Talk:Usana Health Sciences/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Usana Health Sciences. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Name question
Is "USANA" an abbreviation or initialism for anything? Trivialist (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've haven't seen any sources that mentioned it was an abbreviation. However, all of their SEC filings refer to the company as "USANA Health Sciences". Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 12:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
USANA Health Sciences Comprehensive Edit (Spring 2012)
Before delving into my proposal for a major edit to this article and the changes I wish to propose (and the rationale behind it), I'd like to introduce myself to the community. My name is Boyd Bastian and I work for USANA Health Sciences. As a veteran of online reputation management and Wikipedia editing, I fully understand this poses a potential for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, but I hope that you take each edit and my reasoning at face value. I am open to discussion and hope that the community shares my willingness to provide the most accurate information presented in an organized, effective manner. I present my edits to you in this fashion so we might have an open dialogue and make this entry even better as we come to a consensus as a community.
The edit I am proposing can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox
Please read on to learn more about why I made the changes.
I'd like to provide you with some background on the process I used. My approach to editing the USANA Health Sciences entry was simple: I wanted to provide a resource for anyone interested in the topic to have a "one-stop-shopping" experience. I asked myself this question about the current version, "If Wikipedia was the only source of information on the topic, would it sufficiently provide me enough content and information to give me a comprehensive view on the topic?". After reading and re-reading the current version numerous times, the answer to that question was no, so I sought out ways to improve the article. I know that no Wikipedia article will ever be "comprehensive" per se, but a good article is one that is well-rounded, provides solid information and is easy for the reader to use and navigate.
I found the current version clumsy and difficult to follow in its current iteration. It is a true representation of what Wikipedia is: a collection of various authors contributing content about a particular topic. On the one hand, this is a good thing that provides content and information from many sources. On the other hand, it causes an article to lack flow and feel "choppy" to those reading it. It lacks any real organization and contains a number of grammatical errors. As I did research on this entry and those articles on Wikipedia of related companies (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-level_marketing_companies), I found a number of interesting things and a number of troubling things. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a standard "template" for company entries and the information varies wildly from one article to the next. There also seems to be an arbitrary amount of information included or excluded from some articles. I can only assume this is due to who is interested in the articles and who is taking the time to edit and monitor these articles. So, in order to find some semblance of a pattern, I took each entry on the list of multi-level marketing companies Wikipedia directory and made a comparison. I also added some additional entries to my comparison that were not found on this page. I came up with some interesting results that can be found in this Google document:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlNU5Q6Cr91ZdGR6d3dKYnBQVGFqVE5mWEtyQkktelE#gid=0
The quick takeaway from this was that there is no established pattern, but there are some commonalities in many of the articles that bind multi-level marketing companies in terms of their Wikipedia articles. I used some of the criteria that I took away from this comparison, as well as some ideas from other prominent entries to organize and edit the USANA Health Sciences article. What follows below is a brief rundown of the proposed changes in each section of the article. As mentioned before, I would love to have an open discussion about this and get the community's feedback on what works and what doesn't.
Note: I reviewed all citations in the article and added several to support new information or supplement existing citations.
Information Box
This section was updated with USANA's latest financial results from 2011. This is simply an update to previously publicly-reported earnings.
Lead
I know there has been a lengthy discussion in this talk page about what the lead should or should not contain. I also know that Wikipedia provides lead paragraph guidelines. What doesn't exist, however, is a hard fast rule or template to follow. I think that, more than anything else, causes more controversy or inability to make a decision on this than anything else. As I did research for this edit, I compared the lead paragraph in the articles of all the major multi-level marketing companies. Of the 58 total entries compared, only 14 included some mention of controversy, and of those 14, only 9 of the companies were still in business (in most cases the controversy defined their existence and lead to company closure). With that in mind, I took a look at some of the articles that I felt had a solid opening lead in Amway, Avon Products, Herbalife and others, and found that these articles all had a succinct opening with a brief description of what the company is, the location, the company size, earnings and some description of products or services rendered.
Therefore, I patterned USANA's opening after many of these prominent company's articles and feel it is a good introduction to the content of the article.
Table of Contents
I've broken down each section to include sub-sections for the reader to easily preview the contents of the article and have more available jump links if they have a particular interest.
History
Find this section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#History
I replaced the current "Background and organization" section with a "History" section. Portions of the "Background and organization" have been moved to a newly expanded "Business Model" section (see below) where I felt there was more relevance to the USANA business than to its history.
The current "Background and organization" section is a mixture of items that are historical, controversial and define (in-part) USANA's basic business structure. The proposed new "History" section includes a majority of the historical items and provides additional background on the company's founding and origins. It also briefly makes mention of prominent historical controversies and links to items further down in the article, particularly in the newly created "Controversy" section (see below). The "History" section is divided into three distinct parts:
-Founding and Origins covers the pre-USANA days for founder Dr. Myron Wentz, the founding of Gull Laboratories, the subsequent founding and spinning off of USANA as an independent firm -Early Development covers the major events and milestones during USANA's first decade as a company -The Second Decade covers the major happenings during the past 10 years. As USANA is now a 20-year-old company, I found symmetry in dividing these sections into 10 year sections. I think it is easy for the reader to follow these events and have them broken up sequentially. This section mentions a number of items, including links and reference to prominent controversies in USANA's second 10 years, as well as mentions of additional growth and international expansion.
Business Model
Find this section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#Business_Model
This section is a carry-over from the current version but provides the reader with a clearer view of USANA's business structure, compensation plan, average distributor income and presence in international markets. It is a concise overview of how the company operates. Mention of controversy about USANA's business model have been moved to the "Controversy" section (see below) and has its own sub-section under "Controversy" titled "Business Model". This section also contains information about USANA's internation operations.
Products
Find this section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#Products
This section is also a carry-over from the current version. However, the entry has been modified to provide easier navigation with a brief introductory paragraph about USANA products, three sub-headings/paragraphs encompassing USANA's various product lines, and finally a sub-heading dedicated to information about third-party testing and certification
Product-related controversy has also been moved to the "Controversy" section with the sub-heading of "Product Cost".
Controversy
Find this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#Controversy
I removed/renamed the "Lawsuit" section and replaced it with a new "Controversy" section. This allows the reader to have all the content and background information on the prominent controversies USANA has faced over the years. Rather than have it dedicated to one major controversy (the Minkow lawsuit/situation in this case) each one has its their own sub-section with a a jump link from the table of contents. Each prominent controversy mentioned in the article has its own sub-section and is titled in a way that should be easy for the reader to have an idea about the subject of the controversy.
This organization was patterned after a number of entries I reviewed, including the the Amway example.
Culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#Culture
This entire section is new. It may have elements from existing copy on the USANA Health Sciences article, but the majority is new content. It provides background and information on cultural elements of the company including philanthropy, environment and employee wellness. All information has attributable, third-party sources. I noted in my comparison that many of the prominent companies included some culture/political/philanthropy information or sections to their sites and helped to provide a more well-rounded, balanced article.
Sponsorships
Find this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#Sponsorships
This section includes clarification to USANA's partnership with various organizations, as well as a more clearly defined parameters for USANA's "Athlete Guarantee". Corrected WTA name -- no longer called Sony Ericcson. There is also an update to USANA's naming rights deal with the USANA Amphitheater -- citation is pending.
--Boydbastian (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since this is sweeping recommended change, it's going to take some time to digest. Also, since you have declared your WP:COI here on the talk page, I would recommend updating your user page to reflect your declaration so its clear. I appreciate the fact that you have proposed the changes in a sandbox rather than make changes to the article directly. Go ahead and update the financial info on the live page however, as that is fine for a COI editor to do since its black and white. You have taken the correct approach in not only declaring your COI, but to engage participation in the article rather than trying to change it outright to a positive spin. I imagine its difficult to do writing in a WP:NPOV in a job that is about promoting a positive view about your company, so I would expect careful consideration of your proposals and you will need to defend changes with reliable sources and sound Wikipedia policy editing. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 19:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback and will be happy to discuss particulars of any of the recommended changes. I've updated my user profile to indicate my affiliation with USANA. Before I attempt to implement any of the revisions, I would be interested to know if anyone else monitoring this page has any additional feedback or concerns. I want to be as open and transparent as possible and make this a true community effort. I can't do that unless I am able to hear from additional contributors. Thanks in advance. --Boydbastian (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask (once again) any community members to provide feedback on the suggested edit that you can find here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydbastian (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback and will be happy to discuss particulars of any of the recommended changes. I've updated my user profile to indicate my affiliation with USANA. Before I attempt to implement any of the revisions, I would be interested to know if anyone else monitoring this page has any additional feedback or concerns. I want to be as open and transparent as possible and make this a true community effort. I can't do that unless I am able to hear from additional contributors. Thanks in advance. --Boydbastian (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not to discourage you, but I'm not certain this is really an appropriate approach to editing an article.Jean314 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree Jean. One thing would help would be if Boydbastian could provide a diff edit so that it's easier to see exactly what's been changed. Very difficult to discern as it stands. I had a quick glance at some of the proposed changes; some seemed innocuous/reasonable, other not so much. For instance, lumping all criticism into a controversy section is not recommended; in fact it's discouraged -- as I see it, part of the reason relates to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT; i.e. writing the positive-spin story the way the company would like it and then lumping together all dissenting voices/negative aspects in what amounts to a footnote at the the end of the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you both for the feedback. As there really isn't a single approach to editing a Wikipedia article, I'll explain to you why I am approaching the editing of the USANA Health Sciences article in this way. As stated in my initial entry, I want to provide a clear, accurate and fair entry that includes information that is positive, negative and neutral. I also declared my potential COI, so I felt it was important to not only present that fact, but also present my proposed changes in an area (my sandbox) that didn't actually change the nature of the article before a community discussion could be held. Therefore, I posted what I felt was the "ideal" entry in my sandbox and entered a submission on this talk page in order to solicit feedback. I would be happy to engage in a discussion about the content of the article, the version in my sandbox, as well as suggestions for a better approach to editing the article. Would it be easier if I simply made edits to the article and allowed the community to easily view and compare versions? If so, I am more than happy to go about it that way. As for the organization of my proposed changes, I am aware that Wikipedia discourages "controversy" or "criticism" sections, but the practice is quite prevalent and seemed to me the appropriate approach in this case -- the current article gives readers an entire section to a single incident (Lawsuit section). I feel that undue weight is given to this one case; so it seemed appropriate to place a section that included other controversies or criticisms in the middle (not a footnote at the end). I'm open to changing my thoughts on this -- controversial items can be weaved into the body of other sections, but they need to be of appropriate weight and length and I don't feel that the focus on the Minkow situation is proportionate to the focus or length of other sections in the article. At any rate, I appreciate the feedback and look forward to working with those in the community who have offered suggestions for making this a better article. --Boydbastian (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Given that you have a COI, I would strongly advise you not to edit the article directly. As I said above, just create a diff edit on your sandbox so that it will be easier for other editors to see exactly what changes you are proposing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain to me exactly what you mean by "create a diff edit on your sandbox"? What is currently in my sandbox is a full edit of the existing USANA Health Sciences article. Do you mean place a current edit and a proposed edit in the sandbox for each section for comparison? I just want to make sure I understand correctly before proceeding.--Boydbastian (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Paste the text from the original article; save it; paste the new text; save it. Then anyone can see the changes by going to the history page and choosing to show the difference edit between the 2 versions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks--I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly. I'll get to work on that. --Boydbastian (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Per your suggestion, I ported the current version of the USANA Health Sciences article over to my user sandbox (which can be found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox). Instead of implementing all the changes at once for review, I've decided to do a section at a time. After I ported the current over, I made an update to the Sponsorship section (found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#Sponsorships). You can compare the two versions and offer feedback. As an overview, I have included clarification to USANA's partnership with various organizations, as well as a more clearly defined parameters for USANA's "Athlete Guarantee" program. I also Corrected WTA name -- no longer called Sony Ericcson. There is also an update to USANA's naming rights deal with the USANA Amphitheatre -- citations now included.--Boydbastian (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks--I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly. I'll get to work on that. --Boydbastian (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Paste the text from the original article; save it; paste the new text; save it. Then anyone can see the changes by going to the history page and choosing to show the difference edit between the 2 versions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain to me exactly what you mean by "create a diff edit on your sandbox"? What is currently in my sandbox is a full edit of the existing USANA Health Sciences article. Do you mean place a current edit and a proposed edit in the sandbox for each section for comparison? I just want to make sure I understand correctly before proceeding.--Boydbastian (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Given that you have a COI, I would strongly advise you not to edit the article directly. As I said above, just create a diff edit on your sandbox so that it will be easier for other editors to see exactly what changes you are proposing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you both for the feedback. As there really isn't a single approach to editing a Wikipedia article, I'll explain to you why I am approaching the editing of the USANA Health Sciences article in this way. As stated in my initial entry, I want to provide a clear, accurate and fair entry that includes information that is positive, negative and neutral. I also declared my potential COI, so I felt it was important to not only present that fact, but also present my proposed changes in an area (my sandbox) that didn't actually change the nature of the article before a community discussion could be held. Therefore, I posted what I felt was the "ideal" entry in my sandbox and entered a submission on this talk page in order to solicit feedback. I would be happy to engage in a discussion about the content of the article, the version in my sandbox, as well as suggestions for a better approach to editing the article. Would it be easier if I simply made edits to the article and allowed the community to easily view and compare versions? If so, I am more than happy to go about it that way. As for the organization of my proposed changes, I am aware that Wikipedia discourages "controversy" or "criticism" sections, but the practice is quite prevalent and seemed to me the appropriate approach in this case -- the current article gives readers an entire section to a single incident (Lawsuit section). I feel that undue weight is given to this one case; so it seemed appropriate to place a section that included other controversies or criticisms in the middle (not a footnote at the end). I'm open to changing my thoughts on this -- controversial items can be weaved into the body of other sections, but they need to be of appropriate weight and length and I don't feel that the focus on the Minkow situation is proportionate to the focus or length of other sections in the article. At any rate, I appreciate the feedback and look forward to working with those in the community who have offered suggestions for making this a better article. --Boydbastian (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree Jean. One thing would help would be if Boydbastian could provide a diff edit so that it's easier to see exactly what's been changed. Very difficult to discern as it stands. I had a quick glance at some of the proposed changes; some seemed innocuous/reasonable, other not so much. For instance, lumping all criticism into a controversy section is not recommended; in fact it's discouraged -- as I see it, part of the reason relates to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT; i.e. writing the positive-spin story the way the company would like it and then lumping together all dissenting voices/negative aspects in what amounts to a footnote at the the end of the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not to discourage you, but I'm not certain this is really an appropriate approach to editing an article.Jean314 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I had a look. The changes on the amphitheatre text look OK; not so with the changes to the athlete guarantee program. I don't see any sources supporting the proposed text "some of whom have high profiles and are highly compensated". The sources cited also refer specifically to "select" Canadian athletes and they list the reimbursement amount in CDN currency. I see no evidence to support the proposed changes to that portion of the text. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, even the corporate website says its for select Canadian athletes (see http://www.usana.com/dotCom/difference/guarantee ) - if you are saying the program has expanded recently, you may want to have your web team update your own site first, and then we could consider using the primary source assuming the language is NPOV. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 19:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps since I didn't indicate in the citation (my fault) the page number, if you will look at page 38 of USANA's 2011 Annual report (which is the first citation after the Athelete Guarantee), it supports the revision (go to http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTMxNDA3fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1 to review this document). I also agree that the text on the company web site needs to be updated; I am not sure why it was limited to Canadian athletes, but that is not the case and I'll make sure to get that updated on the primary source. Here is the text from the corporate annual report:
- For many years, USANA has been a sponsor of Olympic athletes and professional competitors around the world. These athletes have been tested on many occasions and have never tested positive for banned substances as a result of taking USANA nutritional products. To back up its claim that athletes who use the Company’s products as part of their training regimen will not be consuming banned substances, the Company has offered to enter into agreements with select athletes, some of whom have high-profiles and are highly compensated, which state that, during the term of the agreement, should the athlete test positive for a banned substance included in the WADA, and should such positive result be the result of taking USANA nutritional products, USANA will compensate that athlete two times their current annual earnings up to one million dollars, based on the athlete’s personal level of competition, endorsement, and other income, as well as other factors.--Boydbastian (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's problematic. The company's webpage describing the program,[1] which is cited in the current version, doesn't mention anything about the program being expanded to include non-Canadian athletes, and it's a arguably a much better source for details on the program than the SEC filing (a primary source). However the best source -- a secondary source -- is the Toledo Blade article (already cited[2]), which describes the details of the program, and it is specific to Canadian athletes. Furthermore, the text stating "athletes, some of whom have high-profiles and are highly compensated..." is too vague. Does the statement apply to athletes who have already entered into an agreement with USANA regarding the athlete guarantee program? If so, who are these alleged athletes and how much are they compensated? It all seems a bit silly really; if the product doesn't contain banned substances, then there's no real need to offer the guarantee (other than as promotional fodder). It's like Coca Cola saying that they'll give a million dollars to anyone who gets anthrax poisoning after drinking Minute Maid orange juice. Lastly, the proposed text omitted the fact the the program only applies to athletes who undertake a sponsorship agreement with USANA -- a key detail. I see no reason to change the existing text Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, even the corporate website says its for select Canadian athletes (see http://www.usana.com/dotCom/difference/guarantee ) - if you are saying the program has expanded recently, you may want to have your web team update your own site first, and then we could consider using the primary source assuming the language is NPOV. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 19:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with most of what Rhode Island Red has said. The statement "some of whom have high profiles and are highly compensated" doesn't really add anything to the article. It seems to be a vague statment attempting to bolster the idea that this program is important and significant in some way. Maybe a reference to a notable athelete who is involved in the program?Jean314 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you both for the feedback. I'll take your suggestions and apply changes to the proposed text for your review. The existing text in the sponsorship section of the USANA Health Sciences article isn't totally accurate or current -- and that is why I am proposing changes to this section. As mentioned before, I will work to have the changes applied to the corporate web site and I'll work to provide references to notable athletes involved in the program. The secondary source you mentioned (Toledo Blade article) is, at this point, a bit outdated since there have been changes during the past 8 years. The article itself mentions USANA's plans to extend the guarantee to athletes beyond Canadian athletes. I will also make changes to the proposed text to make clear to the reader that the program applies to athletes who enter into a sponsorship agreement with USANA. As to your point about it being a "bit silly"; eligibility and testing in international athletics is of supreme importance to numerous governing bodies of many sports and to the athletes compete in these sports (including athletes that USANA sponsors). If you're so inclined, do a simple search in Google and it reveals dozens and dozens of reports of athletes blaming their bans on the supplements they are taking. It's a fairly common issue. Drug testing in athletics usually works according to strict liability, meaning if a substance is detected resulting in a positive test, the individual is responsible for the presence of the substance in the body regardless of where it came from. If the substance were to be found to have come from a USANA supplement, the athlete would still face possible sanctions since supplement use is considered to be voluntary. In this case, as part of certain sponsorship agreements, USANA is backing its claim to be free of banned substances and they are willing to support this claim with a monetary value. Unless anthrax in Minute Maid is a common issue and many people are claiming this, it's not a fair comparison.--Boydbastian (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like an article out today by ProBoxing-fans.com saves us further discussion regarding sourcing and the older Toledo Blade source. On the surface, this appears to have editorial oversight ( http://www.proboxing-fans.com/about/writers/ ) and thus would qualify as an RS. http://www.proboxing-fans.com/timothy-bradley-and-the-1-million-worry-free-drug-testing-guarantee_060412/ You'll still want to get your corporate folks to update your own website to be in line with what you are claiming is the program's new criteria (which seems to match today's boxing article). The only discrepancy I'm seeing is the boxing article is clear Bradley isn't paid, but yet he mentions he is under the $1M guarantee, where your wording above says that the athletes must be in a "sponsorship agreement". Typically, sponsoring means they are paying $$ or providing supplements. It sounds like that's not necessarily the case here. Can a non-sponsored athlete who is not getting paid, nor getting supplements for free, still sign up for the $1M guarantee? Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 17:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hardly! I see no evidence of editorial oversight and I strongly disagree that this is an RS. And how oddly convenient that this would suddenly appear in the midst of the discussion we're having here. Seems like more than a coincidence. Not to mention that the article reads like a poorly written press release. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good to know the passing of time hasn't lessened your incivility nor conspiracy theories. If you believe this is not an RS source, we can simply take it to RS/N for a read. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 18:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nor has time changed your editorial approach. Before you fly off the handle with baseless accusations about incivility, don't you think someone should propose something tangible for inclusion first, and then argue the case for the reliability of the source? The source's reliability is context dependent, so what is the context? Once again, you put the cart before the horse. And where is this evidence of editorial oversight? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here's the deal.
- Despite the claim that the site http://www.proboxing-fans.com/about/writers "appears to have editorial oversight", the page in fact shows no such evidence; only a list of contributors (to what amounts to a blog site).
- The article reads like a press release and is clearly promotional in nature.
- Not only did a Google search for the author, Jake Emen, not turn up any evidence that he any credible background as a bona fide journalist or writer, he is described on his own ezine profile as follows: "currently works as a freelance SEO web content writer and self-employed Internet marketer and over the last few years has written thousands of articles on various subjects for himself and for his clients".[3] That should require no further elaboration or argument.
- Suffice it to say, I should be sorely vexed with you for wasting WP resources with this fools errand. You've been around here long enough to know what constitutes an RS, so you shouldn't be tossing out $#!% like this to see if it floats. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- To make matters even worse, the site proboxing-fans.com is registered to Jake Emen himself[4] and therefore his article is self-published; a clear violation of WP:RS. Despite the fact this is source is blatantly inappropriate, your edit summary[5] when you proposed the article trumpeted: "New RS out today puts the sourcing issue at rest." And what a coincidence that within 2 days of this issue arising, an SEO marketer/writer-for-hire would self-publish an article addressing the exact issue we were discussing, and that Leaf would come along and offer it up here with the claim that it's an RS and "should clear up the sourcing issue". IMO, this walks and talk like a duck, and an editing block could be warranted as a result. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Red, although you find the timing "coincidental", I can assure you that USANA had nothing to do with the publication (or the timing thereof) of this blog or article. You may be aware that Timothy Bradley (the subject of the article) is a world-champion boxer and is on the eve of his biggest fight to date vs. Manny Pacquiao. That happens this weekend -- which may account for the timing of its release. After checking with our PR team, we were contacted by Emen after his interview with Timothy Bradley and provided access to the employees quoted in the story. Emen had questions about Bradley's connection to USANA, and as the story states, Bradley is not financially compensated for using our supplements but he has entered into an athlete guarantee agreement so if he tests positive as a result of taking our products, he can be compensated under the agreement. To date I have been open with my connection to USANA and have been careful to provide the community with any information required. I am disappointed that you would infer that we simply paid the author to place a story on a third-party site. Just to be clear, you are questioning the reliability of the publication/website more than the actual content, correct?--Boydbastian (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unmoved by your assurances. The source is non-RS; the person who provided it made ridiculous claims about it resolving the issue we were in the midst of discussing and then tried to dismiss legitimate concerns about the source's reliability (or lack thereof). That doesn't fly...end of story. And just be aware that offering up this self-published article, from a hired-gun PR hack and SEO "expert", so conveniently timed, does look highly suspicious and raises concerns about both parties involved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've been open and honest thus far in my dealings here and will continue to do so. This would seem a very small point to blow any credibility on but you can believe what you want. Another editor (not I) offered up a potential citation for my proposed changes to the sponsorship section -- in fact the material seemed to fulfill the request of yet another editor (Jean) when they suggested "a reference to a notable athelete who is involved in the program". You asked for sources beyond that of SEC filings (even though those sources are cited liberally throughout the current version) and Leef5 identified a potential source that involved a prominent athlete. You are free to question the source and its reliability, but turning this into an attack on the author (calling him a "hack") and inferring that somehow this was a paid placement is unwarranted. Beyond that, the interview contains information relevant and useful to this subject. Bradley himself confirms his relationship with USANA and his participation in the athlete guarantee program. Again, are you questioning the content or where it was published? --Boydbastian (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to see any ambiguity about the non-reliability of the source, so you have no reason to continue asking this question nor to claim that it is a source of useful information. It's not RS -- end of story -- unless you want to drag this out for some reason. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've been open and honest thus far in my dealings here and will continue to do so. This would seem a very small point to blow any credibility on but you can believe what you want. Another editor (not I) offered up a potential citation for my proposed changes to the sponsorship section -- in fact the material seemed to fulfill the request of yet another editor (Jean) when they suggested "a reference to a notable athelete who is involved in the program". You asked for sources beyond that of SEC filings (even though those sources are cited liberally throughout the current version) and Leef5 identified a potential source that involved a prominent athlete. You are free to question the source and its reliability, but turning this into an attack on the author (calling him a "hack") and inferring that somehow this was a paid placement is unwarranted. Beyond that, the interview contains information relevant and useful to this subject. Bradley himself confirms his relationship with USANA and his participation in the athlete guarantee program. Again, are you questioning the content or where it was published? --Boydbastian (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unmoved by your assurances. The source is non-RS; the person who provided it made ridiculous claims about it resolving the issue we were in the midst of discussing and then tried to dismiss legitimate concerns about the source's reliability (or lack thereof). That doesn't fly...end of story. And just be aware that offering up this self-published article, from a hired-gun PR hack and SEO "expert", so conveniently timed, does look highly suspicious and raises concerns about both parties involved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Red, although you find the timing "coincidental", I can assure you that USANA had nothing to do with the publication (or the timing thereof) of this blog or article. You may be aware that Timothy Bradley (the subject of the article) is a world-champion boxer and is on the eve of his biggest fight to date vs. Manny Pacquiao. That happens this weekend -- which may account for the timing of its release. After checking with our PR team, we were contacted by Emen after his interview with Timothy Bradley and provided access to the employees quoted in the story. Emen had questions about Bradley's connection to USANA, and as the story states, Bradley is not financially compensated for using our supplements but he has entered into an athlete guarantee agreement so if he tests positive as a result of taking our products, he can be compensated under the agreement. To date I have been open with my connection to USANA and have been careful to provide the community with any information required. I am disappointed that you would infer that we simply paid the author to place a story on a third-party site. Just to be clear, you are questioning the reliability of the publication/website more than the actual content, correct?--Boydbastian (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll respond to RIR's additional incivil response and accusations leveied at me soon. It is unfortunate WP administrators have let this consistent behavior pattern continue for so long, even after his previous 6 month block. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 20:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you're thinking of hijacking this thread so that you can feign indignance about issues unrelated to actual editing of the article, please don't bother -- this is not the place; post it on either my Talk page or make the appropriate RfC (cf. WP:TPG, WP:FORUM, and WP:SOAP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- To make matters even worse, the site proboxing-fans.com is registered to Jake Emen himself[4] and therefore his article is self-published; a clear violation of WP:RS. Despite the fact this is source is blatantly inappropriate, your edit summary[5] when you proposed the article trumpeted: "New RS out today puts the sourcing issue at rest." And what a coincidence that within 2 days of this issue arising, an SEO marketer/writer-for-hire would self-publish an article addressing the exact issue we were discussing, and that Leaf would come along and offer it up here with the claim that it's an RS and "should clear up the sourcing issue". IMO, this walks and talk like a duck, and an editing block could be warranted as a result. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here's the deal.
- Nor has time changed your editorial approach. Before you fly off the handle with baseless accusations about incivility, don't you think someone should propose something tangible for inclusion first, and then argue the case for the reliability of the source? The source's reliability is context dependent, so what is the context? Once again, you put the cart before the horse. And where is this evidence of editorial oversight? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good to know the passing of time hasn't lessened your incivility nor conspiracy theories. If you believe this is not an RS source, we can simply take it to RS/N for a read. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 18:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hardly! I see no evidence of editorial oversight and I strongly disagree that this is an RS. And how oddly convenient that this would suddenly appear in the midst of the discussion we're having here. Seems like more than a coincidence. Not to mention that the article reads like a poorly written press release. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like an article out today by ProBoxing-fans.com saves us further discussion regarding sourcing and the older Toledo Blade source. On the surface, this appears to have editorial oversight ( http://www.proboxing-fans.com/about/writers/ ) and thus would qualify as an RS. http://www.proboxing-fans.com/timothy-bradley-and-the-1-million-worry-free-drug-testing-guarantee_060412/ You'll still want to get your corporate folks to update your own website to be in line with what you are claiming is the program's new criteria (which seems to match today's boxing article). The only discrepancy I'm seeing is the boxing article is clear Bradley isn't paid, but yet he mentions he is under the $1M guarantee, where your wording above says that the athletes must be in a "sponsorship agreement". Typically, sponsoring means they are paying $$ or providing supplements. It sounds like that's not necessarily the case here. Can a non-sponsored athlete who is not getting paid, nor getting supplements for free, still sign up for the $1M guarantee? Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 17:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you both for the feedback. I'll take your suggestions and apply changes to the proposed text for your review. The existing text in the sponsorship section of the USANA Health Sciences article isn't totally accurate or current -- and that is why I am proposing changes to this section. As mentioned before, I will work to have the changes applied to the corporate web site and I'll work to provide references to notable athletes involved in the program. The secondary source you mentioned (Toledo Blade article) is, at this point, a bit outdated since there have been changes during the past 8 years. The article itself mentions USANA's plans to extend the guarantee to athletes beyond Canadian athletes. I will also make changes to the proposed text to make clear to the reader that the program applies to athletes who enter into a sponsorship agreement with USANA. As to your point about it being a "bit silly"; eligibility and testing in international athletics is of supreme importance to numerous governing bodies of many sports and to the athletes compete in these sports (including athletes that USANA sponsors). If you're so inclined, do a simple search in Google and it reveals dozens and dozens of reports of athletes blaming their bans on the supplements they are taking. It's a fairly common issue. Drug testing in athletics usually works according to strict liability, meaning if a substance is detected resulting in a positive test, the individual is responsible for the presence of the substance in the body regardless of where it came from. If the substance were to be found to have come from a USANA supplement, the athlete would still face possible sanctions since supplement use is considered to be voluntary. In this case, as part of certain sponsorship agreements, USANA is backing its claim to be free of banned substances and they are willing to support this claim with a monetary value. Unless anthrax in Minute Maid is a common issue and many people are claiming this, it's not a fair comparison.--Boydbastian (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
RS/N
Proboxing-fans.com source posted to RS/N for community comment here: WP:RS/N#proboxing-fans.com
- Back from holidays - Here was the response from RS/N : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_124#proboxing-fans.com
- Boyd: it looks like when your web team updates the wording to match the SEC filing wording, you can propose the updated wording to the guarantee program without needing to reference either of the 2nd party sources being disputed for RS. 1st Party is sufficient. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 14:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to revisit this topic - the necessary changes to USANA's web site have been made to support the language proposed in my sandbox for the update to the Sponsorship section of the USANA Health Sciences article. Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#Sponsorships to review these changes. As mentioned above, the web site has been deemed worthy in this case as a reliable source for the Athlete Guarantee portion of the update. If there are no further issues, I can make the changes to USANA's article, or another editor (Leef5, for example) could make the actual change if the community would feel more comfortable. --Boydbastian (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I glanced at the sandbox version and thought it read more like a legal document that an encyclopedia entry. But it's hard to see exactly what's been changed without a diff edit. Also, probably best to avoid nominating any particular individual to edit on your behalf; that makes me decidedly uncomfortable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to see a diff proposal as well. And I agree, we don't nominate other members to do edits - just post your proposals here and someone will typically get to it. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 20:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've made adjustments to my previous proposal. The language has been simplified and should flow a little better for our readers. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#Sponsorships for the proposed changes to the Sponsorship section for the USANA article. Of note, I have updated the specifics on the Athlete Guarantee Program, the WTA tour is properly named now (no longer named Sony Ericsson) and I've included an update to the sponsorship and naming rights agreement between the company and United Concerts / USANA Amphitheatre. All changes include updated citations.--Boydbastian (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Diff edit? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're asking -- the version in my sandbox under the sponsorship section is updated from the previous that I put out for consideration. It's shorter, simplified and states the nature of the athlete guarantee in language closer to what's on the current USANA Health Sciences entry. --Boydbastian (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Diff edit? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've made adjustments to my previous proposal. The language has been simplified and should flow a little better for our readers. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#Sponsorships for the proposed changes to the Sponsorship section for the USANA article. Of note, I have updated the specifics on the Athlete Guarantee Program, the WTA tour is properly named now (no longer named Sony Ericsson) and I've included an update to the sponsorship and naming rights agreement between the company and United Concerts / USANA Amphitheatre. All changes include updated citations.--Boydbastian (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to see a diff proposal as well. And I agree, we don't nominate other members to do edits - just post your proposals here and someone will typically get to it. Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 20:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I glanced at the sandbox version and thought it read more like a legal document that an encyclopedia entry. But it's hard to see exactly what's been changed without a diff edit. Also, probably best to avoid nominating any particular individual to edit on your behalf; that makes me decidedly uncomfortable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to revisit this topic - the necessary changes to USANA's web site have been made to support the language proposed in my sandbox for the update to the Sponsorship section of the USANA Health Sciences article. Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boydbastian/sandbox#Sponsorships to review these changes. As mentioned above, the web site has been deemed worthy in this case as a reliable source for the Athlete Guarantee portion of the update. If there are no further issues, I can make the changes to USANA's article, or another editor (Leef5, for example) could make the actual change if the community would feel more comfortable. --Boydbastian (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
This template documentation gives you an example of how to post a "diff". Template:Diff Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 15:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Here is a link for a comparison of the text that was previously submitted and where it stands now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABoydbastian%2Fsandbox&diff=513731748&oldid=511231130 --Boydbastian (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, but the diff edit isn't based on the current version of the article. Could you try that again please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the Diff between current USANA Health Sciences and Boyd Bastian sandbox (please only review Sponsorship section) --Boydbastian (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can't make head or tails out of that edit. Could you please do one more time focusing just on the section we've been discussing. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I removed all the content from my sandbox and replaced it with the current sponsorship section information from the USANA Health Sciences article. I then replaced that with the proposed changes to that section. You can review the changes and differences between the two at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABoydbastian%2Fsandbox&diff=518336314&oldid=518336166 --Boydbastian (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The details on the guarantee program seem OK to me, except the grammar in one of the lines is a bit off; i.e.:
- I removed all the content from my sandbox and replaced it with the current sponsorship section information from the USANA Health Sciences article. I then replaced that with the proposed changes to that section. You can review the changes and differences between the two at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABoydbastian%2Fsandbox&diff=518336314&oldid=518336166 --Boydbastian (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can't make head or tails out of that edit. Could you please do one more time focusing just on the section we've been discussing. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the Diff between current USANA Health Sciences and Boyd Bastian sandbox (please only review Sponsorship section) --Boydbastian (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, but the diff edit isn't based on the current version of the article. Could you try that again please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- "The program permits participants and the company to enter into an agreement which stipulates that, should an athlete enrolled in the program test positive for a banned substance included in World Anti-Doping Agency regulations as a result of taking USANA products, USANA will compensate the athlete up to two times his or her current annual earnings up to $1 million."
- I suggest the following instead:
- "The program permits selected participants to enter into an agreement with company stipulating that, should an athlete enrolled in the program test positive for a banned substance (included in World Anti-Doping Agency regulations) as a result of taking USANA products, the company will compensate the athlete up to two times his or her current annual earnings up to $1 million."
- Also, I'm not sure if news about sponsorship contract extension details is relevant. Seems to be a bit "newsy" to me. A few tweaks could help there IMO, but it's not too far off. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Edits look good to me, and RIR's grammar suggestion is more clear. The details on the ace out hunger is fine, but I would use a secondary source rather than the charity. I found a couple after a cursory search: http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/5826 , http://www.wtatennis.com/page/OffCourtNews/Read/0,,12781~2381917,00.html Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 17:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you for the suggestions and links. I've implemented the changes to my sandbox -- you can see them here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABoydbastian%2Fsandbox&diff=519966985&oldid=518336314. At this point, as mentioned above, I will wait for another member of the community to actually implement these changes on the official USANA entry. Thanks again. --Boydbastian (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Edits look good to me, and RIR's grammar suggestion is more clear. The details on the ace out hunger is fine, but I would use a secondary source rather than the charity. I found a couple after a cursory search: http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/5826 , http://www.wtatennis.com/page/OffCourtNews/Read/0,,12781~2381917,00.html Leef5 TALK | CONTRIBS 17:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not sure if news about sponsorship contract extension details is relevant. Seems to be a bit "newsy" to me. A few tweaks could help there IMO, but it's not too far off. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
FBI Investigation
The article cited states: "When the institute's [Minkow's] report came out, all hell broke loose. The Wall Street Journal began doing Usana stories based on Minkow's study. Later, Forbes.com picked up the story. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched its inquiry. The FBI is said to be investigating, but Usana says it doesn't know of any such probe. It has asked law enforcement officials to investigate Minkow." We now know, almost six year later, why USANA was oblivious to any FBI investigation – Minkow lied about it. No FBI investigation was even initiated, and no evidence exists anywhere of any such investigation. In fact, The Wall Street Journal later reported that the FBI "deferred to the SEC" and it's investigation. They cited Minkow as their source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwave (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- You made the same change back in May 2012 and it was reverted by editor Rhode Island Red. Is there a new source you'd like to cite?Jean314 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Mass Blanking
Does anyone that follows this page know why there were a number of mass section blankings/removals in June 2014? As it stands, the entry is down to two sections with no real explanation. I'd prefer revert changes but thought I'd check with the community first. --Boydbastian (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Seems likely that it was just an act of vandalism. I've put them back in. Jean314 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Usana Health Sciences/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| When I divided total revenue by the number of associates, the results gave me pause. Associates must purchase at least 100 a month to be classified as having a business. Admittedly, many buy much more than the minimum because for sale or personal use. However, 5 digit purchases as the median? Something is not right mathematically. I would investigate more. |
Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)