Talk:Usana Health Sciences/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

National Business Review Articles

The links to the articles have been moved they're not dead. They can be found at the following link. Andrew would you be willing to explain why you think Rhode Island Red is a competitor to USANA?Jean314 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nbr.co.nz/trip_search

I believed I had read it on their talk page, but I had another look through and couldn't find a mention of it. I'll have to read through again though, there's a lot to read.

Most of the links are broken on the NBR Investigation, it's not useful or credible to be linked on wikipedia Andrewmizzi (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the articles on the NBR site[1] describes how a Forbes article in 2007 was highly critical of USANA and they specifically mention that this tends to contradict the company's boasting about being on the Forbe's list of best companies. The section in the WP article that discusses the Forbe's list needs to be combined with the information above so as not provide a false impression that Forbe's is sweet on USANA. For example, after the WP article mentions the inclusion of USANA on Forbe's best companies list, something along these lines should be added: "In 2007, a Forbe's article (“Hard to Swallow”) quoted industry and government experts who raised questions about Usana’s business practices as well as its products." The infomration should probably be moved from the Product section as well. Also, these articles should be restored to the external links section until such time as we can incoporate them in the article.[2][3] They should not have been removed in the first place. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement. The article links should be updated not deleted and it is only proper to make reference to the Forbes article "Hard to Swallow" if we're going to discuss Forbes comments on USANA.Jean314 (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Health concerns" section

I have removed this section previously, citing Wikipedia:Original research. I see that it has been returned, and is now being edited. I note that there are references to the various ingredients used in the Usana product(s), and of the concerns regarding those chemical compounds, but what I am not seeing is sources commenting specifically on Usana and its products in relation to these concerns. Reading the contents label and then finding what some authorities have said about some of them is, I suggest, the very core of original research. Please remember, we cite sources for all our facts, or they can be removed. Unless some cited examples of independent third parties referencing Usana and its products concerning the health hazards of some ingredients are found I am afraid I shall be removing the content again in the next 48 hours. Please base edits upon Wikipedia policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to find something that's been published? I actually heard about it from somebody else and felt it was important information to include. Unfortunately, I'm not very good at writing objectively, so I thank Jean314 for cleaning that up. What more needs to be done? --musicalmeg20

In short, yes. If you can find a source that says something like "There are concerns over some of the contents of Usana's product X, including the substances etc..." then it is fine. I looked through the lists if the products cited and couldn't find Usana in the top 100 of any, so it would be unfair to single out Usana when there are many more products noted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

While it may contain the ingredients USANAs product is not listed on the site. I would agree with LessHeard vanU that unless more documentation is supplied the section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I wasn't necessarily singling them out. I mean, I'm not happy about other companies either, but I just thought it was an important point to include since USANA always advertises their products as the best for you. Oh, and the reason why it wasn't listed in the source is because someone hasn't submitted it to their list in the database. I'm not sure why, but none of the Sensé line is in their database. That may be due to the fact that Sensé is not very mainstream. --musicalmeg20

Here's the product report. Because it was not entered into the database by the company, it is not easily searchable. You have to register with the website to access the report. http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/product.php?prod_id=199666 --musicalmeg20

Hmmm... This is the Usana article, and really any source needs to be specific to Usana (whether or not it is complimentary or negative). If you can find a source that notes a Usana product by name then the section can be returned. As for Usana advertising their stuff as being "the best", I do not recall any company trumpeting their goods as being the "penultimate in performance", "second only to our competitors" or "quite good, all things considered" (I mean, I would be intrigued enough to consider purchasing it - but I am quite perverse like that). The claims by the company may be challenged by some authority, and then we can quote that, but it should be noted that the encyclopedia makes no claim with regard to the products - we do not use promotional material as sources, for instance. Under the circumstances, we need to remove the section while it is unsourced under WP:NPOV considerations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I found one, I'm just not sure where to put it in the text. the url here: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/product.php?prod_id=199666 . It's from that source and it has USANA's face wash, which is what I was discussing. My friend had told me it was on there, I just couldn't find it easily. I understand that companies don't go around advertising as second string, so to speak. However, the fact that they sell themselves as more natural and then use chemicals is what disturbs me and others. musicalmeg20 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I should like Jean314 to look this over, the source is a few days old and does not appear to be peer reviewed, but the concerns may be sufficient for a small (2 sentence) paragraph noting that the chemicals in this product appear contrary to their advertising stance of "natural". It should be noted that "natural products" can also be found to be carcinogenic or toxic, and just because it has a long scientific name does not mean it has to have been produced in a laboratory rather than a field. No rush, lets make sure of our facts before committing it to the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If MusicalMeg would like to write it and post it here we could judge it and see if its worth including in the article.Jean314 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try. I'm not very good at this and I'm not quite sure what you want it to contain in order to qualify. So you know, the source doesn't say that it was created on the 21st; it says it was last UPDATED that day.

USANA's skincare line is claimed to be self-preserving and all-natural. The products are advertised as paraben free (a preservative with minimal links to cancer and average links to other physiological problems[4][5][6]). However, the ingredients for USANAs Gentle Daily Cleanser include PEG-7 Glyceryl Cocoate, PEG-120 Methyl Glucose Dioleate, Retinyl Palmitate, Disodium EDTA, and PEG-90M[7]. The following ingredients have a usage restriction placed on them because of being deemed unsafe for use on injured or damaged skin: PEG-7 Glyceryl Cocoate[8], PEG-120 Methyl Glucose Dioleate[9], and PEG-90M[10]. The following ingredients have shown reproductive toxicity: PEG-90M[11], Retinyl Palmitate[12], and Sea Salt[13]. The following ingredients have shown brain and nervous system effects: Manganese PCA[14], Sodium Hydroxide[15], and Disodium EDTA[16]. The following ingredients have shown toxicity in other organ systems: Manganese PCA[17], PEG-90M[18], Sea Salt[19], Glycerin[20], Sodium Hydroxide[21], Disodium EDTA[22], Oryzanol[23]. Other concerns with their Gentle Daily Cleanser can be found at the Cosmetic Safety Database.

I thought it would be better to include all the ingredients that have issues, rather than just focusing on PEG-90M. (Sorry, sometimes I get a little tunnel visioned.) Make changes as you see fit. I'm still new to writing for wiki. I'm just trying to contribute important information. musicalmeg20 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't contributed for a while. I just noticed this discussion going on and had a concern about the validity of the source. In the past I believe all the editors for this article have worked hard to find credible sources when making additions to the article. And this particular entry troubles me because the source at Cosmetics Safety Database clearly states at the beginning that this information has not been verified. Like LessHeard vanU states, this article has not been peer reviewed. If there isn’t a more credible reference, I don’t think we should allow this entry.La grenouille (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what it means by saying that it isn't verified is that they can't be sure that the ingredients are really what is listed. However, if you compare the list of ingredients on Cosmetics Safety Database with the list of ingredients on USANA's own website, it is the same. I fixed the notes so you can actually see them the sources. The data on each ingredient is based on actual studies. It even lists them. I am also trying to find full text of studies, but I don't have easy access. musicalmeg20 (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The contents of the product are listed by USANA and match questionable ingredients at the Cosmetics Safety Database. This is a tough one. It might be reasonable to include a short section directing readers to where they can get more information. I believe this is what LessHeard was suggesting.Jean314 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading through all of this, I am wondering why I can't find any additional sites or another source that backs up this claim.Mlh0919 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I seems to me that this source seems questionable at best. I think additional, peer-reviewed, verifiable sources citing Usana, their products or specific ingredients is in order. In the meantime, I'm suggesting not including it. Montypics (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think there is consensus not to include this section until another source, specifically citing Usana products, is found with the same type of concerns expressed. This is an encyclopedia, not a health alert service; only if there is sufficient independent references found should it be included at some future date. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

More stuff on illegal Usana activity

It appears that Usana is guilty of pyramiding, because they require their reps to buy a quota every 4 weeks, which in turn gets the rep's upline paid. This is tantamount to paying commission for simply having a downline, at the expense of said downline. This is illegal in several states according to the FTC, but Usana seems to have evaded being prosecuted, possibly because of the loophole that this charge is counted as "sales volume" even though distributors are forced to buy it in order to stay as active distributors. If I can find links in Usana's comp plan details and vids that expose this, do we all concede that it should be added to the article?

Another point I want to bring up is that Usana has been apparently censoring all negative info that they can, even going so far as to delete a huge chunk of this article (as you can see in the history) and spamming their own yahoo finance group (USNA message board) with Usana PR releases and anti-drug propaganda.

These are also both detailed on a Usana Investigative Blog but I'm not sure whether or not to use those links as citations.Slumdogdiggity (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered either reliable nor independent (although the material they host might be), so there needs to be proper verifiable sources for comment about Usana's business method. If there is good cites then they can be included, but please remember that WP should not be used as a vehicle for promoting or disparaging subjects - but as a repository and dissembler for other other sources regarding the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is agreed upon that this information is significant to the article, which I believe it is, would it make sense to cite wikipedia's own article history, the Yahoo USNA message board, and USANA's comp plan? Or would it make more sense to cite the blog articles? (because they also link to these sources of evidence, and summarize what they mean) Slumdogdiggity (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In short, no. Citing USANA's own publications does not provide sufficient distance from the subject (WP:Primary source), and to use them in conjunction with a contrary viewpoint is likely a violation of WP:Synth. Find a reliable source that notes the same concerns and use that - because if there is no such third party cite it might be argued that there is no basis for the concerns. Also, this project does not lend itself for use as a source; a well written but unsupported viewpoint still has as much relevance as "gaz is teh gay, lol" vandalism. Even if it was well cited, such as the Minkow stuff, there are reasons for it no longer being part of the article. I cannot emphasise how important it is to find reliable sources for content, because only that can ensure that whatever is written is done so in a neutral manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with LessHeard vanU but if you were interested in updating the article with the information about the "sales volume" for being an active distributor I don't see it as being a problem. You can not use this to make accusations but if there is a required purchase to remain active and its legitimately documented I think that could be included in the article to explain what it means to be an "active" distributor. Jean314 (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

I just want to get feedback on including this topic under the lawsuit section (http://biz.yahoo.com/e/081222/usna8-k.html) Does anyone have any more information about this? A $7 million win by a wrongfully terminated distributor seems pretty significant. Jean314 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration in the Wrongful Termination Lawsuit is now over and the final decision is that USANA is required to pay the former distributors $7 Million. Considering the recent conversations about adding content to the page I would like to discuss how it will be included here prior to making any adjustments to the main page (http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_11700211) Jean314 (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

One sentence, saying the appeal failed and the penalty confirm, added to the existing paragraph - or even simpler, remove the note about Usana appealing. All backed with the reference, of course. Unless this decision is noted in mainstream media I see no point in adding anything to the lead paragraph. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could it be argued that if any part of the case (in this instance, the appeal) isn't fully well-documented that the entire section should be removed until the subject can be handled fairly and completely with accurate citations? Montypics (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for certain but it seems this case is over. If you follow the link it says that neither side can dispute the outcome. Do you want to discuss whether or not USANA should be tagged as an MLM, Montypics? I noticed you mentioned it in the history section but it hasn't been discussed yet.Jean314 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that needs to be discussed. My comment was to the obvious spammer who made, what I felt, was a pretty major content change without discussion. If that editor (or another one) wants to discuss it, they can bring it up. As for the lawsuit issue, if the case is over then, as you said, only reliably cited material should be included. Montypics (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it was obvious they were a spammer. USANA is in the MLM industry as well as being a manufacturer of Nutritional and Skin care products. I'm not sure if I'd advocate one over the other at this point though. Perhaps both? For the lawsuit I will update the article.Jean314 (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Both is more accurate and fair. Want to make that change as well? Montypics (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Would the term "arbitration" be more appropriate than "lawsuit" in the title of this section? It seems like the SL Tribune article is pretty clear that rather than go to court, both parties agreed to binding, independent arbitration. Montypics (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer "Arbitration of Wrongful Dismissal Suit"? Or maybe Case instead of Suit? Jean314 (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "Arbitration of Wrongful Dismissal Case" is more accurate given anything I've read in the material cited. Montypics (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link to http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8470183 is no longer valid. Should we remove just the link or also the information that cites the article? Montypics (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the link from the external link section. I would disagree with deleting any information which cites the article. We should merely fix the reference to no longer include a live link.Jean314 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Forbes: Powerful CEOs 40 And Under

CEO, David Wentz was mentioned on Forbes.com as 1 of 21 "powerful" CEOs 40 & under. The main article is here (http://www.forbes.com/leadership/2009/01/14/young-ceo-yang-lead-cx_kk_0114youngceos.html) but Wentz's mention is in the slideshow here (http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/14/young-ceo-yang-lead-cx_kk_0114youngceos_slide_22.html?thisSpeed=15000)

I wasn't sure which link to include to be most relevant. Advice?

I'm thinking a blurb at the end of the Company section is most appropriate for this. Something like, "In January 2009, Forbes.com named CEO David Wentz one of America’s most powerful CEO’s under 40."

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montypics (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Forgot to sign... sorry Montypics (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense in a separate article for David Wentz instead of being included in the USANA article.Jean314 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur, it is far more notable for David Wentz as it will be referenced throughout his career where it is simply something that happened one year to a company officer for the article here. If Wentz accumulates several more similar awards over the years and the company becomes connected to his achievements then it might be included, but not presently.

While reviewing the above, I noted that David Wentz does not have an article but Myron Wentz does. I presume that David is the son of Myron, and possibly it might be better to create the David Wentz article as a redirect to Myron Wentz where a paragraph might be included to record that family member. Still, the company article is not the place for it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Maybe, if I get bored I'll start David Wentz. Not sure what relation David is to Myron. Best not to assume unless I can find a reference to cite. Montypics (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He is the son of Myron Wentz (http://people.forbes.com/profile/david-a-wentz/83371) Jean314 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Resume controversy and overall negatively biased Usana entry

Reference to Usana board members alleged resume "controversy".

First off I would like to point out how unfair it is that Usana is targeted in such a way - almost as if someone here is grabbing into the coffers of some pharmaceutical company's sales budget. It is wrong because there is hardly a company out there that doesn't have problems they want to keep quite. For instance the Canadian director of Bristol Myers Squibb was under FBI investigation in the US for alleged fraud and this isn't mentioned anywhere in the wiki entry for BMS. Yet Usana has this terrible opening paragraph that stinks of unfounded bias. All these guys do is sell high potency vitamin and antioxidant supplements - the founder Myron Wentz is an absolute hero in the science/medical world and a big time philanthropist. Usana has an alliance with the Linus Pauling institute - and it manufactures the number 1 nutritional and dietary supplement in the world, period (this statement is verifiable from independent sources or just ask any nutritionist worth their salt).

It is an ethical organization that is operated via network marketing (which some obviously have a problem with as they probably don't understand how it works) - the founder's vision was of a world free from pain and suffering and he believed the way he could get his vitamins (the formula was pioneered by him whilst growing cell cultures for his viral diagnostics business back in the 70-80s- he is the real deal and genuine) to the world and get people to make some money whilst marketing his products - his initial aim was for people to make enough money so they could easily afford the supplements, nothing more nothing less. He did not want to market Usana traditionally like all other supplements you've heard of (i.e. Centrum - which is pants by the way - you'd be better off drinking just the water than put that into your intestines) - there no TV ads, no strategically placed newspaper nor magazine ads.. no he wanted it spread via word of mouth and people sharing their experience with the product. period.

So here to refute the resume controversy - I sincerely hope you let me put up the changes or I will contact Jimmy Wales directly.

BTW The New York post is a tabloid - you talk about sourcing, but what is it you are sourcing? Perhaps you are biased? BTW Usana is going to post Dr Woods' thesis on a web page just to calm your nerves - here for the evidence.

And this is the truth as it exists - no mudslingers propaganda to discredit and character assassinate the company - again, all this company is setting out to do is make people healthier. period. and it is making disenfranchised people and those of lower socio economic status be able to afford these supplements and even make some money - the everyday people - not fat cats.

look at whats happening in the UK http://www.nutraingredients.com/Industry/Give-omega-3-to-the-poor-says-UK-researcher

pretty positive developments eh?

ok here we go..

an excerpt from Jim Bramble's testimony (Chief legal council for the company)

you want facts, well here we go:

Denis Waitley, Ph.D.

Dr. Waitley was a former member of the Board of Directors. He is no longer an employee or director with USANA but is retained by USANA as an independent contractor for speaking engagements from time to time. For purposes of providing professional background and experience, biographical information appearing in USANA’s public Proxy Statements filed with the SEC and on the www.usana.com website identified Dr. Waitley as having received, in addition to his bachelor and Ph.D. degrees a masters degree from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Mr. Minkow claimed that Dr. Waitley had not in fact received a masters degree. Upon viewing the public accusation by Mr. Minkow, USANA immediately conducted an investigation through my office. Dr. Waitley confirmed that he did not possess the masters degree disclosed in the bio. He was at first confused why the bio was incorrect but after he completed his own investigation he explained that a member of his staff had completed the original questionnaire when he became a director and had included the incorrect information by mistake. Dr. Waitley is a renowned author and speaker with biographical information published in several hundred places on the internet including Dr. Waitley’s official websites. USANA’s investigation showed that the incorrect degree was not listed in any other spot other than the biographical information supplied to USANA, leading credence to his claim that it was a simple mistake that lead to the incorrect information. Regarding the claim about the Ph.D. degree, this is also misleading. It is true that USANA informed the WSJ that we had been unable to verify the Ph.D. degree but that is because we were asked right after the allegation was made. Very shortly thereafter USANA did in fact verify the Ph.D. degree from LaJolla. Thus the short-seller driven claim on Wikipedia becomes false by its misleading nature.

Gilbert A. Fuller

Gilbert Fuller is the former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for USANA and is currently a director. For purposes of providing professional background and experience, biographical information appearing in USANA’s public Proxy Statements filed with the SEC and on the www.usana.com website listed the CPA designation among other professional certifications received by Mr. Fuller. Although Mr. Fuller did indeed pass the CPA exam and spent several years as a practicing accountant, he is not currently licensed as a public accountant as chose instead to work in finance as a CFO. Mr. Minkow claimed that since he was not currently practicing as a CPA the listing of his CPA certification on his resume was inaccurate. The same day he made his allegation, USANA immediately retained a law firm to provide legal research and advice on the matter. We received word from the law firm the same day that in Utah, that Mr. Minkow was incorrect, that the regulations on point focus clearly on the “practice of public accountancy in Utah” and relate to holding oneself out as a licensed CPA commercially and not the issue of referencing a truthful CPA certification in biographical information. It was clearly not a false statement as the short sellers claimed and as is repeated on Wikipedia. Despite this reassurance, Mr. Fuller elected to clarify more fully on his bio that although he practiced accounting for many years, he has since retired from that profession.

Timothy Wood, Ph.D.

Dr. Wood is the Executive Vice President of Research and Development. For purposes of providing professional background and experience, biographical information appearing in USANA’s public Proxy Statements filed with the SEC and on the www.usana.com website listed Dr. Wood as having received a Ph.D. from Yale University in the field of biology. Mr. Minkow claimed that his degree was actually in forestry and not biology. While we believe Mr. Minkow’s claim was false, it does merit explanation given the nature of the allegations made by Mr. Minkow. In fact, Dr. Wood graduated from Yale University in 1980 where he was awarded a Ph.D. degree. At that time Yale University did not offer degrees in a specific subject but rather from the graduate school in question. Dr. Wood was enrolled in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Yale which is what his degree shows. He studied under the tutelage of a professor from the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies (thus Minkow’s claim about forestry). His emphasis of study was biogeochemistry which is indeed a field of biology. As most individuals who are not students of the natural sciences do not know what biogeochemistry is, Dr. Wood often correctly described his field of study as biology. The claim on Wikipedia that Dr. Wood was forced to revise his bio to show a degree in forestry is clearly false as he has never studied forestry in his life having chosen instead biology related fields of study.

Ladd McNamara

Ladd is one of 190,000 plus independent distributors and not an executive or employee of USANA. His relationship with USANA was exaggerated by Minkow. USANA cannot speak for him as our only relationship is one of independent contractor.

I hope this will rest your mind and prevent you unnecessarily writing a biased entry stub. Again, Usana is out there to empower people - why paint them in such an ominous light? Just for a second, think out of the box, this company allows everyday people to bank in on an ever expanding market whilst simultaneously spreading awareness about health and well being. It empowers the little guys, and this you are trying to slam. The only people you are hurting with this entry is not the shareholders nor the executive board, no you are hurting the everyday associates trying to make an honest living; the taxi drivers, the nurses, the school teachers, the cleaners .. who are trying to get a little bit of residual income whilst staying healthy. And this you are trying to prevent by scaring away their potential customers with slanderous entries of little to no substance?

Thank you and respectfully.

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.2.161 (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided to turn this into a discussion instead of a delete/undo war. I can only guess you're implying that I'm working for a pharmaceutical company and all I can say about it is that I'm not. I would encourage you to update Wikipedia with the information you referenced about the Canadian director of Britsol Myers Squibb provided it is from a legitimate source. I'm certain any help expanding Wikipedia's content is appreciated. If you could find an unbiased source which depicts USANAs nutritional and dietary supplements as the best in the world please post it in the discussion section so we can talk about adding it to the article. No one is making the claim that USANA is operating in an unethical manner. That isn't for us to judge. I have not questioned Dr. Wood's thesis I have merely reported information that was published which dealt with his adjusting his resume. I don't believe we can use court testimony as a reference. I'd be happy to discuss changes if you can find better references. You have to remember that we need to be careful where we choose content from. If it would make you feel better to contact Jimmy Wales directly then by all means do so. The more eyes on an article the better.

I've read through what you've written and your statements about Denis Waitley correspond to what I see in the article. He resigned from the board of directors after it was discovered that he did not have a Master's degree and USANA was unable to verify his Ph.D. from the unaccredited La Jolla University. If they have since verified it all you need do is show us a legitimate reference and we can update the article.

For Mr Fuller we agree mostly except for the whether or not what happened was lawful. That's not my decision to make but it did come from a legitimate source. You are more than welcome to have your opinion of the New York Post but we can't adjust articles based on opinion.

About Timothy Wood the article simply states that he had to change his resume. We're not passing judgment on the quality of his education or his experience.

For Ladd McNamara it simply says that he quit the medical advisory board after it was discovered he had surrendered his license in Georgia and that his license was revoked in Ohio.

I don't believe anyone is being hurt with this article because I believe that it presents accurate information which is balanced and I am not trying to scare away potential customers. I'm trying to keep this article updated whenever I can. Again I'd like to thank you for bringing this topic to the discussion board and I look forward to working with you to keep this article updated. Jean314 (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jean, believe me, people are being hurt and the credibility of the company tainted by the biased entry in Wikipedia. Have you ever tried to run your own business selling nutraceuticals from a company that doesn't have a PR department nor spend millions in advertising? The wikipedia entry IS important. As it is usually the first port of call for people who want to gain an independent impression of the company. Trust me Jean, you are hurting hardworking everyday people - not some millionaires tucked away in their condos in Aspen or their beach resort in Malibu. It is precisely the janitors, single mothers, disability workers, McDonalds employees whom you are hurting with this twisted approach at presenting the company to the world. I do believe in the truth and share your passion for upholding it. I believe the resume controversy should be in the wiki entry, but just not right at the front of the blurb. As that skewers the legitimacy of the site.

Can you see what I mean when i say that the entry is unnecessarily biased? Why can't we use court testimony to update Wiki? Its just as public as the NY Post (which lies on the same intellectual playing field as the National Enquirer btw and that's not an opinion - how come we can quote some reporters vindictive spiel as gospel but when I show you a court hearing where the person testifying has laid his hand on the bible and sworn to tell the truth, this cannot be used to update Wiki? It seems a topsy turvy world)

In 2007 Myron Wentz won the Albert Einstein Award for outstanding contributions in science- why is that not in the opening gambit? Instead we have information regarding some board members resumes which has little or nothing to do with the quality of the company nor its products. Utah is the hotbed of the world in terms of manufacturing nutritional supplements, there are more nutraceutical companies in Utah per square mile, than there are anywhere in the rest of the world. Usana has won the Utah Best of State in the Nutritional Supplement category 6 years running. Why is this not mentioned anywhere?

It is not necessary to mention the resume controversy in the opening gambit. It really isn't.

Why is Ford Motor Company's historical ties to Germany's Nazi party not mentioned in the opening paragraph for its Wiki entry?

Why? Because it would be ridiculous. Again Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. If your argument is that this information pertaining to the resume controversy is of temporal significance, then I ask you, why not put in the accolades of the company as well - to balance out the unnecessary defaming rhetoric.

Can you not see how someone reading the stub would immediately assume the company and hence its products are unethical? Can you not see the bias? Please ... please step out off the box for a second and empathise. Usana is not sold through Pharmacies, there are no advertising campaigns subliminally making people buy the products - this goes against the vision of the founder. I can understand your reservation about the network marketing industry (I use to have these as well) but please, deep down, just keep an open mind .. you do seem to be an intelligent person. So let's be objective... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.2.161 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You mistake the purpose of an encyclopedia; which is a compendium of that which is notable about a subject. The sources available indicate Usana to be a leader in the provision of health supplements via a particular selling method, a major player in the US health supplement market, and a company that has been accused by various parties for various unethical/improper situations which have been found in/correct to varying degrees (sic). All this is covered, with consideration of due weight, in both the lead and body of the article. The lack of a PR department or advertising agency for the subject is not Wikipedia's concern (it is also not WP's concern where there is one - since primary sources as these are not considered suitable), as it is only in the provision of a verifiable article. That said, Jean314, myself, and others will always attempt to address concerns regarding the encyclopedic validity of content when requested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A court testimony is not a verifiable article? I beg to differ my friend. Court testimonials are free for public viewing, whereas articles such as those that appear in the New York Post are imposed on people via psychologically driven PR and marketing campaigns. As for the truth, I can't see the author of the NY Post article to have sworn to God with his hand on the bible when he compiled the writing and vouched for its verity. As you and your fellow editor are at the behest of this type of information spreading (much akin to propaganda), the question arises- who deems what is notable and what is not? Is Myron Wentz receiving one of the most prestigious awards in science not of notable significance? How about that the products (ultimately what counts) have been deemed the best in state in Utah for 6 consecutive years not of notable significance? The authors of these news articles that you deem so noteworthy - don't have wings and aren't called Raphael or Gabriel, rather, they are human beings and as such just as much prone to being swayed in their world view as any other blinkered scribbler willing to focus and spin his or her story into any one particular direction whether this be driven by intellectual bias or plain greed (as is the case with bribery - and lest not forget the Barry Minkow smear campaign run with the sole motive of lowering the stock price of Usana so as to position it aptly for a hostile take over).

Again, who deems what is noteworthy and what is not in an encyclopedia? You people?

You trying to gang up on me i.e. "That said, Jean314, myself, and others" - is also not really reflective of an objective open-sourced portal of information nor of a particularly unique open mind - on the contrary, it smacks of juvenile playground intimidation tactics and self esteem issues.. Not sure Jimmy would be too pleased about this. I know you think you are crusading for a higher cause but again I ask you, what has Usana done to you as an organisation that warrants this kind of staunch demeanour on your behalf? Nothing I gather. It's just a cybernetic hobby of yours, whereas your actions are directly impacting people's livelihood in the real world. And not the establishments ueber rich, but the ones who are struggling at the bottom. I hope you sit back gleefully in your chair thinking you have dished one out to the slimy network marketing industry .. but what you are really doing is ruining the ordinary people's chances for creating some form personal health and independence. I just wish you would understand this one subtle point.

Who deems what is noteworthy and what is not. How can alleged resume impostering be considered as more notable than the recognition of the founder of the company for a lifetime's dedication to science? Who? You guys who aren't even respectable enough to give your real name under your scribbles?

Let me rewrite the opening gambit to reflect a more neutral tone (i.e. why don't you write which sports organizations endorse Usana products e.g. the women's WTA, the Australian Olympic team - and how about NASA astronauts in training?) and I will add all appropriate references (is it ok if I reference People Magazine? Or perhaps Vogue or Tatler? Or how about the Grisham Community College Gazette? Are all publications deemed acceptable by you? How about the China Communist Party's daily bulletin (also available as a hard copy newsletter? Or what about the highly acclaimed and Robert Mugabe endorsed; Hariri Star?

While I find it valiant and decent that you guys monitor Wiki entries, I do find it detestable that you do it in such a partisan, borderline Gestapo manner. The truth is important - but again - who deems what truths are more important than others (obviously alluding to the significance of the resume controversy in the first 3 sentences of the opening blurb and omitting other more notable achievements by the company).

quoting you verbatim:

"That said, Jean314, myself, and others will always attempt to address concerns regarding the encyclopedic validity of content when requested."

Whilst I love Wikipaedia and the community and its accompanying philosophy, I do see the potentiality of this site being emotionally driven and cerbrally hijacked by some people whose mental capacities have been tarnished by one too many defamatory articles (largely refuted) published by the New York Post. I have a deep concern with the encyclopedic validity of the opening paragraph of the Usana entry and have already addressed the ramifications of it staying put. It is unnecessary as the culprits involved have stepped down and the issue has been resolved.

Why is it not mentioned in the opening few sentences of the Wiki entry for the United States of America, that the great financial success of this country was largely due to the use of slavery and subordination of some human beings by other human beings in and that this concept was integral in building up the country's great wealth. Why is that omitted?

I could go on and on. But will rest there. Please be sensible. Gossiping is never good. Maybe in my next post i will tell you about Lashon Hara and Rechilut - the spiritual laws of gossip. You do realise that you are killing the spirit of this company which has empowered thousands of people worldwide not only through financial independence but also optimal health .. Why would you wanna be complicit in such a thing? I don't understand. The mind boggles and I think Jimmy needs to witness this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.2.161 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris please understand that no one is trying to gang up on you or pass blame on others. I'd like you to look above this conversation to the one where LessHeard VanU denied the request of an editor who wanted to use Blog content to include in the article the claim that USANA is a pyramid scheme. If you feel like updating the United States of America Wiki with the content you've suggested you're more than free to do so. If you feel like bring this conversation to the attention of Mr.Wales then that is your right as well. Jean314 (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just let me rewrite/reword the opening gambit! Please .. its just not right. Like I said, write what you want for the rest of the entry .. but the opening paragraph? Come on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.4.128 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can rewrite/reword the lead paragraph, but as the note at the bottom of the edit page says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ..., do not submit it". If your intro, however, strikes the right balance regarding the notability of the subject then it will remain - and the paragraph does need to reflect the content of the main body per WP:INTRO.

I would make a couple of points; firstly, testimony is not reliable source, except of itself. Owing to the fantastic rights enjoyed by me, other Britons, and the citizens of the United States, I am permitted to stand up in court and swear that Britney Spears is a small avacardo, thus unable to legally retain her fortune - which should be transferred to me... As proof that I was deranged enough to make such a claim in court it is excellent, but under no circumstances should it be used in the Britney Spears article as evidence that she is a fruit of any kind at all. Judgements, however, are matters of record and may be used once they are published. Secondly, as indicated, I am not a US citizen and have no personal dealings with Usana or its products or its sales representatives. I turned up here a long time ago in respect of a content dispute and have kept an eye on it ever since - I do not contribute content, I act to resolve issues, give advice, and keep the piece conversant with policy. I do not take sides, but am generally sceptic toward all claims both for and against in the absence of reliable sources. As I said in an earlier exchange, the purpose of the article is neither to promote or disparage the subject but to provide an neutral overview of it. I regret that my approach may seem harsh to you, but my actions are toward the purpose of the encyclopedia and its readers and are not personal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris no one is telling you that you can't attempt a re-write. We're just trying to say that it has to fit in with the article and site valid sources. Do a re-write and if it fits better with the article it will be accepted. Jean314 (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Membership in Council for Responsible Nutrition

Is a press release on an organization's website sufficient reference when citing membership in the organization. In this case, would this mention (http://www.crnusa.org/CRNPR09Adds2MembersAssociationRoster021709.html) on CRN's site be enough to include mention of USANA's membership in this article? Montypics (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Press-Releases are sufficient but if its a government organization and there's a link on there web-site I think you could get away with it. What is the organization?Jean314 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

According to their about page:

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), founded in 1973 and based in Washington, D.C., is the leading trade association representing dietary supplement manufacturers and ingredient suppliers. CRN companies produce a large portion of the dietary supplements marketed in the United States and globally. Our member companies manufacture popular national brands as well as the store brands marketed by major supermarkets, drug store and discount chains. These products also include those marketed through natural food stores and mainstream direct selling companies. In addition to complying with a host of federal and state regulations governing dietary supplements, our 70+ manufacturer and supplier members also agree to adhere to voluntary guidelines for manufacturing, marketing and CRN’s Code of Ethics.

And this on Sourcewatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_Responsible_Nutrition

Is it worth mentioning? Montypics (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth mentioning because it doesn't seem to be an official governing body. Jean314 (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

USANA vs Usana

The first use of the name "USANA" has been adjusted in the article to be in all capitals. I believe this is incorrect by Wikipedia policy because I am sure this has been discussed before. USANA spells their name solely with capitals so would it be consistent to keep it as "USANA" or "Usana". Can anyone provide insight about what is appropriate or if it even matters. Jean314 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User:Slp1 and WP:Undue weight

While the contributions by Slp1 are well cited, I feel that by placing them within various parts of the article it is giving undue weight prominence to the Canadian radio investigation. I think it would be more appropriate to have them as a separate section, as with the resume matter and other controversies previously. I shall invite Slp1 to give their views on this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, La Facture is a fairly widely viewed TV show, but no worries. The Radio-Canada thing is confusing! I don't have any very strong views about where the info from the program should go; I considered making a separate section, but was wary about making yet another "Criticism" section, of which there already seem to be a few, and which are generally frowned upon. If I was to give my opinion about the whole article, it would be to try to incorporate the legal and resume sections (as well as the La Facture material) into the first part of the article so that there is better flow. Not exactly sure how to do it, but I think it would make for a better article. Thanks for asking though --Slp1 (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I had previously suggested making all the "negative" content into one general section, which would make the contents listing appear less biased - it should be noted that Usana is primarily a vitamin supplement provider, with perhaps a little more exposure to negative publicity than others - even if the content is greater than some of the other sections combined. As for placing the controversies near the beginning, I would again suggest that the companies notability rests upon its product and endorsements and then some of the difficulties that has been reported upon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. I guess if I was going to work on this article, I would suggest taking out/summarizing a lot of the detail, both positive (e.g. all the dated financial stuff) and the negative. IMHO we don't need to know all the details of who claimed to have which degree, for example, just a summary of the fact that there were some dubious claims going on. I think by summarizing the material more it would be much easier to integrate all the information in a balanced way that wouldn't make the article so disjointed. But it is just my opinion. --Slp1 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the financial information is outdated and should be removed. I forgot it was even present. Could we have a controversies section with subheadings to separate the content? It would probably be easier for readers. Jean314 (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you started... Since the links provide the details of the "resume controversy", I think we can cut out most of the detail, too, as suggested by Slp1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be restructured but I think the content is fairly brief. What should the major heading be if we're going to incorporate everything together? Is the Heading "Criticisms" appropriate?Jean314 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If we use the title "criticism" we should only then use sources that criticise whatever adverse content is included, rather than some - like the resume matters - which simply reported it. A free pat on the back for anyone who can find a more neutral header! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea and I'm going to boldly do some major edits. Let me know what you think.--Slp1 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done. I've done a significant reorganization and pruning, but I think all the key information remains, with the excess detail pruned out. People can check the refs if they want more information. In doing my worst, I note that a lot of primary sources WP:PSTS are being used here. I think the information can all easily be sourced to secondary sources, but it would be good to go through the article and make sure that each primary source (e.g. the letters etc) are supported by a secondary source (e.g. a newspaper article) that mentions the same information. --Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At first look I would say that it appears that the changes are a great improvement to what was there before. I would like to make a change to the lawsuit though. I think it should be left in that USANA did not pursue their final charge against Minkow or name any other organizations they intended to charge with stock manipulation. Other than that I think it looks good. Jean314 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jean. I appreciate the very positive feedback!! I'm not sure about your suggestion, however. If the case was settled, then the final USANA charge against Minkow was withdrawn. And I haven't seen significant information that there were other organizations involved in this lawsuit... so why include it now? I think things are fairest as status quo. --Slp1 (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner but I've been busy with a move and decided to not get too involved with Wikipedia discussions until most of it was over. I feel it should be included because the original charge was that Minkow was coordinating with other individuals and businesses in an attempt to manipulate the stock.Jean314 (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Under construction" template

While I am content to wait and see what additions there are, I would note that a listing of athletes who "use USANA products" is unlikely to be encyclopedic - unless there are references that indicate the individual uses only USANA supplements, but are not in the form of advertisments. However, it is likely early days and I suggest we discuss instead of just reverting everything we don't think should be in the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that they are advertisements and should be removed from the article.Jean314 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: I am a content editor assigned by my employer to participate on this article. The subject of this article is a client of my employer. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will abide by them. It's my proposal that from here on my edits will be restricted to this talk page and that I not engage in editing directly any content in this article. Instead, I will post any proposed edits on the talk page and ask for Wikipedians' help.

Now that that's out of the way... Usana would like to have me actively participate in content discussions in any way that can be useful, accurate and neutral. I can help by researching and editing any information in this article. Usana is fully aware of Wikipedia's guidlines about neutrality and notability and is not making any attempt to manipulate content. They simply want to participate.

Where there's an active push to revamp this content, let me pose the question: In what ways can I be of most use to this process? There are a number of topics and pieces of content I have at my disposal but I'm not 100% certain all of it is notable or encyclopedic. Should I post a few things here to the talk page and get input from everyone?

Utahmansir (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. While you comment you are familiar with Wikipedia policies and practices I would still suggest you review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. In short, you are able to edit the encyclopedia - and specifically this article - providing that everything you write complies with the above. Material provided by USANA is not acceptable, unless it has been commented upon and published by independent third parties. Content that only gives positive viewpoints is acceptable, again as long as they are from independent sources, but comment that is negative may be included to provide balance (see Wikipedia:Undue weight) again under stringent adherence to Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

It may be that an editor with connections to USANA can have both access to material available from independent sources more easily, and ensure that what is otherwise noted has been refuted or acknowledged - however, it should never be the case that an article be considered as being "vetted" by the subject. At best, the relationship between an editor and the subject should solely be through the use of independent, reliable sources. Providing everyone understands and works within that framework, then there is no reason why anyone cannot edit the encyclopedia - and specifically this article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the article Utahmansir. LessHeard vanU has already responded to your posting but I wanted to both thank you for being open about your connection to USANA at the beginning and to tell you that it wasn't really necessary since your companies involvement with this article has been both professional and provided a source of balance since Mlh0919 first posted here. Jean314 (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sponsorships

I wonder if anyone has any willingness to expand the Sponsorships section. Usana has a page on their own site listing the athletes and teams they sponsor (http://www.usana.com/dotCom/company/ag/sponsored) It's not likely that this qualifies as a credible source for wikipedia standards but it might be a good place to start. Does anyone have any thoughts on the best direction to move in on this section? Utahmansir (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A link to the page when generally noting that USANA sponsors various athletes and teams would suffice. People are unlikely to visit this article to find out which particular athlete or team USANA sponsor, but such a link will satisfy any that do. Primarily, USANA is a supplier of health related products rather than a sponsor and the article should reflect that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think who they sponsor is significant enough to be encyclopedic. I suppose it might be a different story if one or more sponsorships make the news in reliable, mainstream, independent media in significant way. Otherwise, listing sponsorees here seems rather promotional and quite inappropriate.--Slp1 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How should we handle what is already listed in the sponsorship section?Jean314 (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Manufactured in the USA

I read quickly through this talk page looking to see if this matter has already been discussed. If it has, I'd appreciate just being pointed to the response. The lead paragraph refers to "most" products being manufactured in the US. (I checked in the body of the text to see if there was anything further, but couldn't find it. Once again, if I have just missed it, please re-direct me.) The reference links to the company's SEC submission, and thus is somewhat self-serving, I would think; however, perhaps it is WP's policy to assume that claims made to the SEC are true and verifiable. The real problem is that I cannot find anything in the reference that says anything about where the products are manufactred, except to say that some (and they are named but not in a list that claims "including and limited to") are not produced in the US. "Most" without a % backup is not a supportable concept here, I think. Absent any reliable source, I suggest the sentence be amended as shown below:

Most of tThese products are manufactured in the United States[1] and sold in thirteen international markets.

// BL \\ (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I read through the first part and note that tablets are manufactured in a Utah facility, and personal care products in Salt Lake City. Some nutritional and drink products, and gelatin capsules, are manufactered overseas. Since supplements and personal care products form the bulk of the of the products marketed I should think the existing source suffices for the indication that "most" products are of US manufacture. As to the independence of the source, I doubt that there will be any reliable third party source that says different to that which is filed under legislation - any third party source, if found, is only going to repeat the data found there; any report on the companies business is going to look at the same data. If such a report can be found, with as much exhaustive detail, then it can be substituted as the reference, but in absence of same I think the existing one is fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

I would like to either add information about the dismissed claims or remove the information listing the conditions of the undisclosed settlement. I doesn't seem right to provide the details of one without the other. Suggestions about whether to add or remove? Jean314 (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some specific text that you are proposing adding, as well as the sources to support them? My problem with what you have suggested in the past is that I just don't see the points in the sources, but maybe I just didn't look in the right place. I also don't understand or agree why we would delete information if it is well-sourced. And how could the information be undisclosed if the terms have been openly reported in newspapers?--Slp1 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The information I'm talking about gives details to why the 4 claims were dismissed. It was included in the article before but was later removed. The source of the information was two articles in the Salt Lake Tribune and it was very close to what was originally published maybe too close ;) The Salt Lake Tribune is the same source used in citing the conditions of the closed settlement between USANA and Minkow so I don't understand why one was deleted while the other was allowed to remain. Out of fairness I think that either the previously removed information should be re-instated into the article or the details of the settlement should be removed. The settlement was undisclosed but some of the terms were made public. Here is some of what we had before as an example but there's also information about USANA being ordered to pay Minkow's fees and their pursuit of the final charge that I would also like to see added.

Subsequently, USANA lodged a lawsuit against Barry Minkow and his San Diego-based Fraud Discovery Institute from U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City for defamation and stock manipulation. USANA would later drop the defamation suit but continue with the remaining claims. On March 3rd, 2008 U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell threw out four of the five claims brought by USANA against Minkow ruling that USANAs claims violated California’s anti-SLAPP law for suing Minkow for fair criticism.[29] and that USANA did not show a reasonable probability of winning on those claims.[30] leaving only the company’s remaining charge of stock manipulation.

Here are the direct quotes from the Salt Lake Tribune Articles

"Alba's order came after U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell ruled on March 3 that USANA violated California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law for suing Minkow for fair criticism."

"Judge Tena Campell tossed four of five claims that Usana made against Barry Minkow, of California, a convicted corporate felon who now runs a Web site called the Fraud Research Institute."

"She found, in part, that Minkow was protected by that law because Usana did not show a "reasonable probability" it would win on those claims. The judge cited two examples where Usana failed to refute Minkow's claims that its products were overpriced because they were not of better quality than other lower-priced brands."

If it ever happens again that you don't see my points in the sources please just ask me and I would be happy to recheck what I've written and post it here with direct quotes from my sources.Jean314 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are wanting now. I guess I just don't see that the specific legal reasonings about why the court cases where thrown out is that relevant or interesting to the article. It's stated clearly that the judges didn't accept them. If people are really interested they can check it out in the refs; on the other hand the details of what Minkow agreed to do is relevant and required because the reliable sources make clear that the point of the settlement was that Minkow "agreed to stop disparaging" USANA, of which these are concrete examples. --Slp1 (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Since its a section in the article about a court case I think the court rulings on the matter are as relevant for inclusion as the settlement the two parties agreed to outside of court. I don't see why we would supply background information on how one claim was ended and exclude another. All the information comes from the same source.Jean314 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to ask you. I presume you have sources cited on hand for the material you readded? (ie "USANA claims tossed" from the Salt Lake Tribune?" It's not on line, so can you just quote the relevant sentence or two here? I'd like to see it, if possible.--Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been studying the WikiProjects Company and have been comparing this page with some of the pages with a large number of contributors, namely Ford Motor Company and Microsoft. I am also comparing this page with Usana competitors like Herbalife, Shaklee, etc. I recently "cleaned up" the Infobox to correct an error in the stock symbol (USNA is listed on NASDAQ as stated in the article, but NYSE was listed in the Infobox), as well as added revenue information from the last annual report since they are a public company. I'll be working on some edits as time allows (full-time job), and any major proposed changes of course I'll vet through here. Looking forward to raising this article up to a higher quality rating on WikiProjects Company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leef5 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome aboard Leef5. Good work on the Infobox but I think it should continue to list Network Marketing under Industry. Looking forward to seeing more regular upkeep of this article. I for one have been dragging my heels on updating the article with more information but many hands make light work  ;) Jean314 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I modified that since that is the marketing method, not the industry per se. I couldn't find other direct sales models that were using that reliably in their Industry title. I'm not abject to adding it back in, but for consistency sake, I think the marketing model should be listed elsewhere. I'll be working on this and other articles more as time allows :) Leef5 (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

After spending the last couple of weeks looking at various mlm/direct sales companies and making minor edits, it is apparent that there are vast differences between the layout of the headings between the companies. Example: Herbalife seems to have the most well-developed logical flow with its headings. I know we have talked about a Controversies section previously here, and its worth bringing up again since the Herbalife one is well done. Also, take a look at NuSkin Enterprises. NuSkin is well known in the MLM world, as being a giant, however this article has barely any content and even though they have had a great deal of controversy over the years, none of that content is there. I know in a perfect world there would be plenty of editors for every company in existence, but we know that's not possible. When I look at this Usana article compared with its peers, it almost gives off a bias of negativity. Obviously, it seems 2007 was a banner year for them for negative press from the Minkow incident, but other MLMs have had differing controversies and yet that info is completely missing. Anyhow, sorry for the long talk post, but I would like to see us bring up the quality of the article overall, and I believe using Herbalife as a competitor-MLM model, and Ford as a WikiProject Company model are where we need to go. Leef5 (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jean314 - let's have a discussion about the opening of this article. Please read my comment above - I've been spending the past week looking at many different MLM/direct sales articles, and even though a great majority of them have controversies in the past 5 years, the Usana article has a very strong negative bias compared with these articles. I'm afraid this article has turned slowly, 1 edit at a time, into something that is non-neutral. I can move on to other articles, but I don't agree with how this one has "turned out". IMHO, it needs a serious revamp as I mentioned in the above commentary to be more in-line with a well-organized article like the Herbalife one. I used to do a lot of Wikipedia editing years ago, and started to pique my interest yet again. How can I help with this article? Comments? Leef5 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Leaf5 I just noticed this comment now. When it comes to issues of neutrality we can only post what comes from reliable articles and sources of information. While some may think the article is too negative others will likely think it's too positive but really we just work with what we've got. If the other major companies have had major controversies in the past 5 years which have not shown up in their articles I would be inclined to think it is those articles that need more updating with content provided it comes from legitimate sources or hasn't been rendered irrelevant. As I have said I'm going to try and review the articles concerning USANA for notable information. Jean314 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Appears the article title should really be USANA Health Sciences according to the WikiProject Company naming guidelines. I will move this page and set up a redirect from the shortened "Usana" Leef5 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Business Section

After seeing some other articles on Wikipedia I think it would be a good addition to the article to include greater detail about the USANA business plan from the point of view of someone who signs up to work with the company as an independent retailer. I'm not sure when I'll get around to it but I hope to start in the next week or two. Jean314 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you the source? That would be OR, and it would be unreferencable. Or are you saying there is someone's published story of working as a retailer? That would still be a primary source, but may be usable in context. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the source for this information. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough. I want to include information from experts and news sources which comment on USANA as a business opportunity. I'll need to go through the articles first to see if I can find information relevant for inclusion. This is just an idea at the moment. Jean314 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits to article October 9 2009

I have reverted edits removing comment about the resume controversy in the lead, and some of the main body content, per WP:BRD and invited discussion here. This article has had consensus for a while, and I feel that consensus needs to be shown to have changed to permit the changes made. Per consensus, what happened to the resume controversy section? If it is mentioned in the lead it needs to be substantiated in the body, but if it is only pointed to in the footnotes then it should be removed from the lead and only referenced later in the body. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Resume Controversy section looks to have been incorporated into the section for Background and Organization. I would agree to separating it into its own subheading if that is what you are suggesting. It would also allow for the Forbes content to be brought together. Jean314 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the resume controversy was one of the more notable aspects of the subject. If their status of supplier of supplements to various sporting personalities and teams is suitable for a separate section then perhaps so is the controversy - both are transitory, but recent enough. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. I would also like to add that the section is notable because many of those involved in the controversy still participate within the company. Where would you like to include this section? Does anyone disagree? Jean314 (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with reinstating the previous sectioning. My solution to the problem of the lack of balance regarding the sponsorship heading, is to get rid of that section altogether. Who cares who they sponsor? --Slp1 (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand your point. Sponsorship is really just another form of advertising and promoting your product. How is the issue of Sponsorship handled on other articles? I wouldn't want to appear to heavy handed by removing it unjustly.Jean314 (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you check about some other articles and see what happens there? Personally, I think unless it can be shown that the sponsorships have been noted by mentions in independent sources (e.g. media, books), then they are really not significant enough for inclusion (and likely promotional, as you say).--Slp1 (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I never noticed reference to sponsorship in any independent sources when I was looking for it. Maybe we should try again before deleting the section. Jean314 (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Commission Statistics

I have added statistics about the distribution of commissions amongst associates to the article. Since the source uses two different populations at different points in the article I've tried to base them all on the total population of associates. I hope this okay and reads well enough. The article was referenced previously but was edited out over time. I think it has a lot of information that should be considered for inclusion.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/search/apachesolr_search/usana

At the link above you will find the entire series of articles done by the National Business Review. I would like to use these to expand the USANA article. Jean314 (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching your edits here, and recognise you as a long term contributor to this article, and have no problem with you being WP:BOLD with the content derived from this link. I anticipate that you would discuss any issues raised now or later by another editor, so I think you should proceed as suggested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph and Info Box

Examples of other articles which form a basis would include the article for Bear Stearns and Ford Motor Company. I would also like to see Mutli-Level Marketing be included under the Industry heading as it can be found in the Shaklee article and like it was in the USANA article until recently.Jean314 (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Bear Stearns applies - that company is now defunct. The Ford Motor Company article is excellent - the opening talks a great deal about what Ford does, a couple of statistics about their accomplishments. There is nothing controversial in this summary, and the criticism section outlays some of Ford's big missteps, of which I think we can draw similar lines to the "diplomagate" Usana went through 3 years ago. Perhaps we could agree on some heading layouts that could blend some of Ford's article along with the one I suggested in the Consistency section with the Herbalife article. I think we all want the same thing - a higher-quality article, that states the facts, and does a better job with a point/counter-point. Currently the article is heavy on the criticism-points. As far as the Multi-Level Marketing be included in the Industry heading of the InfoBox - I don't totally object to that, but again MLM is a marketing method, not an industry. The well-developed articles like Herbalife, ACN, Reliv, Avon Products, etc all mention the industry and not the marketing method. I think we have already flushed out the marketing method well in the article itself. I think the Shaklee article needs some updates for sure as well - haven't spent much time looking into that one yet (don't want to bite off more than I can chew with my schedule) Leef5 (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the Bear Stearns article should not apply simply because the company is now defunct and I disagree with your assessment of the information as "controversial". The information is accurate it was originally decided to include it to keep the intro fair and consistent with the contents of the article. The article should convey information which comes from reliable sources whether that information is seen as positive or negative is niether here nor there. It would be inconsistent to remove content which highlights the resume inaccuracies while allowing the sentence about sponsorship to remain. Both sentences give the reader a quick summation of the type of information they will find in the article if they were to read further. For the InfoBox I would like to point out that the definition of the term industry includes distribution of manufactured goods and it is reasonable to continue to list Multi-Level Marketing under this heading.Jean314 (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Typically, defunct companies are defined by why they are defunct, so the reason for their downfall is usually listed in the summary. I guess "controversial" was not a good word choice, instead criticism would be perhaps a more appropriate word. If we use proper headers similar to Ford Motor Company or Herbalife (who also had a Minkow "incident"), that would be a better flow of information. Would you prefer to restore that sentence until we can agree on perhaps a more major change to the article in terms of headers/flow? I'm not feeling the sponsorship message either, unless the whole summary was expanded. Leef5 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think labelling this information as a "criticism" is problematic because it is an accepted fact which even USANA doesn't dispute. I would prefer if it were to remain included since the original reason for its being included was to sum up some of the points which would be expanded upon in the article. Have you given further consideration to my request to return "Multi-Level Marketing" to the Industry heading? I believe it was appropriate and noticed that it was included in the Reliv article until you decided to remove it from that InfoBox as well. I think instead of removing it to keep the articles consistent we should be adding it to those articles which don't already have it listed but to which it applies. While it is a marketing method as you've already pointed out it is also a system of distribution. I believe that including under the industry heading will be a benefit for readers. In an effort to keep this article consistent with the other articles you wish to use as a basis for the expansion of the USANA article (Herbalife, ACN Inc.) I think it would be a good idea to include actual "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. It would make it much easier to include missing content which has been left out since it is difficult to fit in and maintain readability. I've been meaning to do this but have found it to be extremely difficult but your suggestion of using the Herbalife and ACN Inc. articles as a template is a great idea which would make including this content much easier. I hope to take a crack at it sometime this week to see what the results look like and whether it is worth including.Jean314 (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great with coming up with a new header structure to organize the information better. I think using Herbalife as a MLM-competitor model, and Ford Motor Company as a high-rated article comparison are our best choices. If you are willing to take the first crack, I defer to you. I think some of these other minor issues we are talking about, we can suspend until we've reorganized the article and then perhaps come back in to talk about points of discussion. I did go and look up to see what the SEC has Usana classified under, and it is SIC 2833 - MEDICINAL CHEMICALS & BOTANICAL PRODUCTS. I then went to the SIC/NAICS codes which define industries, and could not find MLM/Network Marketing/Direct Sales as an industry type. So, I think we should stick with the industry as the product line. The marketing method will be covered up front regardless, so noone will miss the method if its not listed in the InfoBox. Could you propose the heading titles and let's have some consensus before we move things around? Leef5 (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I will restore the sentence as you seem to indicate in a previous message until we start addressing more major changes to the article. The NAICS Code "Direct Sales" or "In-home sales of merchandise, direct selling" is 454390 and the SIC Code for Multi-Level Marketing is 8742-48. If that satisfies your requirements for classifying Multi-Level Marketing as an industry then I would like to see it restored to the InfoBox under the heading "Industry." This also fits with Multi-Level Marketing being the distribution method which is one of the key components of industry. We did have it listed as a Direct Sales company previously but the more specific term Multi-Level Marketing seemed to be the supported consensus. I hope to get back to you sometime in the near future with further updates we can consider to expand this article. Jean314 (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is the SEC has Usana listed as SIC 2833, which is not 454390 nor 8742-48 - I believe we are outside our bailiwick by adding the marketing method to company's industry. That would be like adding "Dealership Sales of Automotive Vehicles" to Ford's article. Leef5 (talk) 1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Usana&action=edit&section=64:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay now I'm confused because it seemed in your last comment that you disagreed with including it because you thought that there was no SIC/NAICS number associated for it. Now this is solely a matter to do with how they're classified in their SEC filings? I'm going to continue to respectfully disagree with you since articles on Wikipedia do not list industry based solely on SEC filings. The Microsoft article contains 9 headings under industry althought its SEC filings list it only as being Service and Pre-Packaged Software. I don't believe listing "Multi-Level Marketing" in addition to what is already currently listed would cause a problem but would instead present the full story behind what kind of industries USANA operates within. We've established that Multi-Level Marketing is a recognized Industry with a corresponding NAICS code and USANA is a Multi-Level Marketing company so at this point I can't see why it should remain out of the InfoBox. I understand what you're trying to say with your Ford example but I disagree with because the generic listing of Automobile covers the Dealership Salers of Automotive Vehicles while what is listed in the USANA article simply does not cover all the necessary bases. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Jean314 (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've consulted a Wikipedia editor with far more experience than you or I and when it comes to our discussion about whether or not to include Multi-Level Marketing under the Industry heading for the InfoBox the suggestion was that we follow whatever the company is frequently referred to as in references. I have checked Salt Lake Tribune, National Business Review and Forbes and have found them all referring to USANA as a Multi-Level Marketing company. Because of this I plan on returning Multi-Level Marketing to the Industry section. If you are still apprehensive about its being included I'm all ears (or eyes as the case may be) to whatever points you want to raise.Jean314 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Then let them edit the article to its incorrect industry name. There are far more direct sales articles where the "Industry" is what they sell, and not how they do it. To boot, if you check the article history, Multi-level Marketing wasn't listed, it was referred to as Network Marketing - which in Usana's case, is a more compensation-plan accurate term. Have your experienced editor go and edit all the direct sales/MLM/network marketing articles and add in the marketing method and see how that goes over. I don't understand why you are picking a battle over this one - no one is going to read this article and think, "Hey, I wonder if this is an MLM?" It's all over the article, including the opening sentence, as well as categorized as such. What is your agenda here with this article? Leef5 (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that it did say "Network Marketing" before and not "Multi-Level Marketing." After asking for guidance from a more experienced editor it seemed to be the most logical solution considering this is how USANA is referred to in a variety of sources I have already named. I don't understand how you can see this as me having an agenda since Multi-Level Marketing is a perfectly legitimate industry and an apt description from what I can tell. From what I've seen this seems to be description preferred by legitimate sources as well as USANA associates so I don't understand why you don't want it included under Industry. It was an accepted inclusion to the article prior to your edit and should remain so until a new consensus is reached.Jean314 (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be involved in a delete/undelete war with you. It's not what this should be about but please understand that USANA is described as a Multi-Level Marketer by various publications and Multi-Level Markting is a recognized industry and it is how people get their products from USANA.Jean314 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was "Network Marketing". If we are going to use your last argument, then that is what should remain until a "new consensus" is reached. So, #1 - which links are you referring to that describe Usana as MLM? I just clicked on all the reference links on this article, and none mentioned that. (Also found some broken links, I'll circle back and fix later). And #2, the whole discussion of this article was around consistency. I mentioned this before in the consistency section. Are you going to go edit the rest of the direct sales/network marketing/MLM articles and add their distribution model to their industry in the infobox? I think you'll have a very low consensus rate there with the editors of those articles. Just because I seem to the only other active user watching this article, I find it disheartening that the arguments I have laid out for not listing distribution model in the Industry have fallen on deaf ears by you and your consultant experienced Wikipedia editor. I'm going to drop this issue for now, but your intentions are suspect at the very least. I guess I was hoping for a more collaborative approach with this article instead of a "delete/undelete" war as you mentioned. Leef5 (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You’re right the previous consensus being Network Marketing and not Multi-Level Marketing and I’ll change it to reflect that. The links I was referring to were the articles from Forbes – Hard to Swallow, New York Post – CFO’s No CPA, The National Business Review - Most People Won't Get Their Money Back, Deseret News - As Stocks Plunge, USANA sues Minkow over Report etc.

Should I be equally disheartened that my arguments for why it should remain fell on deaf ears? At this point I’m not because disagreements are going to happen. To me this is an important part of Wikipedia and the obvious reason for the inclusion of a Discussion page.

Should I view your intentions as suspicious because we don't see eye to eye on this issue? At this moment I'm not willing to because I were to view everyone I had a disagreement with suspiciously I would be crippled with paranoia at this point.

On the topic of consistency you initially said that none of the other articles you mentioned listed similar information under Industry. That’s not entirely true since the Reliv article listed Multi-Level Marketing until you chose to remove it on Nov 5th. You decided that it should not be included and removed it from both the Reliv article and the USANA article. I disagreed with its removal because it has been accepted for some time and reincluded it. You removed it and asked me to list other articles where the same information is listed in the same way. I suggested Shaklee which also lists Multi-level marketing under industry which would mean of the 6 articles brought up in our conversation 50% of them had Multi-level Marketing/Network Marketing listed under Industry (USANA, Shaklee and Reliv until you deleted its listing prior to our conversation). Under such circumstances I would be inclined to think more information trumps less information. During our discussion your requirements for reinstating the old Industry heading shifted and what was the final decision does not reflect the rest of the business articles on Wikipedia. I sought advice from Less Heard vanU and Slp1 because I believed our discussion would not have reached an agreed upon conclusion. I followed Less Heards advice and edited accordingly.

I will agree though that I acted out of turn. I should have informed you here first that I was going to change the article based on the feedback from Less Heard vanU prior to doing it. I took his advice and ran with it and while that is something I have been encouraged to do with this article in the past it was unfair under these circumstances and I apologize.Jean314 (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)