. Once again, I hope we can put this non-issue to rest. It's getting silly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing against Alamda's credentials in nutrition per se, but the fact remains he is CEO of a nutritional company that markets itself by saying it's different from the competition because of research [11] - ie, exactly what he's criticising USANA for. Clearly, if he's going to be cited, fairness dictates that the fact he is CEO of a competitor in the nutrition industry needs to be noted. I must say though, I find it ironic that your defending his scientific credentials by noting he's on the advisory board of the Nutrition Business Journal, which you early claimed was "unscientific" and whose awards (ie opinions) did not deserve citing. NBJ awards clearly deserve mention in the article, but we can have that discussion further above. In the meantime I'd appreciate some links to back up your claim that Almada is well versed and an expert in the "economic realities" of multilevel marketing companies. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Forbe's article doesn't say anything about Genr8, so adding that detail would be improper synthesis; it would be an unfair attempt to discredit or raise doubt about the credibility of the source and the reliability of the source's statement. Lastly, I didn't say that "Almada is well versed and an expert in the 'economic realities' of multilevel marketing companies"; I said that "the 'economic realities' that impact product quality fall well within the realm of Almada's expertise". Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see the difference between the two different phrases re product quality. The simple reality is he's wrong on his claim about research. The direct sales model actually leaves *more* money available for research. Most significant MLM nutritional brands, like USANA, Herbalife, and Nutrilite, spend *more* money on product efficacy research than mainstream retailers like GNC. Nutrilite, with whom I'm most familiar, has hundreds of published papers and has won significant awards for some of their peer-reviewed published research. So his statement is simply false. Really beside the point though, as Wikipedia's blind faith in news media mean demonstrably false statements are par for the course. Not that I have any suggestions on how to avoid that problem, just noting it is a problem! So, arguing over his apparent lack of knowledge of the economics of legitimate MLM companies, and the factual incorrectness of his statement, is pretty much moot since Forbes thought him worth quoting so he's got the all clear for WP. I think it would clearly be fair to note his COI, but you are correct that a pedantic application of WP:SYNTH could be an issue. I've posted on the OR noticeboard for comments [12]. Incidentally I've found he's co-founder and CEO of at least two other nutritional products companies as well, though the quote may pre-date the other two, I haven't been able to establish that. Out of interest though, he clearly does have this COI, why do you object to this information being noted? Isn't it both factual and pertinent to a fair assessment of his comments on USANA? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"The simple reality is he's wrong on his claim about research". Therein lies the problem in a nutshell. You don't seem to understand WP:OR and other very basic WP principles. Your argument boils down to a plea that the source needs to be denigrated with a qualifier of some sort simply because you don't think he's qualified and you think he's wrong. So, no, I don't think what you are proposing is either pertinent or fair. I also don't recognize that he had a COI with respect to his comments in the Forbe's article, and you already acknowledged the issue about improper synthesis. I think this is a massive overreach and a waste of time. If you were writing a WP article on Alamda, then it would be worth including the details about his corporate experience. But what you are proposing for the USANA article involves unilterally and arbitrarily denigrating a source that was vetted by a reputable news publication/journalist that considered Almada to be an expert, as have several other high-level sources (eg, the New York Times, FTC, etc...). These sources apparently do not consider Almada to have had a conflict of interest when it comes to such matters, and Forbe's specifically listed his corporate position at the time and cited his 30 years of relevant expereience. And if he is a founder/CEO of 2 other companies but you have no evidence that these position predate the Forbe's article, why even bother mentioning it? Trying to torpedo a source proactively? I disapprove of such tactics and the circular arguments. And if he's a CEO of 3 companies as you suggest, why would you argue about his credibility when it comes to the economics of nutritional products? That would, again, obviously make him imminently qualfified in such matters. There's no gray area to the issue here; it's black and white. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's blind faith in news media". I have to comment on this as well. This is not simply a case of WP having "blind faith in news media" and it strikes me as somewhat belittling of the "real people" like myself who contribute here; WP is not a faceless machine. I read the statement in question and I, as well as others, have weighed it's merits. There is nothing in it that seems evern remotely implausible and in fact it strikes me as very tempered, evenhanded, and innocuous. You are superimposing your opinion ("his statement is simply false") over that of a recognized quoted expert (who was asked by Forbe's to give his expert opinion on the issue to which he commented on). That's exactly what we're not supposed to do as WP editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You really need to take a pause and read what I said. I am in no way "superimposing my opinion", I never once said his citation doesn't qualify for inclusion, nor even the fact that he's wrong qualifies. Under WP rules his opinion qualifies. It's still false (go research it yourself) but that doesn't matter and there's no point arguing about it. Still, your little rant on sources just goes to provide evidence of exactly what I was saying about "blind faith". Do you really believe that, because it's in news media it must be true? That Forbes, NYT etc don't occasionally get things wrong? I don't for a moment believe you believe that. I also find it fascinating that you consider that listing someones affiliations is "denigrating" them! Do you think Almada considers his status as founder and CEO of various companies "denigrating"? Really? At the time of the quote he was involved in at least one nutritional products company (and ye, I did show that, it's on the source linked to). That's a clear COI that should, in fairness to USANA, be noted. WP guidelines aside, don't you think it's inherently unfair to allow USANA to be denigrated in the article without noting the guy doing it is a competitor? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, for all the carefully artilcuated reasons above. You haven't demonstrated a COI and there is no reason to alter the context of the quote. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have a difference of opinion. I believe founding and running a competing company while by cited about USANA is a conflict of interest, you don't. We'll leave it at that and see if others consider it OR to note his affilations or not. --Insider201283 (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in noting the COI - I don't see it as denigrating Almeda's credentials at all. That's not for us to decide, its up to the reliable sources to do their due diligence on choosing their sources. Absolutely the citation should stay, there is not enough COI to remove the reference. However, I would be open to a (carefully worded) COI statement. Leef5 (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

2010 Annual Report

Currently, going through the 2010 Annual Report released recently. Going to update the easy stuff first (financials). Looks like there are some other noteworthy items in here (BabyCare acquisition is certainly talked about a lot). Link is here: USANA 2010 Annual Report — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leef5 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Phase I - article standardization

I mentioned on another talk thread here that I was going to tackle the product section first of this article. My thought was this is their primary business and as it stands, there is one factual sentence about what they manufacturing and the rest goes into counterpoints on the effectiveness of the products. We also agreed we were going to split the article out similar to Herbalife and create a Controversies section where we would move the sourced counterpoint material that would appropriate to a "controversy" section.

I made some significant progress the past day and a half pouring through 1st and 2nd party sources to see what factual information I could provide. I did my best to not add any spin or promotional/negative adjectives, etc to the text and have kept all sources as is. I still need to pour through the list of clinical research and other papers Usana has published and see if any are 1) notable 2) not self-published. I also have access to a significant research search tool at work, and will see what comes up there as well.

My plan is to WP:BOLD and post my edits tomorrow after I've had a good night's rest and look at it with a fresh pair of eyes. If any editor would like to comment and preview my work, its over at my sandbox - welcome to knock your socks off :)

Summary of changes:

• Product section expanded. Added manufacturing standards, certifications, and 2 published books where the products are listed and/or rated. I know Rhode Island Red commented on the PDR source. I found a great deal of articles sourcing the PDR similarly, so it would appear the community considers the PDR both notable and WP:RS - I'm up for more discussion regardless.
• Clinical studies section added - this assumes we find notable non-self-published works.
• Council members listed for their 2 councils (Scientific and Athletic). Bumped the sponsorship section into this one as it seemed to make sense rather than its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leef5 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV guidelines suggest that a "controversy" section per se should avoided -

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

I suggest you discuss your proposed edits here instead of simply being bold, otherwise other editors might be just as bold in reverting your changes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed direction of the article have been discussed in length over the past 6 months. No surprises here. I will take under advisement your segregation reference. I can see how it could apply, and yet also could not apply to this situation. The regular editors here were trying for consistency across similar articles (MLM) and the majority use a "Controversy" section. It seemed prudent in this article to do the same. I will check to make sure that the segregation doesn't create the appearances warned about above. Leef5 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

By "discussed in length" you must be referring to the dialog between you and the other SPA. I looked at some of the content in your sandbox and it doesn't look like much if any of it has been discussed at all, let alone in the last 6 months. The sceintific ad board has not been discussed nor is it notable; neither are the details about the NSF. The research posters and in-house research from USANA is not WP:RS, so none of that warrants inclusion. Segregating content into a controversy section is a no-go. And why is this thread titled "article standardization" when your proposed edits seem to have nothing at all to do with standardization? It just looks like a bunch of random edits to me. Lastly, your approach does not appear to be evenhanded, since seevral of your sources are the USANA website and the proposed edits seem to be moving in the direction of turning this into a promotional piece for USANA (e.g., unnecessarily expanding the athlete endorsement section). Looks like you would be best off rethinking your strategy and bringing your comments and suggestions to the talk page before proceeding. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this article could use a great deal of editing also. It reads very biased in a negative way instead of informative and neutral-while still giving the whole story good and bad. I would also like to see the product section edited. I just checked the links and reference #29 does not work and the other reference is #7 (which is referenced 8 times in the article) and I have an issue with because it is in French and I have no quick way to verify it. I wold stand behind a Bold edit. PRJtrue (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP policy does not preclude the use of non-English sources. The CBC is an extremely reputable news source and the indvidual (Jean-Louis Brazier) interviewed by the CBC regarding USANA's products is an expert pharmacologist and professor at the University of Montreal. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

With regard to reference #29, is your issue with the information in the article or merely the dead link. In either case, have you looked for alternate sources? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy batman lots of updates today :) The goal is to raise the quality of this article following WP:WikiProject Companies standards. This was discussed in the WP:Undue Weight section of this talk page.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

unindent -- The SLC Tribune article has moved behind a paywall. Still usable, though. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason it was agreed to split out the numerous lawsuits/scandals/controversies was to bring this article withing the project standards and actually tell what the company does. We have a major issue of disproportionate sourcing within an article about a company. Currently, it reads as 1-2 sentences of fact of what the company does, and 2-3 times that of RS articles opinions on that.(of which the majority are from a negative bias). The reason a lot of my edits (and personal time) have been spent on this article, is it appears obvious to me this article took a turn for the worse during the Minkow report (and following incidents), that have morphed this article into a "USANA Problems" article, instead of an article about the company. I guess you can say I'm "fighting for" the return of neutrality. Leef5 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, the notability of the NSF ceritifcation and scientific ad board has not been demonstrated by citing independent secondary sources. Please address the issue here before moving forward with these edits. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In regard to Leef's previous comment, the content for the article should be based on what reliable secondary sources have to say about the company, not what the company says about itself (beyond a few basic, defining details). I have closely examined numerous reliable secondary sources (cited in the article); the WP article reflects the content in those sources quite accurately. Independent sources are not talking about the company's products or saying much of anything good about the company. Aside from a couple of random articles that deal with the company's financials, the vast majority of the information from secondary sources (and there are a lot of them) focuses on criticism of various aspects of the company. The company executives fraudulently representing their credentials (which resulted in resignations/terminations), the company's unsuccessful lawsuit against Minkow (in which Minkow had alleged that USANA was a pyramid scheme), the SEC investigation, and the CBCs exposeee on the products/company are, for better or worse, a key part of the company's story. As editors, our goal is not to bend over backwards trying to balance this with non-notable fluff; we merely report the facts as they apear in secondary sources. Capiche? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see more articles that are current and what they say about the company now. I see that there are a lot of referenced articles from 2007, around when the Minkow thing was going on, but even one of the Forbes articles had an update in 2008 that USANA was cleared of the charges Minkow alleged, but that seems to be overlooked in this Wikipedia article. Is all the negative stuff only from 2007 and based on Minkow's allegations, who is in trouble for fraud again and could be going to jail again. http://www.laweekly.com/2011-01-06/news/barry-minkow-s-new-scandal/ I think the stuff with USANA and him should be in this article, but I don't want to give him a lot of credibility since he seems to be breaking the law a lot. PRJtrue (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How badly would you like to see more current articles included? Enough to go look for them? Which 2008 Forbe's article are you referring to? This one [13] that's already cited? It says nothing about USANA being cleared of anything. As far as I know, Minkow's report was never denigrated, and his comments about resume fraud were confirmed as being correct. None of the articles cited are based solely on Minkow per se; they are written by credible reporters who assessed various sources (Minkow included) and viewpoints and drew their own conclusions. It's not our job to second guess Minkow's crediblity after the fact (and his background is clearly mentioned in the article). Whatever happened to Minkow yesterday, last week, or last year has no bearing on the USANA article, unless of course a reliable secondary source drew such a connection. Getting back to Forbe's for a moment, I did find these two articles which describe how the CEO tried but failed in a bid to convert USANA from a publicly-held company to a privately-held one [14][15]. This information is definitely notable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia PRJtrue. Most of the articles written about USANA are going to come from that time period. A lot was happening back then and a lot of informaiton is still available from that time period which hasn't even been touched on in the Wiki Article. Minkows current legal problems aren't traceable to his battle against USANA (Believe me, I've looked) so I would think it's neither here nor there. None of the current articles dealing with Minkows recent legal troubles even mention USANA. About the French article I searched out an experience editor was was fluent in both French and English and asked them to make any updates necessary from that source.Jean314 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good call Jean. I've been doing some followup research and noticed that the WP article also fails to mention (a) the class action lawsuit filed by investors against USANA, in which the company was accused of running a pyramid scheme [16] and (b) a new suit filed in 2009 in which USANA is again being accused of running a pyrmaid scheme [17]. Also, the resume scandal section fails to mention that the company was actually under investigation by The Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing, and USANA had to offer a settlement, which included an open admission of "unlawful conduct" by company executives [18]. In contrast with what Leef is arguing, I'd say the coverage of these issues in the WP article leans toward being whitewashed a bit (although much less so now after I made major edits last night). Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked at this article for the first serious time and it definitely appears unbalanced to me. Using google news, books, and scholar the vast majority of relevant references that appear, at least in the first few pages, are *not* about the Minkow affair or even "negative" for that matter, yet Minkow takes up a significant part of the article. Numerous topics that would put the company in a "positive" light are pretty much ignored, despite receiving press coverage, for example Larry King appearing for them, Stevie Awards, ConsumerLabs surveys, and published reasearch articles. The WTA deal, which was quite significant, is given one sentence that doesn't even mention the quite significant supply deal. Even basic company history that recieved coverage, such as moves to privatise and changes in executives is ignored (though the problems with CVs are covered extensively). And that's just what I've found in maybe 20 minutes on google and it's default sorting. I've started trying to collate some of these references on a subpage of my user page [19]--Insider201283 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of those content suggestions seem reasonable enough, but what kind of search did you do exactly. I tried Google scholar and it turned up nothing but junk. A Google news search reveals lots of stuff but mostly fluff and press releases. I'd like to see a little bit moe detail on the internet search snapshot you took to come to the conclusion that the article is imbalanced. I also had a quick look at some of the references you posted. I suspect that there's lots of usable stuff in there, but I wouldn't consider all of it notable. For example, when the company hires a C-level spokesperson, pays to have Larry King appear at an event as a speaker, or sponsors an obscure sports team (not including the Sony WTA deal), the information doesn't necessarily strike me as particularly notable; newsworthy maybe, but not encyclopedic. Some is worth mentioning, but it doesn't really help to elaboate on the company or its products. It leans towards trivia. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, with respect it's not up to you to decide whether it's notable or not. The fact somethings gets press coverage implies notability, if it gets multiple artices there's really little argument. And that's without considering the fact that - as WP:NOTE explictly points out - notabiity is not what determines article content . Reliable Sources, verifiability and NPOV is what matters there. Press releases are perfectly RS and verifiable for non-controversial facts like sports sponsorships/endorsements. Now if that's all you've got to base an article on, then it's a clear NPOV problem, but it's just as much an NPOV problem focusing primarily on controversial stuff because that's what newspapers like to write about. Still, I agree that sponsorships of "obscure sports teams" may not be particularly relevant, but even making a judgment of "obscure" is POV. A simple guideline might be whether the team (or person) would qualify for a WP article (not qualify - not has). Sponsorship of Steven Hooker for example is definitely worth including, as is whoever that other spokeswomen was. I've only just started digging and am now looking on EBSCO for paywall stuff. Apparently USANA's corporate blogger just won some award for his blog. My original google-based search was simply for USANA in news/books/scholar archives, recent date sorted. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Couldn't help but notice that Insider is being inestigated for possible COi and POV pushing on MLM articles. I might have to take those comments above with a grain of salt. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the COI claim by the guy who just got a 24hr ban for his POV editing? How about taking that with a grain of salt? :-) Even so, would you care to explain how the fact I am a supporter of (legitimate) MLM is a COI for this article any more than the fact that you are (apparently) not a supporter of MLM? I edit based on WP policies and guidelines, I suggest you do the same. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was just in the process of deleting my comment (with the summary saying "comment withdrawn; on closer inspection COI dispute seems inconclusive") but I couldnt make the edit becuase you were posting your last comment at the same time. Consider the matter resolved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it happens :). Still, I'd note that if the COI claim was true, it would mean I'm an active competitor of USANA, so offering positive references is actually "writing for the enemy", considered good practice if there are potential COI issues. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Regarding your previous reply, which I just noticed, I don't disagree that news coverage often makes a subject/topic notable (depending fully on the breadth and depth of coverage), but just because something is notable doesn't necessarily mean that it's encyclopedic. The reality is that lots of "news" articles and details covered therein are decidedly non-encyclopedic. But there's no point in enegaging in a long theoretical discussion in the absence of any prosposed content revisions/additions. That's putting the cart before the horse. BTW, I did the same searches you did and they turned up page after page of garbage non-encyclopedic fluff. That's not to say that there isn't usable new content lurking out there, but I don't see that this Goggle snapshot demonstrates imbalance in the current version of the WP article. Again, I would look to add good quality encyclopedia-worthy content that elaborates about the company and its products. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, we don't have any agreed WP consensus on what "encyclopedic" means. In theory it should emerge from adherence to RS/V/NPOV. "balance" also needs to be considered from an overall perspective as well. Focusing on criticism and ignoring "positives" can create an overall unbalanced view of a topic even if individual subjects are not especially noteworthy. This tends to be a problem with company articles on WP (and not just MLM companies), where non-controversial topics tend not to get much media coverage. Look at companies like Coke or Yahoo, or to a lesser extent Wal-Mart, where the overwhelming majority of coverage (and public opinion) of the companies is positive, but they have quite large articles covering criticism, sometimes of even a minor, short-term dispute. Confirmation bias and the fact that facts don't change peoples opinions[20] means you end up with passionate supporters on both sides of an argument, both of whom believe they are correct. The only real solution is to try to actively and consciously adhere to RS/V/NPOV as much as we can, and WP:AGF and be open to letting the "other side" so the same. Having said that, you're absolutely right that this is just theory until we come up with some actual proposed changes. Not today from me, but I'll see what I can do. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I see my expansion of the product section was reverted. The comments made were NSF and advisory councils was not "Notable" for inclusion. I think we all need to have a discussion about Notability in the first place. According to WP:Notability, this applies only to whether or not an article should have an article in the first place. If a company does not have enough secondary sources, and thus achieved notability, then it should not have an article. Please refer to the section titled, Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Notability has been used in this article to restrict content such as the removal of that NBJ award, PDR, advisory council, NSF, etc. On what basis do we have a right to exclude this content if Notability is not a basis for consideration? Leef5 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments on a basis besides WP:Notability to restrict these content additions? Leef5 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RS, WP:3PARTY, WP:IS, WP:QS apply. Most if not all of these details you mentioned have not received significant coverage from multiple, reliable, independent third-party sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I just re-read those, in particular paying attention to how it applies to content within an article that already has notability. I'm not seeing anything that is obvious that the factual data should be suppressed. Could you provide the snippets that you believe support your point of view on why the content should not be included? Now, if separate articles were to be written on each item, then all of those plus notability apply for each of those articles. As long as the majority of the article is 3rd party sourced, why are we restricting factual content? Leef5 (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Start a new thread for the specific text you are proposing to add, along with the supporting sources, and I'll be happy to offer my opinion as to whether it meets with WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of Product Section

Rhode Island Red requested to dissect each of the proposed product section expansions for further debate. See exact diff here: Diff of proposed changes

1. Update the description of product line to match product listings on their website.
2. Add certification of products by NSF
3. Add their Essentials product in the INFORMED-CHOICE program
4. Add their Athlete Guarantee policy
5. Add listing of current scientific staff and scientific advisory council
6. Move sponsorship section into product section
7. Expand sponsorship section to list notable organizations
8. Add list of current members of their athletic advisory council

Would appreciate input from interested parties - as I made these updates in good faith that they were factual data and what I considered non-controversial. Leef5 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, now apply WP:RS, WP:3PARTY, WP:IS, WP:QS -- in other words how many of these details have received significant coverage from multiple, reliable, independent third-party sources. As a side note, I don't really consider sponsorships to be relevant to the Product section (it's advertising basically), but that's one of the more minor issues. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's notability you are speaking of - which doesn't apply to text within an article that already has notability established. That's why I was asking for you to quote which part of those WP policies you feel supports your stance. When I read those policies with an eye for what should and should not be excluded from an article with established notability, I cannot find a basis for excluding the text. Leef5 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The policies to which I referred have nothing to do with whether or not notbaility of an article subject has been established. They pertain to the basic construction of articles and the types of sources and content that are considered to be acceptable. I'm asking you to run that simple check yourself rather than tasking me with writing a detailed explanation of policy. Much of the content you are suggesting is not supported by multiple, reliable, independent third-party sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And when I suggested starting a new thread to discuss your proposed changes, what I meant is that each major content area should be discussed seperately. Lumping everything under titles like "Product section" doesn't really help. It's simpler if you take it case by case (for instance, start a thread called "NSF certification" to discuss that content, and so on...makes things much simpler and easier to refer back to later). Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The policies you refer to do not state that *all* content in an article must be supported by multiple, reliable, independent third-party sources like you claim, only that the majority of text is such, which it is. Non-controversial facts don't need to fit in that mold. Instead of defending your position, you are deflecting the issue here. Namely, that you stand behind a position that nothing goes into an article unless it is "supported by multiple, reliable, independent third-party sources". I'm asking you to defend that position, because that's not what I'm getting out of any of the policies you posted, nor is that my understanding of WP. Let's solve that issue before I spend any time breaking out the above summary of changes, or else we're going to be in the same discussion on each point regardless. Leef5 (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a couple of relevant quotes to give the gist "Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important." "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." If you dig a bit further, you'll find that company press relases and self published sources are not generally considered acceptable for anything but the most basic noncontentious statements. In constructing an article the guiding principle should be to ask "what have relaible independent third party sources written about the subject". If this principle were not to be followed, there would be nothing to stop an article such as this from turning into a sales brochure filled with self-published blurbs and promo fluff generated by the manufacturer. I have no objections to including a few basic details from the company's website and SEC filings, but these should be included sparingly. Scan through news articles and see what they are reporting about the subject, not what the subject is reporting about itself. Have any independent third party sources discussed the certification by NSF (an obscure organization)? Their scientific advisors? Their sposnorship deals (yes, in the case of the WTA, no in other cases), etc. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Corporate sources are considered WP:RS for articles about the companies, though an article should not be based upon them. They are clearly not WP:QS The other pages RIR referred to are essays, ie individual wikipedians opinions, not policies or guidelines. Having said that, WP:3PARTY explictly states "Non-independent sources may be used to source content from articles". Information about a companies brands/products/key personal is clearly releavant, non-trivia, and non-controversial and if written correctly is not "promotional". Some editors seem to have the idea that "put company in a positive light"="promotional". They are not synonyms. Oh, and NSF an obscure organization? Really? Though I see you've already gone and stamped your view on the on the NSF International article. I'm afraid, RIR, that just because you're ignorant about something doesn't make it "obscure"[21]. Though you are correct, that article needs work. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Advisory councils are not "key personal" and advertising sponsorships are the very essence of "promotional". I have no objection to using company sources to define things like company executive leadership (truly "key personnel") and product characteristics, but there has to be a tight limit on how much self-published information is included in a WP article about a company (particularly with regard to content that can be construed as promotional in nature), otherwise it becomes more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia article. I also don't object to any content on the basis that it portrays the company in a positive light, as long as it's from a reliable third-party source and not simply the company shining that light on itself, either through self-published statements, paid advocates, or otherwise non-reliable sources. Similarly, press releases are to be used only in very limited contexts, since they are generated by the company with no editorial oversight or verification of such content. But again, we shouldn't be arguing about this in the abstract. As I suggested, specific content suggestions can be put forth in a new thread with an appropriate title (to make the process manageable and easier to refer back to later) rather than talking about a bunch of unrelated edits. Each suggestion should be weighed on its own merits. Some of what's been proposed, I don't object to at all; some of it I object to strongly. Let's go case by case and anyone who cares to can propose specific text additions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As part of the wikiproject on companies I've been reviewing dozens of different company articles on WP and it's quite usual for advertising and sponsorships to be mentioned - everything from lists of spokespersons (eg Avon), indeed even as entire articles (eg List of Pepsi Spokespersons), through to naming rights for stadiums (eg AAMI), sports team sponsorships (eg Herbalife for a direct sales example, Cannondale for another, Emirates for an example of naming rights and sponsorships in one section). A scientific advisory council is clearly "key personnel" in a nutritional company. Heck, the USANA article already talks about them quite a bit! Funny how you're not to concerned when it's critical ... ;-) Sponsorships and advertising are an important part of understanding a companies sales and marketing strategy and is clearly relevant. Just as clearly, the company itself (and it's partners) are the best source for this information. Obviously, if there's third party discussion on it, then that's worthwhile including too (eg GoDaddy and their superbowl ads) --Insider201283 (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In cases where I've seen sponsorships and naming rights mentioned its because they have received significant independent press coverage and/or becase they sponsoree is high profile. That's why I agreed about including the WTA sponsorship becuase it is high profile and has received independent coverage. Random small scale deals with bobsled teams etc have not received independent coverage and aren't signficant (and nonetheless, I still linked these deals in the text so that interested readers can explore them further -- that's as much attention as it merits). If there were independtly verifiable details on these deals, like how much money was involved and how long the contracts last for, etc., then it might be potentially interesting and worth including. But USANA can make a very small one-time donation and presto, that's a sponsorship deal. Five years down the road, will anyone care that USANA may have made a trivial donation to an obscure sports organization or athlete once upon a time? No (I don't even care about it now). That, among other reasons, is why it's non-encyclopedic. As for the ad board, one specific member (Ladd McNamara) is mentioned in the WP article now because his story received significant independent press coverage in a very specific context (he had his medical licence revoked but was being represented as a doctor) -- that's notable because it's part of an actual story (not just a list of names) and it's independently sourced. I looked through USANA's 10K and it very briefly mentions the existence of the ad board but doesn't name any specific members. So there is no way to independently verify the information; the only source is the claim on the company's website. Additionally, the same caveats as with the sports sponsorships apply here -- i.e. not knowing any details at all about the nature of the advisor contracts (and advisors are in fact independent contractors, not company employees). Non-MLM companies maintain massive advisory board and consultancy networks -- but no one would even remotely consider that it merits being mentioned in a WP article. As a side note, MLM ad boards like this are a bit notorious for being promotional window dressing and simply involve a cash transfer in exchange for using the name of a physician who in fact has little to no input on product development or oversight (see United Science of America [22] for example) and in some cases, ad board members at health-related MLM companies are also distributors of the company's products and have undisclosed financial interests with respect to their involvement (e.g. Monavie, Juice Plus, etc.). To make matters worse, independent sources discussed in the article described how USANA was fraudulently representing it's ad board to promote the company (i.e. several members lied/misrepresented their credentials). The company confessed to the fraud as part of their settlement bargain -- it's cited in the WP article ([23]) BTW, I looked at your first example (List of Pepsi Spokespersons) of a WP page with a list of spokespeople. Note two very important details: (1) The list is not included in the main article on the company; and (2) the list has almost no references whatsoever and it represents both (a) an example of a really bad WP article and (b) very poor support for the case you were trying to make. And once again I have to stress that it's important to start new threads devoted to isolated content issues, otherwise it gets very hard to find relevant information on the talk page. For instance, we're focusing on two specific content issues (sports sponsorships and the ad board) but now it's buried under a thread with a non-informative title (i.e., Expansion of Product Section). Please bear that in mind next time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RIR, could you please point us to the Wikipedia policy that says only information discussed in independent 3rd party sources should be included in articles? You seem to operate on the basis that this is the case, so I'd appreciate you pointing out the policy, since I'm not aware of it--Insider201283 (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Athletic Advisory Council

Proposed text to include in the sponsorship section:

USANA's Athletic Advisory Council is chaired by Dr. Denis Waitley. Members of the council also include Don Beebe, Dr. JoAnn Dahlkoetter, Derek Parra, Richelle Lund, José Antonio Rivera, and Dr. Jeff Schutt.

Similar to my comments re:the scientific advisory board - just a list of the current members of the board, some of whom are not only notable, but have a WP article as well. Comments? Leef5 (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See my comments above regarding the scientific advisors. Same applies here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

NSF certification

Proposed text to be added to product section:

Several of USANA's products are certified by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) in the Dietary Supplements category (NSF/ANSI 173) as having the identity and quantity of their dietary ingredients accurately described on the product label and containing no undeclared ingredients.

This appears to be relevant information, factual, and non-controversial to add to the product section. Comments? Leef5 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming consensus and adding this proposal since no objections were voiced. Leef5 (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In-House Scientific Staff and Scientific Advisory Council

Proposed sub-section to be added detailing the scientific staff and advisory council (non-usana employees):

Sub-section title: In-House Scientific Staff and Scientific Advisory Council

USANA's scientific staff is led by Dr. Tim Wood, Executive Vice President of Research and Development. Other staff members include Dr. John Cuomo, Dr. Mark Brown, Dr. John McDonald, Dr. Brian Dixon, Keijun Koh, Todd DeBloois, and Jim Eng.

USANA's Scientific Advisory Council is chaired by Dr. Peter W. Rugg, FACEP, who is board certified in internal medicine and emergency medicine. Members of the council also include Dr. Monica Lewis; Dr. Bart Moore; Dr. Christine Wood, FAAP; Dr. Ray Strand; and Dr. Heather Tick, CAFCI, DipAAPM.

This also appears to be relevant information and non-promotional. 1st step is listing out the current members above. Even though a citation isn't needed on non-controversial data, do we still want to include a citation/link to the list so we can have an access date attached? Unknown how often staff changes in those positions, but would need to check every now and then to make sure WP article was current. In the future, a non-promotion introductory statement that says what the council is before listing members may be appropriate. Comments? Leef5 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Really??? Still pursuing this? OK, now go back and read what I wrote here[24]. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You ranted and raved about having separate sections to talk about each issue independently. Now, you reply with a link to comments elsewhere. What gives? How are we supposed to have WP:AGF with you when you are so confrontational and insult other WP editors that have just as much of a right to be here as you do? There is nothing inherently promotional about this addition - there is no mention that this council somehow makes them better than other companies or any other promotional source that would need a citation from a 3rd party source. 1st party source is a RS for this type of basic company information. Leef5 (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Watch your tone and try to remain civil. I did not rant and I did not insult anyone -- stick to the facts. I articulated my arguments very carefully. Had you read my original comments, it shouldn't have been necessary to even start this thread. There's certainly no reason for me to repeat myself. Is it asking to much of you to follow the link to the diff edit? If you can't AGF, then find a new hobby. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Many WP articles refer both to an organisations Science Advisory Board/Council or a persons membership in one[25]. It seems to me they are clearly key people if a company claims their products are backed by science. As for your "rant and rave" ;) - you seem to have misunderstood "notability", which refers to articles, not article content. Indeed the guideline explicitly states "notability guidelines do not limit content within an article"[26]--Insider201283 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to notability guidelines; I was using the word "notable" in it's proper English context. The only thing notable about USANAs ad board is that one of its members was nailed for fraudulently representing his credentials (after having his medical license revoked), as were various other company execs. If this doesn't strike you as problematic, than I doubt we'll ever reach consensus through Talk page discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So in other words you weren't actually saying anything other than giving your opinion of the board? Not sure what your asking is "problematic"? --Insider201283 (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

General Comments on Sources That Are Not Third-Party/Independent.

Two of the editors here complained that they feel the article is imbalanced and does not include enough "positive" information about USANA. But the remedy they are proposing for this is to insert a large amount of new text based on non-third party non-independent sources (and information of questionable relevance). That simply won't fly. An occasional exception to the rule might be OK but to try to "rebalance" the article using a large body of dubious poorly-sourced content is not the way to go. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There are no commentaries or opinions introduced in the proposed textual changes. Only factual items that are relevant to the company's products. The article is out of balance due to content being suppressed using inaccurate WP policy application. I've asked you to defend your position by quoting which section of which WP policy you feel applies. Instead, you just link 4 overarching WP policies and infer that the defense of your position is in there somewhere. That is not the way to go. I'm asking you to be specific so we can settle the direction of the article updates. Leef5 (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been very specific in my replies above to each of the proposed content areas above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is your prior defense in which you simple quoted the overarching WP policies: RIR defense . All I am asking for is specifics - what part of which policy (quote or reference it here) do you feel defends your position on suppressing the inclusion of the proposed factual texts? If you can show me something definitive that we can concur on, I will acquiesce recommending these article changes. Leef5 (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be operating under the erroneous assumption that once the notbaility of a subject has been established, the normal rules for sourcing and article quality can be chucked out the window. I started this thread just to offer a gestalt view on the edits you've been proposing. Your solution to address what you say is an imbalance in the article seems to be solely based on adding a lot of poorly sourced references and weak material. I don't care to debate the generalities with you on this thread, since you've already opened up 6 simultaneous debates in the past few days in which we're already discussing the details. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we be more specific? Sources need to be WP:RS and WP:V. How has Leef5 "chucked out" these? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already been specific under the "6 simultaneous debates" I spoke of in my last post. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

USANA Insiders

I would encourage anyone reading this who works for USANA directly as an employee (not as a distributor) to feel free to identify yourself as such on this talk page and discuss ways of improving the article. You can use a pseudonym; nobody cares about who you are, just that you are an insider. The reason this is important is twofold; first, insiders can often identify errors that other editors would not catch. Of course we then need to verify the info using reliable sources, but we wouldn't know to look unless someone raises a flag. This article must not turn into an advertisement or PR release, so it is best for insiders to bring up proposed changes on the talk page rather than directly editing the article. That way there are no conflict of interest issues. Again, insider participation is welcome, if done the right way. The guidelines given in Wikipedia:COI#Declaring_an_interest are clear and simple. Moreover, by declaring your "COI", you are welcome to contribute and your edits will enjoy a higher level of creditability. (Borrowed idea from talk page of another article). Leef5 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to invite input from experienced impartial WP editors rather than USANA company employees. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Since their suggestions would go through the same review process as everyone else I would add that they aren't required to announce where they're employed. We've had people alter the article from USANA Headquarters before and it only became a problem because they were vandalizing the page by section blanking negative information and for engaging in Sock puppetry. Members from a Public Relations firm working on behalf of USANA have also suggested changes to the article both openly and I believe in one case without making their affiliation known. If their changes are appropriate it doesn't matter who they are.Jean314 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that their comments would hold no more weight than comments from any other source, but protocol is that if they have a clear COI, it should be declared. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. My name is Lisa, I am part of the USANA Public Relations/Social Media Team. We have just created an official user name, USANA PR Team. We are here to be inclusive and be fair to all sides of the discussion. Thanks a lot. USANA PR Team (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Jean, if it's not too much trouble, could you provide some links to the diff edits pertaining to the vandalism and sock puupetry from USANA HQ, as well as the prior posts you mentioned from USANAs PR firm. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk)

Welcome Lisa and the PR Team. I appreciate you coming to the table in collaboration on this article. We all know that public relations is all about painting the company in the most positive light. I just want to make sure you guys understand that this article will not be allowed to be a PR piece for Usana. The reason I asked if there were any insiders out there who would declare their COI, was for to identify incorrect information in the article or omissions you think are relevant. Please suggest the additions/corrections in a new section in this talk page for discussion. Minor edits like financials etc. I'd be happy if you took the lead on doing those as those should be non-controversial and pretty straight up edits. Factual data about the company/products/business model may be sourced from primary sources like your website as long as its not overly promotional in the language and the statements are as factual as possible. If you are making suggestions that are more controversial (our products are the best, etc.) then you better have a non-1st party source, preferably 3rd party WP:RS for your citation. Again, welcome to the table - I appreciate the fact that you have come forward as an official presence on WP. Leef5 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. I've left a note on your talk page. While I'm sure it was well intentioned, using corp/group names is actually against wikipedia policy. See my comment there for suggestions --Icerat (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point Icerat (And on a side note just saw through Icerat's contribs that you are Insider201283 and recently changed your username. Looking at the noticeboard discussion, I understand your reasonings however. Now just need to get used to calling you Icerat ;) Leef5 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Everyone! my name is Mallory and I work with Lisa at USANA Health Sciences in the Public Relations department. I would just like to introduce myself and say hello to everyone. We're excited to be a part of the Wiki page and were here to deliver current, accurate, and non-bias content only. Please feel free to come to us with any questions that may come up. Thank you, and I'm excited to be present here on USANA's official page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalloryMoger21 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A direct and explicit solicitation by Leaf (in the midst of editing conflicts), quickly followed by the arrival of two company PR people, raises potential issues with WP:CANVASS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The first arrival was explicitly a "team", RIR. I suspect the second account is because I (and leef?) pointed out to them that a company account is against WP policy. WP:CANVASS doesn't really apply as someone with such an obvious COI won't have a lot of influence on deciding controversial issues. Obviously they may be able to bring RS information to the table that might be helpful, but I certainly wouldn't count their opinions towards any "consensus".--Icerat (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Put down the can of whitewash for a moment. The issue has little to do with the number of USANA's PR staff that suddenly appeared. It is the inappropriate notification. It is an issue all involved parties should be aware of. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to point out how posting a message on the talk page of the article under discussion, encouraging others to enter the discussion, is considered "inappropriate notification"? Tactless perhaps (I encourage everyone to join in!), but not inappropriate--Icerat (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No as a matter of fact I have no desire to point it out a third time or to continue spoonfeeding policy to you. How about you actually read up on the the policy that I linked to and mull it over quietly by yourself instead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RIR, it seems obvious you don't like the presence of Usana corp reps by your attempts to discredit them immediately upon arrival by asking Jean314 for proof of vandalism/sock puppetry, but none of the 4 behaviors in the inappropriate notification policy apply to this request for insiders:

• Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.
• Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
• Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
• Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
• Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.

Neither of the 2 corp accounts have any say in controversial discussions, and I would prefer they don't even comment on those. My original request was to have them point out inaccuracies in the article of which they have sourced proof is wrong. Items we have no idea they are incorrect unless someone pointed them out. I gave appropriate notification in my RfC (of which noone was yet responded) about the controversial issues we are discussing. Leef5 (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My query to Jean had nothing to do with 'discrediting'. Jean made a statement about past controversial edits that were made by the company and/or its agents, and I merely asked Jean to provide diff edits so that I could ascertain whether what he was saying was supported by the facts. In other words, it was a perfectly reasonable course of action. When you want to get more input on a question or the article in general, the proper course of action is to make a general request for editorial input through an appropriate channel (as outlined in WP:CANVASS). Specifically asking for the company to weigh in on content issues is not appropriate solicitation. I reminded everyone about the revelant policy so as to lessen the likelihood of policy violations and inappropriate conduct, which is in everyone's best interest. As I recommended in my last post, you can just read it and ponder it quietly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Athlete Guarantee Program

Proposed text to add to product section:

Additionally, USANA also guarantees its products are free of banned substance contamination in its Athlete Guarantee Program - guaranteeing up to C$ 1M in compensation to athletes that they will not test for banned substances while using USANA products.

Since this is Usana's published policy, this is relevant to add to the product section as a 1st party RS. Comments? Leef5 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming consensus and adding this proposal since no objections were voiced. Leef5 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm voicing them now. Your summary of the program was overly broad and somewhat misleading. The guarantee has extensive limitations, none of which are addressed in your edit. I'm therefore reverting it until thse issues are addressed. Specifcally, the USANA website states: "USANA is currently reviewing applications for the Athlete Guarantee Program from select members of the Canadian Olympic team who qualify under the terms of the agreement. For consideration the athlete must provide the following: Proof of membership on Olympic team; Proof that the athlete has never tested positive for a banned substance; Results of most recent test; Verification of earnings from sport within past 12 months; Upon review and acceptance of the application, USANA will guarantee that, during the term of the agreement, should the athlete test positive for a banned substance included in the WADA list of banned substances as a result of taking USANA® nutritional products, USANA will compensate the athlete with up to two times his or her current annual earnings up to $1 million CAN. USANA will enter into an agreement with the athlete at the Company's discretion. USANA will mail the contract to the athlete with additional product ordering information. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How about suggesting changes that you feel are appropriate instead of wielding the rv bat? I will add clarification to show its only for those enrolled in the program. The whole point of the ref is for interested editors to read about the programs details if they have the desire. Leef5 (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How about excercsing some patience and doing the job right the first time? Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is that you portrayed this information in a very overly broad way (misleading in fact) when the USANA details show that this has very limited applicablility. Just represent the details fairly and accurately and you won't have problems. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You restored your text without addressing anything that I've written above. The program specifies very clear limitations ot the guarantee which you have not addressed. They state that it only applies to Olympic athletes who have provided "Proof of membership on Olympic team; Proof that the athlete has never tested positive for a banned substance; Results of most recent test; Verification of earnings from sport within past 12 months. Get it right please. The guarantee is very limited and you have failed to address those limitations; therefore what you have written is misleading. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That guarantee reeks of BS; at least the way it was represented in the WP article ([27]). The fine print says: "Upon review and acceptance of the application, USANA will guarantee that, during the term of the agreement, should the athlete test positive for a banned substance included in the WADA list of banned substances as a result of taking USANA® nutritional products, USANA will compensate the athlete with up to two times his or her current annual earnings up to $1 million CAN. USANA will enter into an agreement with the athlete at the Company's discretion. USANA will mail the contract to the athlete with additional product ordering information." Since amateur athletes barely earn anything (hence the name "amateur"), offering a guarantee of 2-3 times their annual earnings is, essentially, offering 2-3 times nothing (or close to it). See, this is one of the many problems I have with the approach that you are taking to this article. This is lightweight stuff being spun in a very misleading and promotional manner. I'm starting to suspect that there may be COI issue here with respect to this article; at the very least the requisitie effort to vet sources and generate acceptable content is not being made. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, it gets worse. The guarantee is only open to athletes who are officially sponsored by USANA. This is garbage! Please stop trying to polish this turd. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide if it's garbage or not. Simply publish the facts and let the reader decide. Best I can tell the "officially sponsored" part your objecting to means "getting the products for free", ie any Olympic athlete is eligible to apply for it. Do you have another source for that part? I'm not quite sure what your objection to the rest of it is. Seems pretty straight forward and reasonable. --Insider201283 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The flaws in the proposed text were glaring. It made no mention whatsoever of the extensive limitations of this promotional program; it misrepresented the facts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So you help improve them and come to consensus. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - there was no intention of making their athlete guarantee program promotional. The wording intent was just to state the fact that they have a guarantee, and how much the guarantee is. I intentially made sure there was no language that would indicate if the program was a good or terrible one - that's not our call to add our editorial opinion. Originally this was a 1st-party RS, but I also found a 3rd-party as well. If you have suggestions on how to make this "turd" better, than please do so. Having to run everything by you borders on WP:OWNERSHIP. If the material added is relevant and has a RS, then no reverts should be happening. If you believe there are better ways to word it, then either be WP:BOLD and make an edit, or if you think your wording might be "controversial", then bring it here to Talk. Insider201283's latest wordsmithing when he reintroduced the text is accurate from what I can tell from the sources available. My only suggestion is merely a copyedit one - I'm not sure starting a sentence with "Via" is correct English. Leef5 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) The concerns were brought to the Talk page (see my 6 posts above). (2) Misleading information is worse than no information, hence the revert. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the recent copyedit changes RIR introduced. IMO, it reads better, and is a more accurate description of the program details based on the company's text about the program. I did make a minor edit to restore the news citation link (I did find it through google search, it was a scan of the newspaper article). And also a minor correction to the correct abbreviation of the canadian dollar. Shall we consider this one closed? Leef5 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the link to the scan? Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I googled for "usana athlete guarantee" in google news archives and came up with this link. Leef5 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So is there any particular reason why you are choosing to not include the link to the source article? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"delisting"

As already noted by Leef5, this has been discussed before and is trivia. RIR - reinserting it is one thing, but reinserting it and ignoring the extremely pertinent fact the "threat" (trivia as it was) had been withdraw a couple of months later , well ... you can argue for the issues inclusion, but on what basis do you think it's NPOV to ignore it's resolution? In any case, both the "warning" and the "withdrawal" were standard announcements required by SEC and really quite trivial.--Icerat (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Two editors looked at this issue 4 years ago. At the time, the source in question was an SEC filing. I did not use the SEC filing as a source; I used a reliable media source (Deseret News) that establishes the notability of the information. The NASDAQ delisiting was originally mentioned in a section dealing with legal troubles,[28] which is no doubt why some might have found the citation of the SEC source to be somewhat misleading. I am not discussing the NASDAQ delisting in the context of a legal issue. Furthermore, new material describing USANAs move from the NASDAQ to the NYSE was subsequently introduced. I have added the NASDAQ delisting article adjacent to that information, where it is clearly relevant. You're welcome to debate, but don't invoke an outdated, out-of-context discussion by 2 editors regarding an unrelated source as a consensus or a justifcation for blanking properly sourced content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I just looked over what you referred to as a "consensus" about this issue. The key driver for deletion back in 2007, when the discussion in question took place,[29] was an editor by the name of La grenouille, who happens to be a USANA SPA and has been dormant since Dec 2008.[30] That's obviously not a consensus, so don't try to suggest otherwise or you will just appear foolish. I really don't like what I'm seeing here with repect to COI, SPA, and sock account issues. I advise you all to tread lightly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you might want to take your own advice. The information under dispute is not about the NASDAQ delisting and move to NYSE. It's about an automated letter sent out because of, effectively, a minor paperwork error. Desert News even states their source is USANA. The fact it was last discussed 4 years ago doesn't suddenly make it important now, it makes it *less* important. Again though, you have replaced this delisting warning information yet NOT included the fact that 2 months later it was withdrawn, also reported by Desert News[31]. You have been informed of this (at least) twice yet continue to only include the warning, not the dismissal. That is clear POV editing. Please stop it. --Icerat (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside your hypocritical comment in bold for the moment, I have no problem at all with the inclusion of the followup article. What I had a problem with was your repeated deletion of properly sourced content and citing of a 4-year old so-called "consensus" of 2 editors (which included a now-dormant USANA SPA) as justification. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So far that adds up to 4 editors saying this is WP:NOTNEWS and one (you) saying it is. 4 to 1 is a pretty good consensus by Wikipedia standards. Why do you believe "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" does not apply here? I notice you still have not give any justification for including the initial notice but not it's follow-up. Now we're in a clear situation of WP:UNDUE. There are several thousand such reports of delisting warning notices accessible via google news. I'm yet to find a single one that was later revoked reported on any wikipedia article. Could you please explain why you believe it deserves inclusion here? --Icerat (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the circular arguments. You made an addition yesterday that I said I was satisfied with, and now you are arguing against what you added. That's a waste of time. You do not have a 4 to 1 consensus on the source I brought forth; it has never been discussed until yesterday and I explained already why the conversation from 2007 did not apply (and that one of the editors invoved was a dormant USANA SPA). It's miselading to imply that the warning notice was revoked per se. USANA was in violation and then several months later addressed the situation. It wasn't as though NASDAQ admitted that they were wrong in putting USANA up for delisting. You've argued strenuuously for inclusion of far more trivial content than this, so I find you arguments contradictory to say the least. It could just as easily be argued that USANA moving to the NYSE is trivial and yet you it was given so much weight as to appear in the lead of the old version. IMO, your arguments simply carry no weight, but if you like, put in an RfC and get more eyes on it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This information is trivial. Now if they had been delisted, that would be significant. Delisting notifications are quite common and usually requires little to correct. Adding the restoration does indeed correct the blatent POV editing, but both the notification and restoration aren't worthy of encyclopedic content. Consensus on this issue was already reached prior, and this is most definitely in the WP:NOTNEWS realm. I am reverting to the last stable version until a better defense is made why this should be considered non-trivial. Leef5 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't appreciate RIR's threat advising "you all to tread lightly.". Not to mention the unfounded suspicions of COI, SPA, and sock accounts. Just because other WP editors don't agree with your opinions, doesn't mean they must have something wrong with them and to start trying to discredit them. Let's stop the madness and get these comments out of this talk page and into the appropriate channels. This is WP:NOTFORUM Leef5 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think background should be added to the delisting notification. Specifically that it was brought about by their auditor quitting.Jean314 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

First, the SPA, sock, and COI issues at stake here are potentially serious and are far from unfounded. So far I've avoided elaborating on the issue here and I tried as nicely as possible to make everyone gnerally cognizant of the issue without being directly accusatory. But make no mistake -- the issues are serious enough to warrant admin attention, especially when you try to railroad through deletion of properly sourced content on the basis of a non-existent consensus. Which brings us to the second point -- you do not have a consensus for the content you deleted. Consensus is not simply a head count and then a declaration of victory if you deem the score to be 2-1. WP doesn't work that way. Declaring consensus based on a 2007 thread (about an an unrelated source) that involved a now-defunct USANA SPA account is not the basis for consensus. You do not have a consensus for removal of the content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(1)You're making serious allegations here, I suggest you stop with personal attacks. (2)Consensus, such as it is, is based on both a 2007 thread, and the current thread. Combined there's 4 editors for removing it, one (Jean314) who hasn't made a position clear on removal, and yourself who wishes to keep the material. Since you're on the "losing side" on this one, how about you take to to WP:30? --Icerat (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And I suggest that you stop playing the martyr. My comments were general, not personal. Secondly, you clearly do not have consensus; you do not even have a majority head count (not that it would necessarily matter if you did since WP is not a democracy. I also suggest that you read up on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, and if you still feel that you have consensus, outline it clearly here -- quote comments from all the editors that have commented on the reliable independent third-party source I provided. And for the record, Jean's comment above was "I think background should be added to the delisting notification. Specifically that it was brought about by their auditor quitting." That comment clearly does not support your position. To make matters worse, you are reversing your position on edits that you made just one day ago (and which I said I was OK with) after previously trying to blank the content.[32] That too is extremely counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Playing the martyr? I didn't even think you were referring to me! I've made no "reversal". I think the information is so trivial as to be WP:NOTNEWS, however if it is going to be included then clearly the fact it was withdrawn should also be included. --Icerat (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RIR is correct. I am in favour of the information being a part of the article and being expanded to include background information about their auditor quitting and their new auditor. There are some good sources of information available. [33][34]Jean314 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article already includes the information about the auditor quitting. Why are we adding another one in a different section? Leef5 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) Because Icerat added it, (2) because Jean supported Icerat's addition (3) because I have no objection to the addition (it makes sense to include it IMO), and (4) because it is part of USANA's explanation in their press release responding to the delisting notice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I did not realise the filing info that RIR kept adding in was already mentioned elsewhere in the article. It does NOT make sense to mention it twice. Clearly the two need to be reconciled. --Icerat (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You make edits; other editors find those edits to be acceptable, and that's just not tolerable for you, so you have to be tendentious. This is getting to be quite disruptive. And your false claims of consensus...completely ridiculous. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus was reached previously - as detailed in the talk archive section. Now, you certainly have a right to challenge consensus which is why we are having this discussion now. But to say either myself or Icerat gave false claims of consensus is itself completely ridiculous... Neither of us had to claim anything, the discussion is archived in the talk section. I fail to see how that has changed since that last discussion. The piece Jean314 brought up about the auditor is already in the article. RIR, what is your reason why you feel this information is now important enough for inclusion? Leef5 (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, you are dead wrong. Icerat declared that you had a 4-1 "consensus",[35] while ignoring that Jean had dissented[36] and that the published source I provided had never been discussed in the 2007 thread on which you and Icerat based your claim of prior consensus (in other words, not only was consensus never reached about the source in question, it was never ever considered). Furthermore, as I pointed out, one of two editors in 2007 that formed what you refer to as a 'consensus' was a USANA SPA and is now an inactive account (which cannot be simply dismissed). You might benefit from reading up on WP:CONSENSUS a few more times because you still don't seem to be getting it. Continuing to argue about the consensus (that was never established) is pointless. You don't have it, now move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Informed-Choice

Proposed addition to the product section:

The tablets that make up the Essentials product are also certified Banned-Substance Free by the INFORMED-CHOICE Certification Program.

This also appears to be relevant information, factual, and non-controversial to add to the product section. Comments? Leef5 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Where's the third party source for this? All I see is some numbers on a table. What makes this ceritfication even remotely relevant. What independent source have discussed it. What establishes that this certification is relevant? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

2nd party source is sufficient for a certification - 3rd party is not necessary as we aren't trying to establish notability of the article. It is relevant because it is a guarantee of the quality of Usana's supplements, which is their main product line. We can add another cite link that says what the certification is if that is necessary to alleviate your concern about all you see are "numbers on a table". On what basis are you saying this certification isn't relevant? Leef5 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the link you provided has nothing more than a table. Proper sourcing would dictate that you write it up as follows: "a table at the xxx website lists several USANA products." That's all you've shown and it would make for very weak article content. The proposal to use vague content from a list from a non-independent source would open the door to a litany of potential problems. As for the Informed Choice program itself, I would charactertize it as dubious. Only about a dozen companies are involved in the program, USANA is the only one I've ever heard of, and at least several of them are small MLM companies. The relevance of this program is highly questionable and seems to be promotional in nature, and you've presented no independent sources that discuss it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That link was added by HaeB for clarification. Perhaps better proposal would be to ref the program itself as well as the table. Independent sources are not required for a non-controversial factual statement like this. If you believe it is controversial or non-factual, please quote the policy that you believe supports your position. Just because you weren't familiar with this program or the companies that pay for their certification, doesn't mean it isn't valid or relevant to this article.

The tablets that make up the Essentials product are also certified Banned-Substance Free by the INFORMED-CHOICE Certification Program.

Any further comments before adding the proposed text with added source? Leef5 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lose the word "also". Some might interpret it as "advertorial" :-/. Looks like the Informed Choice program, or at least the company that runs it, HFL Sport Science, needs a WP article as well. Seems to be enough RS sources on it, and already mentioned in the dietary supplements article. --Icerat (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. "also" wasn't necessary either. I think I originally had it in there since the NSF certification was listed first. However, it reads fine without it. Leef5 (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be preferable if you did not simply bypass ignore the points raised above. The sources provided with newly added text do not state that "the products are certified Banned-Substance Free by the INFORMED-CHOICE Certification Program". All you have provided is a link to a table that does not include any specific factual or explanatory information statements about USANAs products. One of the links doesn't mention USANA at all; it merely provides an FAQ about Informed Choice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The link with the "FAQ" was added that explained what the certification entails. Perhaps better wording using prose from this about page would be:

The tablets that make up the Essentials product are certified by the INFORMED-CHOICE Certification Program to be regularly tested for substances considered prohibited in sport and that the products have been manufactured to high quality standards.

Thoughts? Leef5 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

By definition, anything listed under the "Informed Choice" certification is certified as "banned substance free". --Icerat (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What you are both proposing is improper synthesis. You don't have any quotable text from the source in question that describes USANAs products. All you have is a table that provides no significant details. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is combining multiple sources together. We have one source here: the Informed Choice program. The site lets you search by manufacturer for details on their current testing status. The table is the list of the products that are certified under this program. Since WP:SYNTH isn't the issue here, what is your basis for argument to excluding the text? Leef5 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you not even read or recall your own comments? You included two sources to generate the improperly synthesized text that you proposed, as follows: "The tablets that make up the Essentials product are certified by the INFORMED-CHOICE Certification Program to be regularly tested for substances considered prohibited in sport and that the products have been manufactured to high quality standards." There is no text in any single source that resembles or directly supports your proposed text. WP:RS states: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article." (WPs emphasis, not mine) Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Informed choice is 1 source, not 2. This is no different than the NSF certification where the explanation of what the certification means comes from one page from NSF and the list of products certified come from searching by manufacturer. Synth is implying something non-factual from two entirely different sources in order to POV push. The fact that Usana has a product line certified by this program is factual and non-controversial. The text for the latest revision came directly from the Informed choice website. What is so controversial about this simple statement that has caused so much discussion? The definition of controversy means that you don't believe that they are certified under this program. Is that really the position you are taking? Leef5 (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) That's an argument in favor of deleting the NSF certification; not an argument in favor of adding details about Informed Choice. (2) WP:SYNTH has nothing to do whether the synthesized information is true or false; merely that it is not directly supported by the sources (i.e., "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.").(3) You cited 2 sources -- not 1 -- to support your proposed text. (4) Here's an acid test to use in general. Quote specific text from a cited source that mirrors any text you are proposing to add to an article. If you can't do that, than you are probably guilty of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text does quote specific text from the cited source. One source exists for the proposed text and that is informed-choice.org. It is quite common in WP to use different URLs from the same source, just as in the paper world we use page numbers to distinguish where to find the material. Take a look at some of the Featured Articles and you don't have to go far to see how citations are used to support the text. Heck, in this particular case two separate sources were used. This is the "Synth" defense you are trying to use because there is no 1 source that says that exact quotation - that is nothing more than Wikilawyering. Quoted from BAE Systems:

It continued this strategy with purchases of Danish cyber and intelligence company ETI for approximately $210 million in December 2010, and Norkom Group PLC the following month for €217 million. The latter provides counter fraud and anti-money laundering solutions to the global financial services industry where its software assists institutions to comply with regulations on financial intelligence and monitoring.

Here a 3rd-party RS and a 1st-party RS press release are combined to directly support the text. Synth is implying a (false) statement that is not directly supported by sources. Neither this text from BAE Systems nor the NSF and Informed-Choice texts break any wiki rules, and certainly do not break the spirit of WP. Leef5 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty amusing Leef. The example you provided supports my argument and completely undermines yours. The text in the BAE article was directly supported by the text in an independent, secondary source (Washington Technology); namely, "BAE Systems PLC is purchasing the Danish cyber and intelligence company ETI A/S for 1.2 billion Danish kroner (approximately $210.7 million).[37] Thanks for proving my point again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Brought this issue up over at WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#USANA Health Sciences for comment since still no response from the overall RfC in the econ field.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So far the commentary on the noticeboard is that this is not synth, as one of the main tenants of synth is that it advances a point (POV). The proposed text is just a factual statement that one of their products are certified under this program. Please see WP:SYNTHNOT, in particular WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not NPOV, when it is point-by-point  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 22:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sponsorships

Proposed moving sponsorship out of its own section and including it in another section. To me, the Product section seems more appropriate than the Business Model section. Additionally, I propose the following text to replace the current sponsorship wording, listing out the notable organizations (several of which have WP articles):

Proposed sub-section title:Sponsorships and Athletic Advisory Council

USANA is a paid sponsor of various athletic organizations and individuals. Notable organizations include:

• Sony Ericsson WTA Tour
• US Speedskating
• TeamBiathlon Canada
• Tuzos del Pachuca Soccer Club
• Speed Skating Canada
• Cross Country Canada
• USA Luge
• Women's Ski Jumping USA
• Great Britain Short Track Speed Skating Team

At this time, I don't think we should include individuals outside of these organizational lists, even though there are a few possible notable individuals outside of these orgs. Comments? Leef5 (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WTA Sony is OK because it is actually discussed in detail by a third party source. As far as I can see, none of these other deal are mentioned by independent sources nor do is there any discussion about the details of the sponsorship deals in the examples that you posted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no WP requirement for this type of non-controversial information to be discussed in a third party source in order to be included in the article. As already noted such information is commonly included in WP articles. It provides an insight into the sales and marketing approach of a company as well as how the company is perceived by the market place. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a strict requirement per se but the what is considered proper sourcing and what constitutes a well written article is evident throughout WP policies and guidelines. The sources posted above don't even talk about the sponsorships at all; there are no details whatsoever. If this information were to be included it would have to be properly sourced and context provided, so what you would end up with would be something like this "the website of TeamBiathlon Canada lists USANA among its list of equipment sponsors." You would then have to use similar attribution and phrasing for each team that has allegedly been sponsored by USANA. By the time you're done, you've got a bulky paragraph describing something that's rather trivial. The current version of the WP article states: "USANA is a paid sponsor of various athletic organizations.[28][29][30][31] In 2006, USANA signed a co-sponsorship agreement with the Sony Ericsson WTA tour.[32][33]" It certainly doesn't need more detail than that, and I even find this a bit sketchy and trivial because, like I said, there are no details about the sponsorships and nothing has been written about them. At most, these websites list a USANA logo on list with no text explanation whatsoever. Also, many of the links that were put forth to support the suggestion to revise this section don't even link to any evidence of sponsorship -- looks like a slapdash effort. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific about which links supporting the suggestion to revise this section don't link to evidence of sponsorship? Leef5 (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Better still, can you summarize the specific information that each link provides? Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though you avoided answering, I will still answer your question. The references #7-18 as it currently shows in the reflist are for the sponsorship section. #7 is the 1st party source to Usana's sponsorship page of who they claim they sponsor. #8&9 are the prior WTA links used in the current version of the article, and #10-18 are links to each organization where the sponsorship is validated through the 2nd party. HaeB asked for validation of 3 of those sources when the WP:BOLD edit was 1st introduced and I corrected/clarified the 3 he had issues with. Leef5 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, as I pointed out, the article already mentions that the company has sponsorhip dealls with various organizations, and the WTA is named specifically. The onus is on you to justify why you think this section needs to be expanded beyond what's listed now -- it is given approrpaite weight in the current version. You have shown no independent sources that have discussed the sponsorships (other than the WTA) and yet you are proposing to give this section more weight than it merits . I asked you to specifcally summarize the details about sponsorship on each of these sites that you linked too because I checked a few of them and they had no details at all; some of the links did not even lead to evidence that any form of sponsorsip exists. I had a look at the USANA link about sponsorships and it is chock full of fluffy promotional testimonials about USANA products -- that's blatantly promotional/advertorial and it is inappropriate for a WP to serve an advocacy role for promotional material. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit annoying that I have to go through the proces of spelling this out for you when you could have done due dilgence yourself. Here is a brief summary of some of the basic problems with the links you posted. If you don't want to get pushback, then don't half-ass it.

• US Speedskating[38] -- link does not mention USANA at all
• TeamBiathlon Canada[39] -- link merely shows USANAs logo among a list of equipment suppliers (no details provided); USANA is not a funding partner.
• Tuzos del Pachuca Soccer Club [40] -- link does not show USANA at all
• Speed Skating Canada[41] -- link shows USANA logo at bottom of page; mentions nothing about sponsorship
• Cross Country Canada[42] -- link does not mention USANA at all
• USA Luge[43] -- link does not mention USANA sponsorship
• Women's Ski Jumping USA[44] -- link states “We thank our corporate sponsors” and shows a USANA logo but mentions no details about the nature of the sponsorship deal
• Great Britain Short Track Speed Skating Team[45][46] -- Link 1 is a USANA press release (primary source), not a statement from the GBSTSS. Link 2 lists USANA as a "preferred supplier" (in contrast to the "official suppliers" listed)

Not one of these links above provided details on the alleged sponsorships with USANA. Then there's the problem with the USANA link[47] that you suggested to include. As I pointed out, it is blatantly advertorial in nature (read the testimonials throughout most of the page -- I strenuously oppose the inclusion of this link on that basis alone) and perhaps just as bad, it provides no details whatosever on the nature of the alleged sponsorship deals. If any primary sources are to be offered up, please be sure that they aren't spammy like this one. Again, you;ve demonstrated no reason why the sponsorship section warants expansion beyond what's written in the article now (i.e. "USANA is a paid sponsor of various athletic organizations.[30][31][32][33] In 2006, USANA signed a co-sponsorship agreement with the Sony Ericsson WTA tour.[34][35]"). The depth of coverage of this area in the WP article is quite commensurate with the depth of coverage that it has received elsewhere. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how "advertorial" a source is. It could be an actual television advertisement. If it says in the ad "our product contains calcium", then it's an RS source for the statement the product contains calcium. If there's no dispute over the fact itself, it's an acceptable source. What's important is that the wikipedia article isn't written like an advertisement. Now just because an article doesn't put a subject in a negative light doesn't mean it's "advertorial". It hopefully is simply reflecting the RS sources. A series of factual statements or information does not per se make an article advertorial. Are you disputing any of the actual information that leef5 is proposing to use primary sources for? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I already spelled out what I was disputing. The advertorial nature of the link was just one aspect; there are more fundamental problems, as explained above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We already have a RS from the company's page stating they sponsor these organizations (and other individuals not mentioned). I added 2nd party links which all had the Usana banner/logo on their page in contrary to some of your observations above. If we have a 1st-party RS, and a 2nd-party display of their banner, that is more than sufficient to verify the establishment of the sponsorship. US Speedskating sponsorship is in the flash dropdown "Sponsors". There is no direct link here from what I can tell since its a flash-based page. Tuzos del Pachuca sponsors scroll through the bottom of their page - guessing you did not wait around until it scrolled through all its sponsors. Cross country Canada sponsorships scroll in the upper right - same about waiting through the scroll-list. The USA Luge page also has scrolling sponsors, but I did find a better link that goes right to the sponsorship: http://www.usaluge.org/sponsors.php . Same with Women's Ski Jumping, even though the main page listed Usana, there is a sponsorship link that would be better: http://www.wsjusa.com/sponsors/ . For the Great Britain Short Track, link 1 is sufficient - it contains statements from both Usana as well as NISA. The second link appears to be a copy-paste error as that is cross-country Canada - my mistake. I'll make the citation edits above. Leef5 (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you seem to be confusing Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, with a Pictionary. Wikipedia does not use pictures as sources; it uses words. Secondly, as I pointed out at least twice already, the USANA link doesn't discuss the sponsorships; it just contains a bunch of tangential promo verbiage. I asked you repeatedly to provide a rationale for why expansion of the current text in the article, which already mentions the sponsorships, is warranted. Since you can't even present coherent sources that discuss the sponsorships (aside from in a hyperlink title or pictures) expansion is clearly not warranted. The subject is given the appropriate weight as reflected by exisiting sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have strong objections to adding links only for the Luge Team, ski jumping, and potentially other primary sources that clearly identify that USANA is an ongoing sponsor (as opposed to having given a one-time donation), but I'm not particularly keen on the idea becuase there is no discussion of details. Doesn't USANA have naming rights to some arena somewhere? If so, I would guess that reliable scondary sources have written about the sponsorship deal -- that's the type of content/sources you should be focusing on for inclusion in the article). 01:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using an image as a source, as long as it's otherwise RS/V and doesn't require interpretation. A list of sponsors on an official website of an organisation is RS/V, though it is primary source. I don't see how it's in anyway controversial or, as a logo, in need of interpretation, though if they exist then a 3rd party source is better. As long as it's not excessive, a list of significant sponsorships adds to the article. It tells people something about how the company markets itself and it's products, as well of course as informing us if some well known team or sportsperson is paid to promote/endorse products. Just earlier today I saw a TV news show where they interviewed a top athlete. Several times this athlete mentioned a brand of nutritional products she uses. At no time was it mentioned she was sponsored by that company (she is). It's useful, relevant information to have in an article on a company, whether you like the company or not. --Icerat (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just talking plain nonsense. What happens on TV has absolutely zero bearing on how things are conducted here on WP. The example is so irrelvant that mentioning it is a waste of white space. These circular arguments are getting to be a waste of time too. You don't seem to be comprehending what's being said, particularly with respect to WP:UNDUE. You might want to bone up on WP:RS too. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

what are you waffling on about? An official website listing sponsors is RS. Who is sponsored/paid endorsement is of interest. Full stop. Seriously - you think a standard form letter and it's retraction over a minor paperwork issue is important, but how a company does it's marketing is not? Dear oh dear. May I ask - what is your actual problem with this company? Clearly you have something against them? --Icerat (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You are just arguing with yourself now, and about what I'm not even sure anymore. As I've pointed out about 5 times already, sponsorships are already mentioned in the article, and they are given appropriate weight according to the depth of coverage in the sources presented to date. Between this and your earlier comments citing a TV show as somehow being relevant to WP, the thread is getting tedious and unproductive. Since you didn't seem to pick up on my suggestion to refer to WP:RS, allow me to be more explicit:

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." (emphasis in bold is WP's, not mine)

Based on this policy, what you have presented so far only directly supports a statement such as "a USANA logo appears on the website of Team X", and that would be absurdly non-encyclopedic. As I keep saying, if there is no source text, you have nothing to say except your own words, and if that's all you've got, you've basically got nothing. As I've said repeatedly, the text that's already in the WP article mentions the sponsorships and gives the issue appropriate weight. Lastly, I don't have anything "against" USANA or a "problem" with them, nor do I care about USANA beyond the context of this article. I am however against substandard WP content, careless WP editing, and POV pushing on WP. I find it ironic that you would make snide accusations and fingerpoint about POV given that you have openly expressed a non-neutral MLM advocacy POV about this subject matter on your user page. That's as much as we need to discuss such matters here on the Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you're being entirely disingenuous. There's a big diference between "a USANA logo appears on the website of Team X" and "a USANA logo appears on an official website titled 'A list of our sponsors'" or something similar. With regards POV, as it happens, yes, I'm overall pro MLM. As it also happens I'm anti binary compensation plan MLMs, which is what USANA uses. But if I believe the company is being treated unfairly and with a clearly not NPOV by an editor - just like the subject of any other article on Wikipedia - I will act to try and restore balance, no matter what my personal feelings. --Icerat (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that the text you are proposing or are you just trying to tickle my funny bone? You can't hide behind WP:BALANCE; it has nothing to do with what we're discussing on this thread. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No. And yes it does. --Icerat (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sponsorships of notable organizations is not given due weight at the current moment. That was the whole purpose of me getting involved in this article in the first place. It was clear that this article has gross balance issues- to the point where the article has become an article of criticism about the company instead of about the company. Criticisms (albeit properly sourced) of this company have caused the article to swing way into WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues. If the company was truly devious, fraudulent, and no more than a pyramid scheme, they would have been shut down many years ago. Instead, financials have shown some quite extraordinary growth. From what I can gather from the article as it is written now, there are never been a formal investigation of the company's practices. I have no interest in "whitewashing" the article; I do have an interest in balancing this article and making this about the company, with the appropriate weight given to sourced criticisms. Thus far, my suggested edits have been on adding factual, relevant facts about the company. I am amazed at the resistance that one editor has with these factual edits, the the point that we have a serious case of WP:OWNERSHIP. I have already put in a RfC, but as of yet no responses. Hopefully, we can get additional sets of eyes on this article, and more importantly, comments and suggestions for direction. Leef5 (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion/example about TV as a source, but I'd like to bring this back to the matter at hand. We already have a WP:RS for details of the sponsorship, and that comes from Usana's list of sponsorships. That is sufficient to support the proposed text. The 2nd party links to the notable organizations is not required, but I added the links as a courtesy. The red herring here is the focus being given on what a logo on a sports organization website means. Details of the sponsorship would only be required if language was added to the sponsorship section about those details. The proposed text is as factual as I could possibly get it: Usana sponsors notable orgs and here they are. Perhaps another day the WTA language could be expanded if it was appropriate and didn't give that section undue weight. Leef5 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What you are proposing is to give undue weight to poorly sourced content in order to redress what you perceive to be unblanace in the rest of the article. Not a good strategy. The fact that you have to go to such lengths to synthesize content from questionable sources that are scant on details suggests to me that there isn't really an issue with lack of inclusion of "positive" aspects of the company; it's that there has been a lack of "positive" content written about the company in reliable, independent third-party sources. That's not up to WP to redress. I've already given you a suggestion for soem low-hanging fruit that can potentially be tackled, such as USANAs stadium naming deal. The acquisition of the Chinese baby product company has also received some coverage as I recall and seems notable enought to include. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've re-read the discussion on this and the pushback seemed to stem from 2 issues: 1) The idea that using the company sponsorship page in conjuction with the sponsoring organization's page listing Usana as a sponsor is WP:SYNTH and 2) Having a logo on a sport organization's website is not a reliable source. Have I summed up the discussion points sufficiently?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The article already mentions and cites the sponsorships, and the weight the subject is given is commensurate with the coverage it has received by independent third-party sources (which is in fact close to nil). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Are the first two issues I mentioned not an issue then? Or is the due weight argument in addition to? (As in if this was determined to not be a due weight issue, are the first 2 items I mentioned issues?)  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several issues here; they involve elements of SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and general notability. The problem with the USANA sponsorship page is that (a) it is overtly product-promotional and (b) it attributes various statements to various individuals and organizations that cannot be confirmed by independent sources – that makes it a no-go as a source. As for the sponsorships, aside from the WTA and GB speed skating team, there are no reliable sources that describe these alleged deals. There are no press releases from the sports organizations themselves confirming sponsorship or describing the nature of the sponsorship deals. In one case, the Canadian cross country team, USANA is not even listed among the official sponsors nor among the “official suppliers” but rather as a “preferred supplier” (whatever that means), and again, all we see on the ski team’s website is a logo with no details about the sponsorship. The kind of details that would be encyclopedic and newsworthy would be, for example, the precise nature of the deal (i.e., whether USANA is an official advertising sponsor, product supplier, event funder, etc.), the date the deal was signed, the length of the contract, the amount of funding involved, etc.

If there were reliable sources, like third party news articles or press releases from the athletic organizations in question, that talked about the sponsorships (i.e. tangible details), then those sources and the details might be worth including. But what we have now are a few claims from the company and a couple of logos that appear on the sports team websites. Together, those sources would only support statements like “USANA claims that they are an official sponsor of Team X; USANAs logo appears on the website of Team X”. As I pointed out before, that’s a form of SYNTH and it’s simply not quality content worthy of an encyclopedia. To reiterate, if these details were newsworthy, they’d be covered in the news, as in the case of the Sony WTA deal. One shouldn’t have to reach too far to manufacture the details for these sponsorship deals, nor would this subject warrant a bulleted list (WP:UNDUE) as was pproposed. The text that’s in the article now describes that USANA has been a sponsor of several teams and it mentions the Sony WTA deal specifically because that’s been covered by a third-party source. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Brought up to WP:NOR/N#USANA Health Sciences - (Sponsorships) for additional comments on the discussion points.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)