Talk:Herbalife

Conflict of Interest Edit Request

Hi again! As indicated in the above exchange with Quetstar, I have been invited to resubmit this edit request, for which I have a conflict of interest. I've used bold text to mark new text and strikethrough to mark removed text. For convenience's sake, here are my requests (same as before, minus item D):

A. Please revise the following sentence as marked: "He structured his company using a direct-selling, multi-level marketing model.[citation needed]

[that new citation describes a direct sales strategy that differs from multi-level marketing]

B. Please revise the next grouping of text as follows: "In 1982, Herbalife received complaints from the Food and Drug Administration for claims made about certain products and the inclusion of mandrake, poke root, and 'food grade' linseed oil in another. In 1984, the Department of Justice of Canada filed criminal charges against the company for misleading medical claims in advertisements. As a result of the complaints, the company modified its product claims and reformulated the product.[21] The Department of Justice of Canada filed criminal charges against the company in November 1984 for misleading medical claims in advertisements.

Please replace that removed citation with . This reorganization of text should add context to the company's actions as a result of the complaints.

C. After the sentence "The company suffered as a result of the lawsuit and was forced to lay off nearly 800 employees by May 1985," please revise the following to be: The company settled the suit for $850,000 without admitting wrongdoing. That same year, the FDA ended a safety and labeling review that Herbalife volunteered to undergo. The agency stated that two of its products would be considered drugs, though they posed no safety concerns. Herbalife voluntarily agreed to discontinue , but discontinued the sale of the two products.26

Please replace citation 26 with this citation:

Thank you so much for your help!

Hi, I just wanted to follow up. Does anyone have any feedback on these requests? Finncomms8495 (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Finncomms8495: I came here from your Teahouse post. I feel you were a bit disingenuous in your presentation of the discussion above. You said that Quetstar deferred to decisions to other editors [sic], giving the impression that they were not sure what to do. The reality is that they refused your edit request, gave clear reasons why they did so, and decided to drop off the discussion because they were tired of you. (Quetstar, please correct me if I misunderstood your actions.) The fact that you are paid to edit this article, and Quetstar is not, is a clear reason for why they are less interested than you in pursuing it any further.

I decline your edit edit A for the same reason Quetstar gives: it runs counter to numerous other sources of the article. I will note it is not supported by the reference you give anyway (its whole relevant text is (...) Herbalife International, a nutritional supplement company that has been controversial for both its products and sales methods (...), which if anything weakly supports that Herbalife is an MLM).

I partially implemented edit B (but so partially that I will still mark the edit request as declined). The source given (which I see no reason to remove, and the inc.com site is down right now) says In response to a Canadian threat to ban Thermojetics, the company agreed to reformulate the product. Hence, I moved that part to after the Canadian lawsuit, but still within a Canada-only paragraph (to not make it seem as if the FDA action had anything to do with it, which is not supported by the source).

I decline edit C. The Bloomberg ref is perfectly fine and should not be removed. The one you suggest instead (and the text lifted from it) is entirely stuff the company chose to say about themselves and/or got the FDA to say as part of a lawsuit settlement (i.e., not independent).

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 23 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that 'Herbalife' is the common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Herbalife Nutrition → Herbalife – WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. The article was apparently moved in early 2018 (without discussion) to the longer name by someone who has not made any further edits since that day, citing an article saying the company had changed its name. However, Wikipedia does not always use official company names, and any cursory review of material written about the company and its products will show that it is more commonly referred to by the shorter name. It may also be worth noting that the company's web domain name herbalife.com does not include the second word, that the logo that includes the second word de-emphasizes it by using a different color for it, that brand logos that do not include the second word remain in current use by the company, and that the official company name appearing in various places on the website is actually "Herbalife International, Inc." (with a U.S. subsidiary called "Herbalife International of America, Inc.", neither of which include "Nutrition"). Photo searches for "Herbalife headquarters building" or "Herbalife products" shows that the second word is often absent on branded material. A search on Amazon.com for "Herbalife" reveals that the second word is more often absent than not on the product packaging. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support move per above. There's no reason to include "Nutrition". O.N.R. ^(talk) 19:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support — I suspect that the original move to "Herbal Nutrition" was made on behalf of the company. It is worth noting that the company added "Nutrition" to its name after a wave of lawsuits and public scrutiny regarding the medicinal or nutritional value of their products. Regardless, Wikipedia sticks to common names and seldom uses full corporate names. Yue🌙 08:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose — Hi, I have a disclosed COI for Herbalife Nutrition, and would like to chime in. Herbalife Nutrition is a more fitting title because it can be found by anyone simply searching for "Herbalife," while also matching the way the organization refers to itself and is referred to in the media, both as a brand and as a publicly traded company. Furthermore, Herbalife Nutrition is itself a more concise form of Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. Finncomms8495 (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• Herbalife is more concise than Herbalife Nutrition? Sungodtemple (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Finncomms8495: Articles are titled according to the name commonly in use without regard to trademark or branding. That is why we have an article titled Bill Clinton, for example, even though his real name is William Jefferson Clinton. That is why our article Microsoft isn't titled "Microsoft Corporation", which is the company's actual name. We may use the full name if disambiguation is required from other titles (there are many things with Seagate in the name so the company is titled Seagate Technology even though the actual name is "Seagate Technology Holdings plc"). The lead sentence of the article would still display the full/official name, but our style guideline dictates that we title articles according to the name most commonly used to refer to the subject. In this case it's just "Herbalife". ~Anachronist (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per OP. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Herbalife is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME and is WP:CONCISE. On a Google search "Herbalife" -Nutrition returns over 10 million results, while "Herbalife Nutrition" returns just over 4 million. Outside of press releases, stock information, and the company website itself, I don't see much usage of the current title in reliable sources, even in sources that are very obviously promoting the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Sungodtemple No, "Herbalife Nutrition" is mote concise than "Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.". David10244 (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

COI Request

Hi again! I would like to request a few changes to this page. Could we please:

A. Add a new section above the Sports sponsorships section titled: Foundation

B. Under this new section add the following sentence: The Herbalife Nutrition Foundation was founded in 2005, and is Herbalife's global philanthropic organization, supporting children's charities, disaster relief, and COVID-19. [1] [2]

c. Add this sentence to the end of the Sports sponsorships section: In August 2022, Herbalife announced their renewal of their sponsorship with LA Galaxy.[3]

Thank you so much for your help!

Finncomms8495 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Finncomms8495 Adding a section just for the one sentence seems excessive, and both of these sources look like press releases/sponsored coverage to me. If you can find a better source, I can add it in to the History section.

I don't see a need to mention the sponsorship renewal, if we say the announced a sponsorship I think readers will assume it's ongoing unless the article specifies otherwise. Rusalkii (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Rusalkii,

Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate it! I agree with your point regarding the LA Galaxy partnership, the sentence reads well as is. Here is my suggestion based on your response:

Instead of adding a single sentence, could we create a Foundation section that includes the information in bold below? We added an additional source to help improve the citation of the first sentence, and provided more context to build out the section.

The Herbalife Nutrition Foundation was founded in 2005, and is Herbalife's global philanthropic organization. [1] [2] [3]

In 2022, the Herbalife Nutrition Foundation and the Los Angeles Galaxy Foundation committed $1.25 million toward underserved children around the world. [4] [5]

In 2022, the Foundation donated $333,000 to World Food Program USA's efforts to distribute disaster relief food in the Philippines, following Typhoon Odette. [6]

Thank you in advance!

Finncomms8495 (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Rusalkii

I hope you're doing well! I wanted to ping you to see if you had any feedback from my most recent suggestions. Happy to provide any other sourcing or information you may need.

Thank you in advance!

Finncomms8495 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Finncomms8495, your request is in the appropriate review queue. Please stop pinging specific editors to review them, which goes against WP:CANVASS.

If someone is breathing down your neck about why the edits are not done, point them to WP:DEADLINE, an well-respected essay. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tigraan,

My apologies, I wasn't aware of this rule! I wanted to make sure my response didn't get lost in the shuffle of things. Thank you for informing me, I will make note of this for the future.

Have a great day!

Finncomms8495 (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The tone of this ER is so problematic that it must be rewritten from scratch. Quetstar (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"Liver disease inquiries" ~> "Liver damage inquiries"?

The section with the heading "Liver disease inquiries" mostly talks about Liver Damage and Liver Failure caused by ingesting hepatotoxic Herbalife products. Perhaps the heading should be reconsidered? Changing the heading will break links, so I did not touch it. Turk185 (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Review of article quality and balance

Making a case for consensus by editors:

Review 1: "...Herbalife, is a global multi-level marketing (MLM) corporation that develops and sells dietary supplements."

Note: Only mentioning dietary supplements to describe the primary business is inaccurate. The company sells a wide range of products, and the majority are meal replacements (meal replacements are a different category from supplements, and are known as food formula) (https://inspection.canada.ca/food-labels/labelling/industry/foods-for-special-dietary-use/eng/1393627685223/1393637610720?chap=16#s29c16). Based on its website, the company also sells significant amount of "protein shakes, teas, aloes, high-protein snacks, vitamins and supplements, sports nutrition, and outer nutrition products."

Also, it is not accurate to start off by claiming that it is a MLM corporation. More accurately, it is a "global nutrition company" - the official position of the company and actual description of primary business. MLM is just an operational model not a business activity description. For an example case for consistency, refer to Natura article Natura & Co - Wikipedia. The article's introduction: "Natura & Co is a Brazilian global personal care cosmetics group headquartered in São Paulo." Factually, Natura is a large cosmetics company that uses a direct selling model - according to its website. In the US, the industry term is Direct Selling, e.g. Direct Selling Association. Similarly, Herbalife considers itself a global nutrition company, and operates through a direct selling model through independent distributors - according to its website. Natura is also labelled as 'direct selling' in the Wikipedia article. Considering these factors, an update to the business description is needed for consistent article quality and standards.

Review 2: "The company has been criticized for allegedly operating a "sophisticated pyramid scam".

Note: The use of 'scam' is an unfounded allegation by the author. For accuracy, this point should be made clear that the allegation of pyramid scheme was made by Ackman specifically (actual words as cited), which remained unproven. Also, mentioning the location of where this alleged scheme by Ackman happened is important, specific to the US, as the company's business is regulated in more than 90 countries worldwide. Separately, the US FTC case cited here is about alleged misleading claims of potential earnings in the US specifically, and not about pyramid scheme. For the US FTC case, Herbalife settled with the US FTC and agreed to pay $200 million to compensate consumers and fundamentally restructure its business. Herbalife Refunds | Federal Trade Commission (ftc.gov)

Review 3: "The products sold by Herbalife can cause acute hepatitis."

Note: This is a claim / allegation, and should be clear who are the parties making the claim and for what specific products, and only after causality has been found in the same study. Also, the cited article or study is from 2007, almost two decades ago, which could have later either been found to be untrue or to be due to unclear confounding reasons such as overuse of herbal ingredients not in accordance to label instructions, or other reasons including potential new allegations. This sentence should either be removed, OR cite the specific year, product and country alleged, OR updated and cite more recent articles for a fair and current view.

Review 4: "Herbalife agreed to "fundamentally restructure" its business in the United States, and pay a $200 million fine as part of a 2016 settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) following these accusations."

Note: Due to the use of 'following these accusations' the location of this paragraph appears abrupt and disconnected from the rest of the introduction contents.

Review 5: "However, neither a 2005 American Association for the Study of the Liver position paper on the management of acute liver failure nor a 2013 review in the New England Journal of Medicine lists "overzealous dieting" among the recognized causes of acute liver failure."

Note: This sentence appears to be an author's supplementary personal opinion and should be removed, as it does not cite relevant or reputable criticism of the AESAN conclusion. The AESAN conclusion: "The analyses ... have not allowed us to establish a causal relationship between liver anomalies and Herbalife's dietary supplements. The panel attributed the cases to metabolic changes from overzealous and unsupervised dieting."

Review 6: "Interestingly, race, genetics, age, and sex are all potential risk factors that may predispose individuals to Herbalife side effects."

Note: This sentence cites a personal blog opinion and needs to be removed based on guidelines: reputable sources only.

Review 7: "In a separate review published less than a year earlier, the same author described the relationship between Herbalife products and reported hepatotoxicity cases as "highly probable"."

Note: This statement is misleading due to an overly-generalized use of the term 'Herbalife products'. The cited study was describing potential hepatoxicity of herbs and herbal products. It identified a probable causal relationship between herbal hepatoxicity and liver injury cases originating from various sources, such as Chinese herbs, green tea, ayurvedic herbs, a few Herbalife products, and various other herbs. The few Herbalife products identified contained herbal ingredients. The statement should be removed OR edited to highlight the herbal contents of the specific few products for accuracy and for a fair and balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.187.229.74 (talk • contribs)

• Hello, IP editor (202.187.229.74). If you are working for, or connected in any way to Herbalife or its subsidiaries, please disclose it (see WP:PAID and WP:COI). Please also see WP:TPG to properly format your future posts.

At any rate:

• Herbalife's self-description on any given aspect is irrelevant if reliable sources describe it otherwise. We do not defer to self-assigned marketing buzzwords of "global nutrition company"; we do not take at face value disclaimers of "direct selling model".
• It may well be that the article Natura & Co (or any other article) does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. In that case, feel free to go to that article and make the appropriate corrections. It is not a justification to deviate from the guidelines in another article (such as the Herbalife article).
• The scam allegation is properly attributed and sourced. The only question is whether it is WP:DUEWEIGHT to mention it in the lead, but given the length and sourcing of the section Herbalife#Bill_Ackman, I would say it clearly is.
• The acute hepatitis is clearly sourced to this case report. Case reports in reputable journals are considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. We will not balance it with your personal doubts about the study’s methodology, applicability, etc. (but if there is an independent, reliable source that expresses such a scientific debate, we can put it in).
• Review 5 correctly points out that that sentence is WP:SYNTHESIS and should be removed (I will do so shortly).
• Review 6 is disingenous - the "personal blog opinion" has a bibliography of ten articles that (on their face) seem published in reputable scholarly venues. That is not your standard random-Joe-Schmuck blog. There is a case to be made to remove it anyway and cite the scholarly sources instead, but that requires more careful thinking than "it’s a blog, nuke it".
• "There is a link between Herbalife products and X" is a perfectly correct English sentence if there is a link between some Herbalife products and X. Clarity is better served by a more concise formulation. (On a non-Wikipedia note, Herbalife has no problem marketing itself as a "global nutrition company", lumping together lots of products for the purpose of unified messaging; but somehow, when it comes to negative coverage, it wants to clearly delimitate between the various products. Why am I not suprised?)

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

1) Issue in Article Lead: "The business is incorporated in the Cayman Islands (a fiscal paradise), with its corporate headquarters located in Los Angeles, California."

Review: Including this sentence in the article's lead may not conform to WP:LEAD, which states that an article's lead should be "a summary of its most important contents". The conformity issue arises due to the annotation (a fiscal paradise), which is not relevant because there are no discussions in the article's contents pertaining to its incorporation jurisdiction. Further, the fiscal paradise annotation may not conform to NPOV, specifically WP:IMPARTIAL (Words to watch) as it "can introduce bias". Editors need to weigh the relevance of stating the Cayman Islands incorporation and the fiscal paradise annotation, or to focus only on the headquarters location.

2) Response to a review by @Tigraan: "Review 6 is disingenous - the "personal blog opinion" has a bibliography of ten articles that (on their face) seem published in reputable scholarly venues. That is not your standard random-Joe-Schmuck blog. There is a case to be made to remove it anyway and cite the scholarly sources instead, but that requires more careful thinking than "it’s a blog, nuke it" Tigraan 13:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The sentence, "Interestingly, race, genetics, age, and sex are all potential risk factors that may predispose individuals to Herbalife side effects," which cites a blog article, contradicts several Wikipedia guidelines. The blog's reference to race, despite citing a paper, is connected to a specific section discussing kava, a herbal supplement, rather than Herbalife products. Additionally, genetics, age, and sex are mentioned in the blog without proper citations. These factors are more appropriately related to the potential risks of herbal supplement use in general, rather than being specific to Herbalife products. Consequently, the sentence engages in WP:SYNTHESIS by making unsupported conclusions and raises Neutral Point of View concerns related to the potential for implied bias. Furthermore, it contradicts Wikipedia's strict policy of sourcing biomedical information exclusively from reliable secondary medical sources, particularly peer-reviewed journals, medical websites, or medical books. This policy is designed to prevent unsupported conclusions and biases influenced by third-party blogs with their own agendas, as in this case with a commercial fitness website owned by a sports coach. Given these multiple issues, there is a strong case for excluding this sentence.

3) Proposed insertion of content to Liver disease inquires section for NPOV:

New content: In a 2018 review published in JGH Open, a peer-reviewed open-access Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers highlighted a consensus that there is little evidence to suggest a major risk of liver injury associated with Herbalife products.[1] The consensus was based on a literature review that included original reports on liver diseases and dietary supplements.[1] The limited quality of case data and findings from previous studies contributed to this consensus.[1] A 2018 review paper in the journal Current Pharmacology Reports also cited the consensus of insufficient evidence, as earlier reports failed to identify diagnoses related to other conditions such as viral liver infections, autoimmune liver diseases, fatty liver disease, alcoholic liver disease, and liver injury from co-medication.[2]

1. Is obesity rather than the dietary supplement used for weight reduction the cause of liver injury? - PMC (nih.gov)

2. Liver Injury from Herbs and “Dietary Supplements”: Highlights of a Literature Review from 2015 to 2017 | SpringerLink

4) Proposed insertion of content to Liver disease inquires section for NPOV:

According to one of the co-authors of the paper, this retraction happened because Herbalife engaged DSK Legal, a New Delhi-based law firm, to consistently issue legal threats to the journal's editor-in-chief. New content: "In a response, Herbalife disputed the paper's validity after engaging multiple independent international laboratories, whose findings contradicted the claims made in the paper."

Reason: Adding the sentence to the end of the paragraph is important for reader clarity, as it is unclear why the company issued legal threats. Mention of legal threats are commonly accompanied with an explanation of issues contested. For clarity, readers should know that the company contested the paper's methodological validity, which is the basic premise to the legal threat. The same reason is highlighted in the RW article that the current paragraph cites its content from.

5) Response to a review by @Tigraan: "The acute hepatitis is clearly sourced to this case report. Case reports in reputable journals are considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. We will not balance it with your personal doubts about the study’s methodology, applicability, etc. (but if there is an independent, reliable source that expresses such a scientific debate, we can put it in)." Tigraan 13:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The issue is not with the case report. The issue is the quality of the statement in the article due to the date of the report. The statement sounds current, and for such a definitive sounding claim it is disingenuously dated 2007. If citing the case study from almost two decades ago is a must, using accurate words will provide a fair view to the readers. Suggested sentence to adopt: "A 2007 review by researchers in Israel presented a causal association between Herbalife products and acute hepatitis among a case series of 12 patients. However, the researchers note that despite the alleged association it is not possible to conclude whether consumption of Herbalife products pose a major health threat." These are actual words sourced from the study and not paraphrased. I am sure you can appreciate the accuracy purely from an editing quality standpoint.

6) Proposed insertion to the end of Products section:

The US National Institutes of Health's LiverTox® website lists 40 commonly sold Herbalife products as generally safe and well-tolerated. These products include the company's Formula 1 shake, tea, aloe, herbal supplements, and other supplements.[3]

3. Herbalife - LiverTox - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

Note: The proposed insertions are intended to enhance overall NPOV and reduce potential of implied bias, and are selected according to principles of due weight and balance. These proposals are sourced from reliable secondary medical sources.

Facts-examine (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tigraan and @Professor Penguino who has agreed with several proposals. Facts-examine (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah! You're back! Excellent. I have no objections to what you have said so far. I'll wait for other editors to comment. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Professor Penguino. It seems that the suggestions may not receive much attention here due to limited visibility. What do you recommend? Should we make direct edits? Facts-examine (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

:For someone who seems mad about bias, you seem to add a lot of biased content in your edits: "In a response, Herbalife challenged the paper's validity, citing deficiencies, inappropriate methodologies and incomplete investigative protocols, supported by analysis from three independent international labs that contradicted the article's findings." The article you cited mentions legal pressure from Herbalife, it does not disprove what is stated in the paper. I have stricken the above comment I myself made, as an understanding was reached. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

What happened here?? If you want other editors to comment, you should respect other editor's time by making brief, actionable suggestions. As it is, this discussion has been formatted in a way that makes it extremely difficult to even tell who is proposing what. Grouping many changes of varying quality into one monster proposal means that by default, the answer is going to be "no". I would also emphasize the article's WP:COI concerns, as it strains credulity to ignore this issue. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Spending some limited time with these proposals. I have removed the line about it being "interestingly". If that blog cites reliable sources, use those sources instead of the blog. This is a basic WP:RS/WP:MEDRS issues. "Interestingly" is pure WP:EDITORIALIZING, also.

None of the other proposals appear to be appropriate or accurate to sources. At a glance it really appears this was cherry-picking the most flattering possible interpretation of complicated primary medical sources to ignore specific mentions of liver damage and injury. Not a chance. Grayfell (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you recommend ways to improve formatting for easier collaboration? Thank you for your latest edit! It shows that there are credible reasons for updating the article, as there are multiple weak or low-quality content currently. Facts-examine (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it absolutely doesn't show that "there are credible reasons for updating the article". I fixed one problem, but as I specifically said, none of your other proposals are appropriate. To slightly expand on what I just said, your proposals do not accurately summarize your own sources, as it appears you have cherry-picked from them for promotional purposes.

If you want advice: make a single proposal per new subsection of this section. Add your signature to every individual proposal. Please make the proposals and explanations brief, and again, stick to reliable, independent sources. Do not interpret sources, especially not medical sources. Additionally, use obnoxious formatting tricks with restraint, not for entire paragraphs. You do not like reading distracting junk like that, so why would anyone else? Grayfell (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The "formatting tricks" you are referring to were initially used in earlier proposals with the sole intent of easing the readability for editors. Being new to article editing, it's fair enough that my earlier proposals were criticized from other reviewers.

I've since replaced them with the latest proposals, one of which you even incorporated in your recent edit. Please refer only to the most recent reply, 'Facts-examine at 09:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)', which is carefully cited and sourced from reliable, independent medical sources according to Wikipedia policy. I maintain my position that there are valid reasons to update the article, as evidenced by your most recent edit based on one of my proposed changes, which was previously dismissed by another reviewer. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I have also discussed and secured consensus from one other editor @Professor Penguino, who raised no objections to the latest proposal.

I intend to follow your suggestion by breaking up the proposals and will repost them accordingly. Facts-examine (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG, you should not modify comments after people have responded to them, as it misrepresents those responses. This is why you should make discrete, actionable proposals and respond to them individually. This talk page is a record of the discussion. The purpose of my above comment was to emphasize that your approach is making this talk page much, much more confusing than it needs to be. I should not need your guidance on how to read the talk page in order to make sense of it, since you do not own this or any other talk page.

Again, I do not automatically support any other changes than the one I made. Each of these changes will need to be discussed on their own merits, which are sorely lacking. This is why I suggested discussing them in separate subsections.

Your comments suggest that you do not understand what WP:CONSENSUS is or how it works. As for Professor Penguino, they specifically said they would wait for other editors. So from that, I see three editors in this section who have expressed concern over the excessively promotional nature of your proposals. One editor did not specifically block consensus on these changes, but this is hardly relevant. You do not have consensus for these proposals, and it seems unlikely you will gain consensus until you fully address the cherry-picking and WP:COI concerns. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand the importance of avoiding misrepresentation and do not believe it to have occurred, as the edit in question was minor and insignificant. Kindly let me know if you think any misrepresentation has taken place.

To further clarify and provide additional context, I have obtained the consensus and agreement of one editor, Professor Penguino. Following collaborative discussions, we reached an improved set of proposals that he considers to be of acceptable quality. This action was made in response to earlier critiques and concerns expressed by Professor Penguino and other editors, particularly regarding the promotional aspect of previous proposals.

As mentioned, the rectified proposal (which includes the edit you made) has been summarized in the reply 'Facts-examine at 09:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)'. We are currently awaiting a broader consensus from other editors. If your suggestion is that achieving a wider consensus on the rectified proposals requires separating my post into multiple subsections, I intend to follow that suggestion. Facts-examine (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)