Talk:Usana Health Sciences/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Comment request: RS for factual, non-controversial information about company articles

This article seems to be at an impasse between Rhode Island Red's interpretation of several WP policies and my proposed content changes that are supported by another editor, Insider201283. Namely RIR has referenced WP:RS, WP:3PARTY, WP:IS, WP:QS and feels that even after an article has established notability through 3rd party references, no other content should be added to an article, even if its non-controversial content sourced from 1st or 2nd party sources. This is in contrast to what is detailed in WP:Notability in the section: Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. The article currently suffers from WP:Undue Weight of criticisms about the company. The suggested changes are to add some factual data about the company to bring due weight to this article about the company instead of an article primarily about criticisms of the company.

I would like to get some more sets of experienced eyes on this discussion to bring more points of view, as there are only 1-2 other semi-active editors participating in the debate. Looking forward to your input. Leef5 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a good thing to request additional input but do us all a favor and state your own opinions rather than trying to refactor mine. Your paraphrasing does not accurately represent what I've written so far. I'll say it again; speak for yourself, not for me. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking a break from the near-daily back-and-forth banter between Rhode Island Red, myself, and Icerat on this article. I'm hoping to see some feedback, comments, and/or participation from unbiased editors on the multitude of sections here on this talk page. I'm afraid progress remains stalled to fix the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues until outside comments render some direction on applicability of various WP policies that are being used to prevent progress. Leef5 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Management Changes in USANA Health Sciences

USANA has accepted the resignations of four members of our management team: Fred Cooper, Jeff Yates, Mark Wilson, and Riley Timmer.

Dave Wentz and Dr. Wentz are pleased to announce the following promotions within USANA's management team: • Kevin Guest, President of North America • Deborah Woo, President of Asia Pacific • Doug Hekking, Chief Financial Officer • Roy Truett, Chief Operating Officer

A press release regarding the management changes went out Monday May 9, 2011. Please feel free to update our page accordingly. Thank you!Mallory Moger 15:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalloryMoger21 (talk • contribs)

Updated Infobox. Make sure to use four tildes ~~~~ after your talk posts so it will sign your name for you. Thank you. Leef5 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nutritional Hybrid Technology

Saw mention of this new manufacturing technology Usana is employing previously in just a press release. Now, I see its been covered by NYSE Magazine.

Press release (Cite 1):

"Innovative Nutritional Hybrid Technology Introduced At USANA International Convention" (Press release). Business Wire. 26 August 2010. Retrieved 1 June 2011.

NYSE Magazine (Cite 2):

Adam Risman. "USANA Health Sciences' Vitamin Efficiency". NYSE Magazine. Retrieved 1 June 2011.

Suggested text: "In August, 2010, USANA announced its ability to manufacture nutritional tablets with two distinct formulas into one bilayered tablet as well as the release of two new formulas, Proflavanol C¹⁰⁰ and Hepasil DTX. (Cite 1) This technology, dubbed Nutritional Hybrid Technology, will allow for the creation of new supplements and cut down on consumer pill fatigue, as well as the opportunity for sustain-and-release tablets. (Cite 2)"

I would appreciate any comments or better wording opportunities.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The portion, "as well as the opportunity for sustain-and-release tablets" was reverted today here with the edit summary: "edited in keeping with quoted source; also it was not directly stated that the technology could be used to make sustained release formulations". The article text states:

Expressing confidence that Nutritional Hybrid Technology will allow for the creation of new supplements and cut down on consumer pill fatigue, Brown further notes that one of its greatest benefits still looms over the horizon. “R&D is looking at the opportunity for sustain-and-release tablets, where certain ingredients are digested quicker than others,” he says. “Potentially we can use this to make a long-term release method offering more stable dosage.”

How was it not directly stated that the technology could be used to make sustained release formulations? The transition "Brown further notes...." makes it clear he is still talking about this manufacturing technology.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It’s an issue of inaccurate refactoring. The text you added[1] said: “…Nutritional Hybrid Technology, will allow for the creation of new supplements and cut down on consumer pill fatigue, as well as the opportunity for sustain-and-release tablets.”

What the source (USANA) actually said is: “R&D is looking at the opportunity for sustain-and-release tablets.”[2]

That doesn’t mean that the technology “will…allow for the opportunity for sustain-and-release”, it merely says they are looking into the possibility that it might. The technology may turn out to be completely useless in that regard and R&D may never actually use it to develop sustain-and-release formulations. I'm sure R&D is "looking into" lots of things, but they don't become encyclopedic until they get beyond the "looking into" stage. Furthermore, the company press release about this technology mentions nothing at all about sustain-and-release tablets. There’s no point bending over backwards to mention sustain-and-release tablets it in the article when there's no hard fact to back up the point. I actually find the whole section about this "technology" to be far to too trivial for inclusion, but I didn't push the issue when it was initially added. No reliable sources have commented on the value or originality of this technology; all we have is just a press release and a quote from a company spokesman. USANA's methods of pill pressing seem incredibly mundane for an encyclopedia, particularly given that no other sources have commented on its merits or novelty. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph deals with information from the press release, and the second sentence is the interview from the 2nd party RS, so I'm unclear how "no other sources have commented on its merits or novelty." A simple search on Google for bilayer tablets shows a great deal of info on the subject, including the information about sustained release formulations using the tech. If there is a better way to rephrase the text, I am open to listen as I had requested initially. However, excluding the sustain-and-release phrase that is quoted in a RS and is apparently inherent in bilayerd tableting, on the basis of inaccurate refactoring is incorrect. If there is an issue with wordsmithing, then a revert was not necessary, merely a edit with language you felt more clearly represented the RS.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I will go ahead and restore the sourced text since it has been a couple of weeks without rebuttal. If we need some wordsmithing to alleviate concerns of 'refactoring', please recommend changes.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Stock price information

Starting new talk discussion based on WP:BRD of the text in question: Stock price information

There are 3 issues I mentioned in my edit summary - and 1 additional one as well.

1. Stock price information like this is unencyclopedic. Articles would be filled to the brim if we included everytime there was a significant increase or decrease in stock price.
2. This is WP:NOTNEWS - this is appropriate for Wikinews, not Wikipedia.
3. It's a POV edit, because no efforts have been made in the article to notate any positive increases in stock prices after a press release, or sales figures release/SEC filing, etc. I'd be the first to revert that stuff too, because it could be construed as promotional and is also NOTNEWS.
4. This text isn't even mentioned in the cited source. I didn't bother including that in my edit summary, because the first 3 issues make this irrelevant anyway.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not simply an isolated reference to stock price information. It is a newspaper article that in its title ("Stock of Utah’s Usana dips as 4 execs depart") and body text draws an associaition between the resignation of USANA's executives and a precipitous drop in the stock price.[3]. The article's opening paragrpah states this clearly: "Usana Health Sciences did not have noncompete agreements with four executives who the company announced Tuesday were departing for an unspecified business opportunity, the exit sending the company’s shares down by the largest percentage among decliners on the New York Stock Exchange." The text in the WP article mirrors this: "The resignations sent the company’s share price downward by the largest daily percentage (17%) among decliners on the New York Stock Exchange." Your argument does not hold water. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I missed the text up top there, I was looking in the area where it mentioned that it was as much as 17% drop. However, this answers only point 4, which is irrelevant from the other 3 points. Please respond to each point so discussion can continue rather than a general "your argument does not hold water". Which argument(s)? Specifics allow us to continue debating the subject.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I get it. You launched that tirade without reading the title or the opening paragraph; that explains a lot. As for the rest of the arguments: (1) You have shown no reason to back up the assertion that this information is not encyclopedic. (2) WP:NOTNEWS states: "Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not...(journalism....news reports, etc)"; the WP article on USANA is none of those things. NOTNEWS also states "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" -- this report is not treated differently form other information. If you are trying to argue that newspaper articles aren't suitable sources to be cited in a WP article, then you are simply wrong. (3) It's clearly not a POV edit. It's a quote based on a reliable source on a very significant event in the company's history (the simultaneous resignation of 4 senior executives, which precipitated a major drop in the stock price). This seems like a pointless debate, but if you want to get further input, post a request on one of the noticebaords and see how far it goes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, story was also covered by Forbes.[4] This will be added as well as the SLT article now cited. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Stock price information

The sourcing, while a bit spotty, exists. NPOV doesn't mean that all negative information must be balanced by positive information...if the news about a company is primarily negative, the article is going to be negative, and that appears to be the case here. So I think the main issue is [WP:NOTNEWS], and as with most NOTNEWS issues, time is going to tell. I think, as of now, this is an isolated event that fails NOTNEWS. If it turns out later that the stock price never recovers, or that these executives leaving is the beginning of a precipitous decline for the company, then this incident should be cited as the beginning of the end. But for now, it should be omitted per NOTNEWS. Bobby Tables (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving a third op. I don't think the issue here is whether or not the stock wil recover from the drop. The salient point is that the resignations, which were big news, led to a significant event in the stock's history (a large 17% drop that led the NYSE for decliners that day). That is a stand alone event. Other factors may come into play that lead the stock price to climb back or drop even further, but that doesn't have any direct impact on the drop that took place due to the resignation of the 4 top executives. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the news is significant. What I'm saying is that it's too soon to say that it is significant in a way that merits inclusion in the article. My interpretation of [WP:NOTNEWS] is that current/recent events should only be included when the historical significance of the event is immediately clear. The departure of four executives might meet that threshold...it certainly would in a large company, or if the executives were [WP:N|notable] in their own right, or if their new business venture were a big deal. The effect on the stock price does not meet qualify except in very rare cases (Enron). It may turn out later that the drop in stock price was significant, but until that happens, I don't think it should be included. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3O. Your further explanation of NOTNEWS helps to clarify the issue at hand. Currently the recent drop in stock price is NOTNEWS, however if this event turns out to be the start of a chain of events for Usana, then this now becomes encyclopedic.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth the older rough guidelines for companies articles [5] as well as the newer version I've been working on recommend long term stock histories should be included. So the price could/should be included in a table/chart, but as per Bobby Tables comments any commentary on particular changes should probably get past WP:NOTNEWS first.--Icerat (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Started to reply here, but going to post regarding questions on long term stock histories on the project page since that would be the appropriate scope.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 02:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic of invoking NOT:NEWS in reagrd to the impact of the resignations on the stock price. Reliable published sources have referred to their shares "skidding", "tumbling", and "dropping dramatically" and referred to this event as a "bombshell" (in 2 cases, these terms were actually in the article's titles).[6][7][8] The resignations were announced on March 10 and on March 11 the shares tumbled (by over 16%). The sources not that the stock reached a 52-week low as a result. Whether or not the stock recovers has no bearing on the factual nature of this event (any recovery in would not be related to the resignations). This is not an emerging or developing story; the story is complete. The only it would change would be if they rolled back the clock and the 4 executives unresigned. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell (likely in the 1-2 year range) whether or not the stock price drop is encyclopedic news. The resignations themselves are borderline NOTNEWS, but I'd recommend to keep this in since it was 4 execs at once, rather than 1-2 people.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How will time tell? The story is already written and concluded. The execs resigned and it precipitated a large stock drop. It's done -- that story is over. If the stock were to go back up or decline further in the future, it wouldn't have any bearing on the resignations or their impact. Like I said, do you expect the executives to unresign? That's the only way this story can have further chapters. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The 3O wasn't about the executives - that should remain for now since it was 4 execs at once - Whether the resignations is encyclopedic could be debatable, but I don't see anyone arguing that it should be removed. The resultant stock price is what it will take time to tell whether or not this is the tip of the iceberg of further bad news and an encyclopedic stock price trend that is noteworthy of inclusion.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 11:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Future events have no bearing on the fact that mutiple sources higlighted the stock's one-day drop in price as a direct consequence of the resignation announcements. Obviously, the price drop was notable and the terms used to describe it ("skidding", "tumbling", "dropping dramatically", "bombshell") were in way equivocal. If we can't make any headway on this issue here, let's post this to one of the noticeboards for more input. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We did make headway, via the 3O, to reach consensus on an issue that the two of us were at a standstill with-this is the purpose of 3O. It is quite common for news articles to use sensational descriptions. Bobby Tables laid this out quite clearly: "If it turns out later that the stock price never recovers, or that these executives leaving is the beginning of a precipitous decline for the company, then this incident should be cited as the beginning of the end. But for now, it should be omitted per NOTNEWS."  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A second opinion does not constitute a consensus, and since I disagree with it, for reasons that I believe are quite valid and clearly laid out, I intend to open the subject up to a broader discussion so that a true consensus can be reached. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that information from reputable news sources can be omitted because claims of sensationalism while at the same time we allow information from press releases and company web-sites to be included. I think the resignations and the resulting effects are notable and should remain. Provided we use appropriate wording that is.Jean314 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the 3O program is not being upheld because this independent editor's opinion didn't match yours. However, you have the right to bypass the 3O and open the subject up to a broader discussion. In the mean time, please refrain from edit warring - this edit, per WP:BRD is under discussion. Jean's comment as the resident SPA giving his opinion that he agrees with yours does not a consensus make. I will be reverting the text while you work on getting a broader discussion on your argument that the disputed text passes NOTNEWS.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You deleted reliably sourced content after Jean had weighed in on the issue. We have 4 opinions on this matter, 2 that believe it's NOTNEWS and 2 that don't. There is no consensus, and the onus is on you to achieve such consensus before deleting RS material from the article. Kindly follow your own advice and "don't edit war". Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please reread WP:BRD - You made a bold edit (the "B") here and included the entire text of resignations and stock prices. I reverted (the "R") here the stock prices on the basis of NOTNEWS. Now comes the "D" and it is time to discuss. Unfortunately, you "R"'d again here before discussion (this is not BRRD). Rather than edit war, I started the discussion on the talk page and we came to an impasse, so I asked for a 3O. The independent 3O upheld the argument that this is NOTNEWS. The burden of proof does not lie with me, it lies with you as the editor whose opinion differs from the independent 3O. Just because text has a supporting RS does not mean that text passes NOTNEWS. As we all know, WP articles must be encyclopedic. You already said you were going to bring to a larger discussion, but instead of doing that you have used a SPA's opinion as a basis to continue to edit war. I will leave it to you to recognize the edit war error and revert your own revert until you have established the stock price drop passes NOTNEWS. Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

At this moment I would appreciate an explanation of my "declared bias." I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying here.Jean314 (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What I added to the article originally was the far from being a "BOLD edit". It was an addition of reliably sourced, very accurately paraphrased content from 2 reliable indepedent sources. If someone (in this case Leaf) seeks to remove reliably sourced accurately paraphrased content, then the onus is on them to prove why it should be deleted and to establish a clear consensus for the removal. WP:BRD quoted above says specifically that input from "Most Interested Persons" should be sought. Jean qualifies in that regard, and Jean did not support removal of the content nor feel that there was a problem with NOTNEWS. In other words, there is no consensus for deletion. One 3O does not override the opinions of other editors nor constitute a consensus. Invoking NOTNEWS in the manner in which it has been applied here seems ridiculous. The resignations caused a significant one-day stock drop (led the NYSE that day) and that detail was a prominent feature of both the cited sources. Future events (potential fluctuations in stock price) have no bearing on the event that was reported (the NYSE-leading one-day stock pric drop immediately following the resignations), and to argue otherwise is absurd. The same faulty logic about NOTNEWS being invoked here could be applied as basis for deleting content from virtually any article entry based on a news source (i.e. don't include that because a contradictory news story might come out in the future). I think this argument is disingenuous. The goal seems to be to make sure that the drop in stock price isn't mentioned because it's not flattering; not becuase it isn't encyclopedia-worthy. Again, if someone wants to invoke NOTENEWS to delete this content, then they need to have a clear consensus to do so. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, WP:TE couldn't be any clearer on this issue:

"There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 June 2011

A few things - (1) the stock drop, while mentioned, was not "a prominent feature" of the sources, indeed neither of them support the statement as written, which implies that the stocks dropped 17% and that was the largest. The stock recovered later in the day according to one of the sources, and was down 12.4% overall, and I assume that made it the leading decliner. If the drop is going to be mentioned, so should the recovery (2) There's going to be some 250+ different companies every year being the "leading decliner" on one day or another, and that's just for one exchange. Throw in all the rest and we're talking, what, 1000+ companies every year being a "leading decliner" on one day or another? In that perspective it really is WP:NOTNEWS (3) It's also trivially unimportant. It's not only not worth mentioning, it's not worth fighting about either! (and that goes for both sides)--Icerat (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the veracity of arguments over trivial matters continues to give me pause. Unfortunately, when both 'sides' feel they are right, conflict will result. And unless all involved do better with WP:AGF, consensus making tends to grind to a halt. The best way to reduce conflict on this article is for more participation by outside, uninvolved parties. I wish I knew a way to make that happen.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Next step after Third Opinion is Request for comment...I've never done one of those, but they're designed for multi-person discussion so I think they attract more eyes. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(Quoting Icerat) “A few things - (1) the stock drop, while mentioned, was not ‘a prominent feature’ of the sources.”

An amazingly false allegation.

Source 1 – Title: "Stock of Utah’s Usana dips as 4 execs depart"[9]

Source 2 – Title: "Usana Health Services COO, CFO resign, shares skid”[10]

When the stock drop is referred to directly in the titles of both articles, then arguing that the stock drop “was not a prominent feature of the sources” seems like a particularly stunning example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Furthermore (not that anything more needs to be said about this issue, but anyhow…) the opening paragraph of one of the articles refers directly to the stock drop:

“Usana Health Sciences did not have noncompete agreements with four executives who the company announced Tuesday were departing for an unspecified business opportunity, the exit sending the company’s shares down by the largest percentage among decliners on the New York Stock Exchange.”[11]

The Forbe’s article also directly refers to the stock drop, and given that it was a fairly brief article, it is more than fair to say that the detail was referred to “prominently”:

“Shares of Usana dropped $6.20, or 16.4 percent, to $31.51 in midday trading after falling to a 52-week low of $30.60 earlier in the session.”[12]

I won’t bother addressing Icerat’s points #2 and #3 because they are pure supposition (i.e. “not news”, “trivial” etc). Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the stock drop wasn't a prominent feature of those articles, it is that the stock price portion is unencyclopedic and NOTNEWS. And that isn't a supposition as suggested from Icerat's #2 point, that is the very definition of WP's NOTNEWS policy. RIR, you may want to reread WP:IDHT yourself, as now 3 editors have said this is NOTNEWS and you apparently don't like that answer.

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

 Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 11:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Leef5 I would still appreciate some clarification on my "declared bias" when you have a moment.Jean314 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal of the stock price information pending further discussion, as there seems to be no consensus to include it. One purpose of the newspaper's business pages is to report day-to-day stock price movements, so it would be remiss not to include it as a major part of its article. On the contrary, short term movements are not part of an encyclopedia's purpose: there needs to be some special reason over and above both the existence of reliable sources and prominence in newspaper articles. Until we have consensus on such a special reason, I suggest we leave it out, and avoid accusing those who removed it of tendentious editing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

An NYSE-leading daily drop in stock price would not be noteworthy on its own. However, that's not the case here. The key part of the story here is that 4 top executives announced their resignations on the same day. That's a highly unusual event. The inordinately drop in stock price was a direct conseuence of those resignations. It would be remiss to not report that consequence of the resignations, particulalry given that it was such a prominent feature of these multiple reports. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I did not accuse anyone of TE as I recall. I merely quoted what WP:TE says about not needing permission to add reliably sourced content to an article. It's an important aspect of fundamental WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(quoting Leaf) "The issue isn't that the stock drop wasn't a prominent feature of those articles"

But that was in fact one of the central arguments raised by Icerat, remember? (Icerat said the stock drop "was not a prominent feature of the sources”). I'll take it that you too consider that assertion to be false. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree it was a prominent feature of the source. Unsure if that's really what Icerat meant to say or not, he can address that.

Can we close this one out yet after having another uninvolved editor say this is unencyclopedic?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the stock drop as not being prominent, I was referring to the "biggest daily loser" in stocks part. It wasn't prominent, and given there are dozens of such "biggest daily losers" every single day (one for each stock exchange) - then it's simply WP:NOTNEWS. If you're instead arguing that the change in price is what was prominent (ie it was in the headline) then now we're talking how many tens of thousands of occurrences of that every day? That makes it even less newsworthy. Share price reactions to changes in management/executive are normal, regular occurrences and are reported pretty much every time, no matter whether the stock goes up or down. --Icerat (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If a major drop in share price is a normal consequence of 4 executives resigning on the same day, then there is even less or a reason t not mentin it in the article. The article does not state "biggest daily loser", so that point is superfluous. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're being deliberately argumentative. The article states "largest daily percentage (17%) among decliners" which is what I clearly was referring to. As written it's also misleading, as according to the sources given the daily drop was actually 12.4%. --Icerat (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting off point here - the stock drop is NOTNEWS, and we've now had 2 independent editors drop by from a 3O and a RfC confirming this. What else is there to talk about?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS refers to the the enduring notability of an event. I don't see how you could possibly argue that a USANA press release about pill pressing technology makes that event notable while an NYSE-leading daily stock drop brought about by the simultaneous resignation of 4 executives (which was emphasized by multiple independent RS) is not. We've had a couple of additional opinions and these were followed by rebuttals. The gist of the argument against inclusion is one of temporal stability/enduring notability of the event. I pointed out that this event is temporally stable and will not be altered by future events. This is not an ongoing story; it's a concluded story. The execs quit and the stock dropped dramatically that day as a result, and that's all there is to this story. No consensus for removal has been established yet. Arguing that this event is non-notable sets an unduly high bar for notability, which if applied to the entire article would necessiatet the deletion of quite a bit of content that you added (for example, the pill pressing technology, etc.). Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Re "Now you're being deliberately argumentative."[13] Hardly! When one puts quotation marks around text,[14] it implies that it's a direct quote. No one said ""biggest daily loser" so to provide this as a quote is clearly misleading. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Each time an editor has agreed that this is NOTNEWS and unencyclopedic, your response has been to restate your enduring notability argument again as a rebuttal. I have to assume that the other editors read your prior arguments before responding, so that argument has already been taken into consideration. Restating the same argument over again is back into WP:IDHT territory. Only time will tell whether or not the stock drop is enduring and whether that price drop ends up being a significant, encyclopedic event in the company history. Nobody has said the event is "non-notable" as you claim above, its unencyclopedic and NOTNEWS, there is a significant difference. Threatening to remove other content on the basis that you have lost this argument is disruptive to the Wikipedia consensus process.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In a discussion such as this there really is no place for assumptions about what other editors might think. There is no conceivable future event that can undo the NYSE-leading daily stock drop that was reported. That's the crux of the matter. If the stock goes back up (which it still hasn't a month later; in fact it's declined further) then that would have no bearing on what was reported. I'm still trying to envision how you see this playing out in a way that would alter what was originally reported. Are you anticipating something like "The resignations sent the company’s share price downward by the largest daily percentage (17%) among decliners on the New York Stock Exchange...but the stock went back up for unrelated reasons 2 months later"? And there's no reason for false accusations and melodrama; no one threatened to remove anything from the article. But if you try to apply your NOTNEWS argument in this instance, then you should also apply it to other content. If you disagree with that, then there's a non-NPOV issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

For you to assume the 2 independent editors who agreed this information is unencyclopedic did not read your prior arguments about this "enduring notability" before they responded is not WP:AGF.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I explained my position in considerable detail subsequent to the comments of those two editors. You assumed that, somehow, their prior comments constiute a preemptive rebuttal of my later comments. Leave WP:AGF out of it and comment on content; not other editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I re-read the entire discussion here again with a fresh pair of eyes on Monday morning. I'm not finding where you explained your position in considerable detail subsequent to the 2 independent comments. What I see is a rewording of the same argument, essentially that you feel the stock price is an enduring event. You referred to it as a "stand alone event" in response to Bobby Tables, in which he replied. Since his response, you referred to your position multiple times with statements such as: "This is not an emerging or developing story; the story is complete", "The story is already written and concluded", "Future events have no bearing on the fact" all before Hroðulf weighed in from the RfC. Your responses since then have been a retelling of this same argument a la WP:IDHT. Even though you aren't satisfied with the answer to your argument, the fact remains that the outside parties have agreed this is unencyclopedic information. If it turns out the resignations are the start of a downward trend of events for the company, then this info becomes encycopedic and we can expand that most likely into its own section at that point.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 13:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think its a nonsensical position to maintain that the enduring notability of this particular event is somehow contingent on an as yet unspecified future event that may or may not happen. Whether or not there is future downward (or upward) stock movement would have no bearing on the notability of the initial event that was reported. If the stock goes back up sometime in the future, how would that impact the story? Would it undo the fact that the stock was among the top decliners on the NYSE the day the 4 exec resignations were announced (May 10)? Do you anticipate that the executives are going to unresign? I'm very curious as to what event you are waiting for. The fact is that the stock has continued to decline in the month that followed the resignations. On May 9, the day before the resignations were announced, the stock was at $37.71; on June 10, it closed at $26.98. So that initial 12% drop that led the NYSE on the day of the resignations has since been extended to a 28.4% drop. But even if it goes down further (or if it goes back up), it would have no bearing on the initial report because the subsequent price fluctuation could be due to many factors unrelated to the resignations. No one is arguing that the resignations aren't notable, and the reports of those resignations were intimately tied to the reporting of the stock drop. It would be odd, to say the least, to report the resignations but maintain that the rest of the story shouldn't be mentioned because it might be changed by future events. Like I said before, that would set a very unusual precedent and it could create problems if applied evenly across the board to all content in the article. As an exmaple, I mentioned the pill pressing technology content that was added to the article recently. Applying your argument to that content would lead to something like "how do we know that this will be relevant in 2 months...maybe they'll stop using that technology...let's just wait and see what happens before adding the content and assuming that it has enduring notbaility." I'm not guilty of WP:IDHT here; I'm simply engaging in the WP:BRD cycle that you recommended we follow. I'm trying to probe deeper into this issue to get clarification on why you think this event does not have enduring notability and so far, I haven't seen you add anything new to your argument. You're just repeating, essentially, "it's not encyclopedic...let's wait and see what happens to the stock price". That argument seems invalid for the reasons stated above. Again, I ask, what future event do you anticipate would solidify the enduring notability of the NYSE-leading daily stock drop that took place (and was widely reported by RS) immediately after the resignations? I can't conceive of such an event. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally haven't added anything because there isn't anything else to say. We've had 3 other editors weigh in and agree with the unencyclopedic position (2 of them totally uninvolved in this article). Just re-read Bobby Tales original response - I believe his comments summed it up best. I'm unclear why you keep bringing up "unresigning" - we aren't talking about the resignations, we are talking about the stock price. To give more information, here are a couple examples, one from Usana and one from a major company, HP:

1. UPDATE 1-SEC ends Usana probe with no action; shares up - Does that article have "enduring notability"? Sure. Is the stock price increase of 40% encyclopedic? Nope.
2. HP Shares Tumble Following Hurd Resignation. The resignation of Hurd itself was significant, and is included in the WP article appropriately. Where is the mention of the $9 billion in market cap vanishing when the stock price hit a 52-week low? Nowhere; It's NOTNEWS.

Stocks go up and down on every type of "news", whether that is earnings, analyst ratings, acquisitions, and yes, resignations of execs. WP isn't the place to host all of that data - leave that to investor analysis sites.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, you chose to avoid answering my direct question; i.e., “what future event do you anticipate would solidify the enduring notability of the NYSE-leading daily stock drop that took place (and was widely reported by RS) immediately after the resignations?” On that basis, I’ll assume you don’t have a reasonable answer. Your argument so far does not hold water. There are numerous examples in WP of articles in which stock drops are specifically mentioned (I gave up counting after the first eleven examples).[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. It was you who implored us to follow WP:BRD. BRD emphasizes the involvement of “the Most Interested Persons” in ongoing discussion. That includes you, me, Icerat, and Jean; and we’re at an impasse. I don’t see that your argument has advanced one iota beyond restating that the stock drop is “unencyclopedic” – which, judging by the examples I provided from this encyclopedia, is untrue. If you agree that the resignations reported are notable, then there is no reason to not include the stock drop, as that was the main thrust of the articles that reported on the resignations. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've answered this direct question several times: read Bobby Tales response. His suggestion that a future news report in which they connect the dots to show that the resignations and resultant stock drop was the start of a series of negative events for the company would then make the information encyclopedic. I would agree we are at an impasse with the involved editors. Clearly WP:Other stuff exists on both sides for inclusion and non-inclusion of stock price movement after a news event. I think this issue goes beyond the scope of this article as now this has broadened to this more general issue specifically about stock price movement. I'll bring this up for discussion on the appropriate WP project area as well as the content noticeboard for more comments. Although this debate could have been a lot more civil, it was still worth having for sake of coming down to the core issue: "Is stock price movement after a news event encyclopedic?"  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the 11 articles uncovered by searching for “stock drop”, there were numerous hits for “share(s) drop”.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Clearly, there should be no lingering illusions that a stock price drop should be considered non-encyclopedic by default, and especially not in this case where the stock drop is tied directly to a specific major event (an unusual simultaneous resignation of 4 executives in one day), described in a finite and quantifiable manner (i.e., 12% drop; among the top decliners on the NYSE on the day of the announcement), and featured prominently by the sources that covered the story. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

After opening up discussion in a broader spectrum over at the Content Noticeboard - (Archived discussion here), the majority of the opinions that stock price movement is generally not of long term interest. (Very similar to the original 3O comment). I'm not seeing support to keep the stock price news in business articles, including this one. Heck, there was an article recently in the WSJ on how Usana stock jumped 15% after news of its 2nd quarter results. This stock price jump follows the same pattern as the negative news event, and yet this is also unencyclopedic. If it turns out these resignations and subsequent price drop are the start of a series of long-term catastrophic/notable events for the company, then we should see articles published in RS about that as events unfold. I will edit the article to remove the unencyclopedic information based on the community consensus of requiring long-term support.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead updates

After making an update in the lead today about where the products are manufactured, it occurred to me that its worth reviewing the 2 statements that we have talked about previously as problem issues in the lead, but haven't made any changes to them. Currently, the two sentences are:

1. The company has sponsored and provided products to several athletic organizations.
2. In 2007, several of USANAs executives were discovered to have made false statements in their resumes.

I thought it would be worth it to re-read WP:LEAD, in particular this snippet from the intro:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

This got me thinking about these 2 sentences for different reasons. The sponsorship info I think is non-necessary in the lead. Although sponsorships are significant in business, pulling that out to summarize in the lead doesn't seem to make much sense. I remember several editors here agreed to that fact prior, but this was kept in to "balance" the sentence about the resumes.

The prominent controversy in Usana's case is really the 2007 firestorm that came about from Minkow's report. The bulk of the 500-page report was to try and prove Usana was an illegal pyramid, and the resume issues were minor in comparison in support of the overall report. I don't believe the resumes were the "prominent" controversy here. The controversy was really focused on trying to prove Usana was operating illegally as a pyramid scheme.

My thoughts is the sponsorship sentence needs to be replaced with summarized info about the company, and the resume piece should be replaced with a carefully-worded replacement of Minkow accusing them of being a pyramid, summary of Usana's response, and summary of outcome. Since this will likely take 2-3 sentences to do, we're going to need other (non-controversial) info in the lead to maintain WP:DUE and its importance to the topic.

I'll likely tackle this in the next week - would appreciate any feedback as well.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is my shot at trying to update the lead to better reflect the summary of the article as well as the prominent controversy in the article (pyramid scheme allegations). Diff is here. I realize this article has a lot of debate amongst editors, so please chime in with any other suggestions for improving the lead.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, I've made a new edit that's a merge somewhere in between our two edits. My edit summary regarding "POV", is because you left the lead leading readers to believe the company is currently under review as a pyramid scheme. I'm fine with debating the wording, but the overarching theme is:

1. Minkow files 500-page report
2. As a result, company comes under great deal of scrutiny mirroring whats in the report (See flurry of RS from 2007-2008)
3. Unofficial SEC investigation ends, lawsuits end, and inquiries into pyramid scheme peter out the following year

The lead needs to be balanced and of course have due weight. I'm confident interested parties, including yourself, can hash through this to make this a better intro without readers possibly being mislead before they read the article content.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Minkow is not the only source that charterized USANA as a pyramid scheme. Secondly, you whitewashed (i.e. deeted) mention of the resume controversy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It was his report that started the chain of scrutiny, to which others echoed those statements. This And I didn't whitewash anything - this is the lead. Controversies in the lead need to be prominent, and the resume inaccuracies were most certainly not the prominent controversy from Minkow's report and subsequent scrutiny. The resume issues are covered in sufficient depth in the article text, no whitewashing has occurred. I am however, asking you to refrain from blackwashing the lead by removing the statements that made it clear that the scrutiny of being a pyramid scheme is in the past. The wording you chose made it sound like this is an ongoing issue, to which I can find no RS that would support that claim as written.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The resume controversy was prominent, and if its covered in any depth in the article (as was in fact the case), then it's significant enough to merit mention in the lead. The resume controversy led to resignations and was covered by various secondary sources, as described in the article. Pyramid scheme allegations are part of the company's history and they don't hinge on Minkow alone (e.g., Dr. Murray H. Smith is such a critic, and the SLC Tribune referred to it as a pyramid as well). The article does not say that Minkow's report was retracted, and the settlement that was reached was related to charges of stock manipulation, not defamation (and not pertinent to pyramid scheme allegations). The company also paid his legal fees as part of the settlement. Again, lay off the whitewash and don't edit war. Your contributions aren't sacrosanct so don't be suprised if/when they get revised. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The resume discrepancies was replaced by the pyramid allegations. By including both the prominent controversy (pyramid scheme) and then to keep the resume inaccuracy controversy in place, now we have a lead that is undue weight. The lead never used to mention anything about pyramid schemes. I added the part about the pyramid scheme allegations (how's that for your whitewashing claim), to replace the resume snippet in order to preserve due weight.

It is important for the sake of accuracy and to not cross into libel territory to ensure the lead about the pyramid scheme is clear that those allegations were made in 2007, first by Minkow, and then echoed by others, his report was removed/retracted, and the SEC informal investigation recommended no action be taken. I can find no other RS that makes claims about continuing to be suspected of being an illegal pyramid since the retraction. The statement you introduced: Critics of the company have argued that USANA's business model is a pyramid scheme. is libelous as it stands with no other qualifying statements. Even though BLP doesn't apply to companies, it still remains a legal issue to have a written statement stating a company is essentially operating illegally as a statement of fact. Until we hash the pyramid wording out, I'm going to suggest we revert both of our edits to the wording prior to me introducing the pyramid scheme allegation until we have consensus on wording. Edit warring is certainly not the answer.

Also to address your edit summary comment about direct sales/MLM, the wording I introduced was accurate. Direct sales refers to companies that sell their products directly to consumers without using storefronts. Network marketing (the modern term for MLM), is one method of direct sales. 2nd paragraph down from multilevel marketing states this: Some people equate MLM with direct selling, although MLM is only one type of direct selling.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 11:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Libel??? ROFL! It's a simple statement of fact; a summary of what's written in the article. Saying that "USANA is a pyramid scheme" could potentially be construed as defamatory to the company, but simply stating that other sources have alleged/argued that USANA is a pyramid scheme (a statement of fact) is not. Secondly, MLM is not universally synonymous with "direct selling". The multi level marketing article in fact explains that some sources draw such an associatiion but that "Network Marketing tends to be modern preferred term". There's no need to introduce ambiguity into the definition of USANAs MLM busines model. Besides, the article itself doesn't mention "direct selling", so there's another reason why it does not belong in the lead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's just say my expertise includes libel, and a legal team could certainly argue that the statement you proposed out of context could be construed as libel. It's not a "statement of fact" when it is taken out of context.

And I agree, MLM is not synonymous with direct selling. MLM is a subset of direct selling. Direct selling includes methods of sales that aren't from a fixed location (door-to-door, party plan, and network marketing/MLM). One only need to read the direct selling article, the multi-level marketing article, or any credible RS on the matter to know this. There is no ambiguity here - Usana is a direct sales company, and within direct sales, they use a network marketing method to distribute their product lines.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only do you seem to lack expertise regarding libel, you apparently don’t even understand the subject’s most basic aspects. Stating a fact (i.e., that several sources have argued/alleged that USANA is a pyramid scheme) cannot possibly be libelous. The first requirement of libel is that the alleged defamatory statement must be untrue. Please stop trying to intimidate with these empty and inappropriate legal threats. Secondly, WP:LEAD states “summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies”. According to the sources cited in the article, significant controversial issues surrounding USANA involve: (1) the resume controversy; (2) the pyramid scheme aspect and the low probability of earning an income as a distributor; and (2) the product’s lack of value relative to competitors. That’s what’s described in the article and that’s what’s should be (and is) reflected in the lead.

As for MLM vs “direct selling”, USANA is an MLM company. MLM is considered only by some sources to be a form of direct sales (i.e. mainly by the Direct Selling Association, which represents the interests of MLM companies who typically prefer to avoid the stigma of being referred to, albeit accurately, as “MLM companies”), but that is a somewhat controversial issue according to the article on multi level marketing . It’s completely unnecessary to step into that controversy in the lead of this article. But that aside, bear in mind that an insect may be an animal, but not all animals are insects. The primary defining feature here is the MLM aspect (i.e. analogous to insects, not animals). And once again, I’ll point out that MLM refers to the method of compensation (see multi level marketing), not the method of distribution, as your edits stated. You wrote “distributed via direct sales using a multilevel marketing distribution model” which is both inaccurate (i.e., MLM is not a method of distribution) and redundant (i.e., distributed/distribution). Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's quite humorous that you take my identification of potentially libelous information as a legal threat from me. Without including the context of the pyramid scheme allegations, it is misleading readers and implies the company is still under scrutiny for operating illegally. Let's continue this discussion in the subsection below. As for direct sales / MLM / Network marketing - the insect/animal analogy doesn't fit here. All network marketing companies are direct sales companies. Quote from multi-level marketing: "Network Marketing" and "Multi-level Marketing" are generally considered to be synonyms, and a subset of direct selling. There is no debate about that in any RS I'm aware of, nor in that WP article. Usana is a direct sales company, period. As a direct sales company, they use a network marketing compensation system. What I do agree with, is the 2nd "distribution" wording should have been something about compensation. However, that wasn't worth a revert of the entire change, that was a straightforward wordsmith change you could have made. Finally, the DSA has nothing to do with this - the WP articles and the RS they are sourced from state this, as well as state that networking marketing tends to be the modern preferred term.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to you to arbitrarily re-define the company as a "direct selling" company. It is not characterized as such in the article, and the lead should reflect what's in the article, and it's not how USANA is characterized by the majority of RS secondary sources listed in the reference section. I went through the references and found that multiple sources (including Forbes) clearly referred to USANA as an MLM company.[40][41][42][43] but not even a single source referred to the terms "direct selling", "direct sales", or network marketing. Please give up this pointless battle and edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Pyramid Allegations

The chain of events that I proposed adding to the lead were the prominent controversy that was the 2007-2008 years in Usana's history. The start of this scrutiny was Minkow's report. This report set off a chain of events and commentaries reported in RS, of which are included in this article. Usana sued, and the end result is Minkow agreed to pull his report and not trade in Usana stock again. Obviously there are lots of details to that ~18 months of scrutiny. Now, we need to figure out how to accurately summarize this into the lead without misleading readers.

My original update was this: In 2007, Barry Minkow filed a 500-page report alleging USANA was operating as an illegal pyramid scheme. USANA responded by lodging suits claiming defamation and stock manipulation. In July of 2008, USANA and Minkow reached an undisclosed settlement which included the retraction of Minkow’s report as well as restrictions from trading in USANA stock again.

Rhode Island Red had an issue with the statement having too much about Barry Minkow. I then tried to make a compromise to further summarize the events: In 2007, USANA came under heavy scrutiny after Barry Minkow filed a 500-page report alleging USANA was operating as an illegal pyramid scheme. The report was retracted in 2008 as part of an undisclosed settlement.

It is important that we get this right. How else can the wording be improved to make this even more accurate, while still maintaining a summarized statement? Perhaps adding that other critics echoed his comments? What about the SEC informal investigation outcome?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

USANA did not prevail in their defamation case -- they lost that one. For that matter, USANA did not prevail in any of their claims against Minkow because they chose to settle (and paid Minkow's legal fees). The WP article does not say that Minkow withdrew his report either; therefore, it would not be proper to state in the lead that he did. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And the settlement is what is in the proposed text, what is the issue with it? This is the wording in the WP text: USANA and Minkow reached an undisclosed settlement, which included the removal of all USANA-related materials from the Fraud Discovery Institute website, a related Chinese website, and from YouTube. Minkow also agreed to never trade in USANA's stock again. It is most certainly proper to state in the lead that he did this, as this appears to have ended this controversy period with Usana. Please stop edit warring and engage in the discussion to come to consensus. If you don't like my proposed wordings, then propose yours here for discussion on how it can be better.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as the outcome of Minkow’s case goes, that’s not relevant to the subject of pyramid scheme allegations summarized in the lead. Minkow was sued by USANA subsequent to the release of his report. The court then ruled against USANA’s claim that Minkow had defamed the company, and the court never reached a final ruling on the remaining allegation of stock manipulation because the parties settled out of court -- and notably USANA paid Minkow’s legal fees as part of the settlement (they may have paid him more than that, but as you know, the full terms of the settlement were not disclosed). The edits you proposed imply that Minkow was successfully sued for claiming that USANA was a pyramid scheme and that he then recanted his accusation as part of a court ordered ruling. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording specifically stated it was a settlement - how does that imply a court ordered ruling? We can't deny the context of the pyramid allegations - Minkow's report started the controversy, and the controversy is prominent enough in the company's history to be included in the lead. Other critics echoed his report shortly after its release, and there hasn't been anything since Minkow removed his report. For a company that has been in business for close to 20 years, the ~18 months of scrutiny that stemmed from Minkow's report is significant, but must be taken within context.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 02:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's stop dicking around here. You seem to seriously misunderstand how WP operates. You stated in your edit summary "Consensus must be reached before adding potentially libelous material to article".[44] That's utter BS. (1) You are not in a position to opine about libel (and the accusation is laughably inappropriate). (2) As per WP policy, no consensus is needed to add reliably sourced content to an article. What your comment translates to is essentially "you can't add content to the article unless you have my approval, otherwise it's OK for me to delete it and edit war (cf. WP:OWN). You'll not get far with that attitude. Please stop it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop with the incivilities. You aren't adding any RS content - this is the lead. It is a summary and thus takes a great deal of editorial judgement to ensure that it is accurate and not misleading readers. Your inputs thus far fail both of those tests. I've asked you repeatedly to collaborate to come to consensus - instead you just edit war and do what you feel is right in your own opinion. That doesn't cut it in the consensus-building process.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 11:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You can drop the charade about consensus building. There are only two of us here weighing in on this issue at this point, so your admonition to achieve consensus translates to "don't add anything unless I approve of it". You can't hold the page hostage in such a manner. Your only defense for deleting properly sourced content from the lead is that you feel it is "potentially libelous", when in fact, that is clearly not the case. Bottom line -- I don't have to seek your permission to add content and you are not the arbiter of legality. You're crossing the line on WP:OWN. If consensus buliding is your true goal, then propose compromises or seek outside opinions as opposed to arbitrarily deleting properly sourced content. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Prominent Controversies

Rhode Island Red made comments that he felt the significant controversial issues surrounding USANA involve: (1) the resume controversy; (2) the pyramid scheme aspect and the low probability of earning an income as a distributor; and (3) the product’s lack of value relative to competitors.

Based on the article text, as well as the sources that support the text, the overarching prominent controversy is the pyramid scheme allegations. The resume controversy is a rather small blip on the radar for the company, although embarrassing nonetheless I'm sure. However, since the resume controversy stemmed from Minkow's report, I think we can combine the two into the Minkow context. I disagree completely on his point #3 that the product's value is prominent enough for the lead. The lead only is to contain prominent controversies, and should not overwhelm the lead since this is a summary about the WP article, and in this case, an article about a company. I'm going to mull over how we can get this wording into the lead that will satisfy the parties involved and come to a consensus.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 02:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrarily calling resume fraud among the executives a "small blip on the radar" may be a convenient excuse for one whose livelihood depends on USANA, but it is inappropriate when it comes to building an unbiased encyclopedic article. The scandal was covered by various news sources and it led to resignations.[45][46][47][48] I see a pattern to Leef's editing here. The end game is to misleadingly attribute all controversy to Minkow and then arbitrarily dismiss it by saying that Minkow was successfully sued by USANA and had to recant his accusations against the company. That's incredibly misleading spindoctoring. The resume scandal arose because USANA executives lied about their qualifications -- period. Those lies didn't suddenly go away after USANA sued Minkow. They are still lies. And USANA's case against Minkow wasn't even successful; they lost their claim of defamation and then apparently paid Minkow's legal fees as hush money. There was no clear outcome in that case, Minkow wasn't charged with anything, and he never recanted his accusations. As far as the pyramid scheme allegations go, there was a civil suit filed in this regard by several USANA distributors, and Murray Smith, the New Zealand government's expert statistician mentioned in the article, also concluded that USANA is an apparent pyramid scheme. That's the reality that has to be dealt with. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Article protected

I've protected the article for a week to encourage two editors to work out their conflict. Simply reverting back and forth is not acceptable. If you come to a consensus before the protection expires, please contact me or put in a request at WP:RFPP. Kuru (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call Kuru. Hopefully we can get this resolved in the meantime. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you so much - this will give me time to take a breather and come at this fresh with a clearer perspective.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC Lead Wording

The last stable version of the lead was: Link to the July 14 version of a the Main Page. The version highlighted in red has been the text in the lead for the past 3 years (since 2008)

USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (NYSE: USNA), or USANA, is a Utah-based multilevel marketing company that produces various nutritional and skin-care products. 90% of these products are manufactured in-house at their Salt Lake City, Utah facility and sold in thirteen international markets via a network of independent distributors (referred to as "associates"). The company has sponsored and provided products to several athletic organizations. In 2007, several of USANAs executives were discovered to have made false statements in their resumes.

On July 14th, I proposed in the talk section about updating the wording highlighted in red above to better summarize the article, and update the controversy listed to the more prominent controversy of pyramid scheme accusations (per WP:LEAD).

After receiving no input on talk, I proceeded to update the wording in the spirit of WP:BOLD. A few hours later, the text was reverted by Rhode Island Red without any discussion in talk.

I attempted to compromise on the text, however the lead wording updates turned into a vicious debate and both myself and Rhode Island Red have complained about WP:OWN in regards to each other's editing. The text I proposed as a compromise was:

In 2007, USANA came under heavy scrutiny after Barry Minkow filed a 500-page report alleging USANA was operating as an illegal pyramid scheme. The report was retracted in 2008 as part of an undisclosed settlement.

The debate resulted in the article being protected for 7 days while we come to consensus. I am creating this RfC to get more sets of eyes on this to identify the prominent controversy(ies) and come up with NPOV wording that is acceptable to the interested parties.

I noted that the prominent controversy in this company's history is the scathing report that Barry Minkow released in 2007 identifying the company as appearing to be a pyramid scheme. After the release of the report, several other people were quoted in RS supporting Minkow's claims. The company was informally investigated by the SEC, and they recommended no action be taken. In 2008, the company and Minkow reached a settlement in which Minkow removed all reports about the company. This appears to have ended this period of controversy for the company. It appears to me, that the summary needs to be within the context of this period of controversy. However, any proposals or edits to show this period of controversy with the company have been reverted and the wording in the lead at the time of the administrator's page protection shows the lack of context that Rhode Island Red prefers to have in the lead. Additionally, he has now added in non-prominent controversies and claims that because the statements are sourced, he doesn't need consensus to add them to the lead. This is inaccurate as we are talking about the lead, which is merely a summary of the article and thus has a great deal of editorial judgement in deciding what goes into the lead.

I appreciate any feedback from outside parties on the lead, so we can break this stalemate and move forward with consensus.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Request from uninvolved editor - I'd be happy to help out. RfCs work best if there is a very focused question, rather than an amorphous "what do we do?" With that in mind, can someone supply two alternative lead proposals from the two "sides"? That way I (and other editors) could compare and contrast. After seeing both proposals, a resolution may become apparent that is consistent with WP policies and what the sources say. --Noleander (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point - I'll copy and paste the versions that are being debated:

Original version:

The company has sponsored and provided products to several athletic organizations. In 2007, several of USANAs executives were discovered to have made false statements in their resumes.

Leef5 version:

In 2007, USANA came under heavy scrutiny after Barry Minkow filed a 500-page report alleging USANA was operating as an illegal pyramid scheme. The report was retracted in 2008 as part of an undisclosed settlement.

Rhode Island Red version:

In 2007, several of USANAs executives were discovered to have made false statements in their resumes. Critics of the company have argued that USANA is a pyramid scheme and questioned the value of USANAs products relative to those of its competitors.

There is plethora of discussion in the talk sections above this if you need any background. Thanks for helping out!  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sentence-by-sentence assessment - Okay, so there are 5 separate statements proposed:

1) The company has sponsored and provided products to several athletic organizations.

2) In 2007, several of USANAs executives were discovered to have made false statements in their resumes.

3) In 2007, USANA came under heavy scrutiny after Barry Minkow filed a 500-page report alleging USANA was operating as an illegal pyramid scheme. The report was retracted in 2008 as part of an undisclosed settlement.

4) Critics of the company have argued that USANA is a pyramid scheme

5) Critics of the company have questioned the value of USANAs products relative to those of its competitors.

Statement (1) is not important enough for the lead. Statement (2) is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article and so cannot be in the lead. However, a statement in the body that does seem important is "On May 10, 2011, it was announced that 4 of USANA's executives (President and COO Fred W. Cooper, CFO Jeffrey A. Yates, EVP of Sales Mark H. Wilson, and VP of Finance Riley Timmer) had unexpectedly resigned their positions at the company to pursue an unspecified business opportunity." Statement (3) very much should be in the lead, especially given the notability of Minkow, and the impact of the report on the company. Statement (4) definitely belongs in the lead, but is really an alternative to statement (3). Statement 5 is borderline: the source is a Canadian analyst, who doesn't appear to be too significant, but given that this is a nutritional supplement company sold thru direct sales, it is an important aspect of criticism. Based on this assessment, I would propose the following:

"Critics of USANA allege that it is a pyramid scheme, and in 2007 Barry Minkow submitted a report to the FBI and SEC documenting those allegations. The report was retracted in 2008 as part of an undisclosed settlement. Canadian consumer advocates have questioned the value of USANAs products relative to those of its competitors. In May, 2011, four of USANA's executives, including the President, unexpectedly resigned their positions at the company."

--Noleander (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Point two is mentioned in the body of the article (Second paragraph under Background and organization). The recent resignation of four of its executives who have left to found a competitor is is a more recent event. The report filed in 2007 came from an organization Barry Minkow helped co-found called The Fraud Discovery Institute so if we want to get specific shouldn't it be listed as the source of the report? It also wasn't solely concerned with claiming USANA was a pyramid scheme. It revealed the false resumes and made claims that USANAs products were over-priced, that 87% of commission-earning distributors do not make enough to regain the costs of operating their USANA business', that the top 8% received 73% of company commissions and that it had significant yearly turnover of its distributors. In the court case between USANA and Minkow that followed USANA withdrew their claims of defamation and had most of their claims blocked by the courts due to the courts finding that USANA was engaging in a SLAPP suit. The final claim remained but instead of proceeding through the courts USANA reached a closed doors deal with Barry Minkow and The Fraud Discovery Institute. I don't believe the report was ever retracted. The 5th statement isn't solely based on the Canadian analyst, but is also related to the report by the Fraud Discovery Institute which held up in court as well as statements made by Anthony Almada, Chief Scientist of the nutritional consulting firm Imaginutrition.Jean314 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jean: could you provide quotes from those sources here? The number of sources that make this allegation, and their exact wording is important to determine if that claim ("poor value") should be in the lead or not. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The source for the information in the court case can be found in the Salt Lake Tribune Article - USANA claims tossed Jean314 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal Noleander - I appreciate your efforts. I think we all agreed point 1 was not important enough for the lead. I believe it was left in for so many years to provide a little balance to the lead, so it wouldn't be just criticisms. Point 2 is definitely in the text. I don't find it very prominent, but I offered to compromise in order to incorporate it as part of Minkow's report that did have a result of executives having to revise their credentials. We mostly agree on points 4 and 5, except it is clear that other critics echoed Minkow's report findings and thus pyramid scheme accusations (which are serious because that claims they are operating illegally) must be contained within the context of this period of controversy. Point 5 I disagree with - the criticism is frankly not prominent enough for the lead. As well, the bit about the recent resignations is not prominent enough for the lead. That was part of the issue we were debating is what is prominent enough to include in the lead. Jean's point about the retraction is a good point of debate. Some of that comes down to debating the actual meaning of the word vs. legal definition. Minkow removed all published information about USANA as part of a settlement. Is "retraction" the right word here for those actions? It seems to be the correct word choice, but there is resistance to using that word.

So, here would be my new stab at a compromise:

"In 2007, USANA came under heavy scrutiny after Barry Minkow submitted a 500-page report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleging USANA was operating as an illegal pyramid scheme and that several executives had incorrect credentials in their biographies. Several other critics echoed these allegations. The SEC conducted an investigation and recommended no enforcement action. Several executives revised their biographies to correct errors identified by the report. Minkow agreed to remove the report and all other related published information about USANA in 2008 as part of an undisclosed settlement."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leef5 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks okay. A couple of comments: (a) the two words "500 page" isnt necessary for the lead. (b) I think the "unexpected resignation" is fairly important, and should be included, but it could go either way. (c) Regarding the "poor value" claim: If Jean can provide some quotes from 2 or more sources that substantiate that, and the quotes are clear and strong, it perhaps could go in the lead. Above I've asked Jean to provide quotes from the two sources he's identified. --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've modified the above to remove 500-page and also need to add the word "related" to last sentence to clarify what was removed. Jean is very familiar with this article and its history - Jean is a single purpose account that has been working on this article since the controversy period in the company's history began. I can add the quotes below if Jean hasn't started.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We also need to watch the total amount of negative/critical information presented in the lead, relative to the positive/neutral information. If the negative information exceeds, say, 1/3 of the lead, that may be excessive. Almost every company has critics and detractors, and - tantalizing as that information is - not all of it needs to be in the lead. So, the "poor value" topic should not go in the lead if it would cause the negative information in the lead to become excessive. The policy WP:Undue is appropriate. --Noleander (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on general Undue issues on this article for the past ~9 months or so. There has been a lot of attention to the threshing out of the controversies, and relative little effort has been made to add fairly basic facts about the company. I've been working on it as time allows, but there has been great resistance from Jean and RIR, and nearly everything has had to go through 3O/RfC to get into the article. IMO, there is still a long way to go to balance the article.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points to add. (1) Stating that "several executives had incorrect credentials in their biographies" seems to unduly downplay the controversy and makes it sound as though it was nothing more than a typo. What the article actually states is "USANA faced repeated controversy after several of its executives were discovered to have made false statements regarding their qualifications". The text in the lead should follow the second example. In addition, it's misleading to state that "critics echoed these allegations" regarding the resume controversy. This implies that the resume fraud was subjective and that it was merely a "critics" opinion that it had occurred; it wasn't -- it was a fact (however, critics did echo the pyrmaid scheme allegations).

(2) In reference to Minkow's report, the main text of the article does not state or otherwise support that "the SEC recommended no enforcement action". The lead should not contain information that is not presented in the main text.

(3) Saying that "Several executives revised their biographies to correct errors identified by the report" whitewashes the fact that one of the medical advisory board members (Ladd McNamara) resigned after it was discovered that his medical licence had been revoked. It's improper to imply that the resume fraud in his case was corrected by a simple revision of his biography. Furthermore, nowhere in the main text is it stated that the fraudulent biographies were subsequently revised, nor do I think it would be particularly noteworthy if they had been -- what other choice did they have? Continue to lie after being caught?

(4) The proposed text -- "Minkow agreed to remove the report and all other related published information about USANA in 2008 as part of an undisclosed settlement" -- is misleading. First, this text refers to the defamation suit launched by USANA against Minkow, which is a seperate matter from the pyramid scheme allegations made by Minkow against USANA. The court in the defamation case was not asked to rule on whether or not USANA was a pyramid scheme. However, the judge in USANAs case ruled that there were no grounds for USANA's charge of defamation and that "USANA failed to refute Minkow's claims that their products were overpriced and of no better quality than other lower-priced brands". Secondly, the main text of the article does not state that Minkow removed/recanted his report, but the proposed text implies that he did. Lastly, in addition to the secret settlement, USANA paid out more than 140K to cover Minkow's legal expenses -- in other words, it appears that USANA paid Minkow hush money. That's very different from what is implied in the proposed text, which suggests that Minkow's report was denigrated/discounted and that it was ordered to be removed by the court. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I only have time for a quick comment. I believe the 140K was to cover Minkow's legal expenses after the courts found USANA to be engaged in a SLAPPsuit. I have found nothing that confirms USANA paid Minkow anything aside from these court costs and if they were to have paid him anything further relating to the final claim they failed to move forward with I believe it would have been sealed as part of their closed door agreement.Jean314 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to RIR's 4 points above:

1) The lead is not to "downplay" anything, it is to merely summarize in as little detail as is sufficient to get the message across of what the rest of the article is about. Perhaps we can change the "...and that several executives had incorrect credentials in their biographies" to "...and that several executives claimed credentials that were inaccurate" in order to get rid of the biography word and thus any perception that it was merely an typo as you suggest might be interpreted. The other critics part is to show that there was more than just Minkow who agreed with Minkow's report on pyramid scheme and incorrect credentials. That's why the word was "these" allegations to show both the allegations by Minkow were echoed.

2) Interesting - you are correct. I've read that I don't know how many times in the RS in the article when reading the actual article RS sources. Very curious that noone added this to the article - this was the only investigation into the company that I could tell from reading the news articles. I will add the appropriate areas to the article after the page is unprotected so this won't be an issue of it shouldn't be in the lead because its not in the article text.

3) Good point - have a suggestion on a reword that we can agree on is neutral? McNamara resigned his advisory post (wasn't an "executive", but was a high-profile distributor); the CPA appears to have been a biographical error as it should have listed (Ret.) or whatever that state law was; Wood was also biographical and corrected degree to Foresty; and Waitley stepped down from the board because of the Master's Degree listed on bio. I'm open to suggestions on better wording that the latest proposal. The reason this sentence was in there is to show that Minkow got the incorrect credentials right in his report.

4) Actually, this text was in reference to the stock manipulation suit, to which Minkow was still on the hook for. I'm not sure how one could infer that an undisclosed settlement = "Minkow's report was denigrated/discounted and that is was ordered to be removed by the court"  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Product Value - Prominent Controversy?

Here are the quotes I can find using the RS listed in the article:

• Anthony Almada made the following statement: "The economic reality of Usana, and other [multilevel marketing] entities, mandates that their products invariably lack robust distinctiveness and convincing evidence of consumer relevance and superiority—achievable through rigorous clinical trials only—to their retail counterparts,"

• The other quote was from a Canadian TV show, and is in French, and we don't have an exact translation/transcript of that show. The text in the WP articles summarizing the content says: These comments were supported by natural health product specialist Prof. Jean-Louis Brazier of the University of Montreal's Faculty of Pharmacy who examined USANA's products for Radio-Canada's consumer report show La Facture. Brazier found that they cost two to three times the price of equivalent store-bought items, and no evidence that USANA's products were of better quality than their competitors.

• Then there was whatever was in the 500-page report that Minkow submitted. I cannot seem to find that report anywhere on the net, as that would have been nice to include as an external link. However, since that report was removed/retracted (whatever the right word is), that would seem to be irrelevant.

Almada's statement seems to be a fairly general statement of his opinion that products sold via MLM aren't of better quality because that can only be achieved through rigorous clinical trials. We debated this issue a number of months ago due to a possible conflict of interest by Almada as another editor brought up that he also owned his own nutrition company at the time called GENr8, which touts itself as an "evidence-based performance nutrition company" (www.genr8speed.com). (Discussion at length here) Consensus was not reached in adding a possible COI statement, with 2 editors saying we should, including myself, and 2 saying we shouldn't (Jean314 and Rhode Island Red). It also doesn't seem to be very accurate as the company appears to do quite a bit of clinical research listed on their website: www.usana.com/dotCom/difference/hir/sci_crb - I started to look through this info, but it's going to take some time going through these journals to see what could be included in this article.

These appear to be the only RS sources that have been used in the article.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

COI on the part of Alameda was never demonstrated. The suggestion to add text stating or implying that he did have a COI would have led to the introduction of original research and improper synthesis into the article. That's why no such details were added. The gist of Alamdea's statement was that USANA's products "lack robust distinctiveness and convincing evidence of consumer relevance"; it wasn't primarily about MLMs in general or the need for clinical trials to demonstrate product value -- those aspects were mentioned parenthetically. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Those three sources dont justify including the "poor value" information in the lead. The Alameda statement doesnt mention "poor value", and is a broad statement applicable to multiple companies. The Canadian source is okay, but it is only one source. We havent seen any "poor quality" quotes from the Minkow report, so that doesnt count. For those reasons, the "poor value" statement should not be in the lead (on the other hand, it could be in the body of the article). --Noleander (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Poor value was one of the fundamental criticisms leveled in Minkow's report: "Minkow also claimed the company's products were overpriced and not of greater quality when compared with other products."[49] Alameda implied essentially the same thing; i.e. that USANA's products "lack robust distinctiveness and convincing evidence of consumer relevance." I don't see any reliable sources arguing that USANA's products are a good value, so there's no balance issue. Referring to "poor value" in the lead seemed like the simplest way to summarize the criticism leveled by 3 sources cited above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so that is two "poor value" sources: Minkow and Canadian. The Alameda source "lack robust distinctiveness and convincing evidence of consumer relevance" does not address price or value. The absence of sources claiming "good value" is not relevant: that is an Argument from silence, since good value is presumed to be true, and no commentary is expected to the contrary. For example, if one source says "Everyone in Spain eats mushrooms", you wouldn't put that in a lead because there are no sources that say "Some Spaniards dont eat mushrooms". Again, this lead is supposed to contain a neutral summary of this company. Controversies are certainly to be documented in the article body, but just because 1 or 2 sources mention a critical fact is no reason to promote it to the lead. WP:Lead says that the lead should only include "prominent" controversies. Only two sources on a NYSE-traded company not make something prominent. --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What then is the magic number of sources that have to make a specific criticism in order for it to be considered "prominent" enough for inclusion in the lead? Seems rather arbitrary. I was not making an argument from silence. The first step in this process should be to establish which sources have commented on the product's "value" and then to draw conclusions based on the consensus from those sources. Since there are no RS that counter the critics, the criticism stands uncontested and can be considered, at least in some respects, to reflect a consensus viewpoint. It's not just that there is an absence of evidence establishing the value of the products; it's that there is no relevant RS commentary to counter the criticism. Alameda may not talk talk about "value" per se; but the gist is similar to what the other critics said. Therefore, I wouldn't object to the lead containing a statement that refers to the lack of value AND robust distinctiveness/consumer relevance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is no "magic number" of sources: it is a matter of neutrality and common sense. Relying on the "gist" of a source (and I disagree that the gist relates to value) is not a good approach to take to crafting the lead paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because you initially suggested that one source directly questioning the value of the products didn't qualify the issue as prominent, and you indicated that there was no direct quote reagrding value from Minkow. So I found the direct supporting quote from Minkow, and you replied that two sources are not sufficient to establish prominence. Seems like I'm shooting at a moving target. Your position now seems to be that the number of sources is irrelevant and that instead vague subjective factors such as "commonsense" and "neutrality" are the yardstick by which we judge whether or not to include a comment reflecting the RS opinions on product value, and if that's the case, then should I even bother to look for additional sources? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, here's the full context of Alameda's comments. I don't see how it can be argued that this did not adress the product's lack of value:

"The company offers a diverse trove of nutrition and personal care products spanning from natural toothpaste to hair-care goods. Its best-selling product, however, is a 28-day pack of Essentials, a set of multivitamins and mineral supplements that wholesale for $39.95, or $1.43 a day. The product costs significantly more than standard retail varieties of vitamins, such as Centrum, whose multivitamins cost approximately $7.00 for a 50-pill bottle, or 14 cents a day. Usana says its premium is justified because its products offer "high-quality, certified nutritional supplements that are in a class by themselves."

Not quite, according to Anthony Almada, the president and chief scientist of Imaginutrition, a consulting firm for the nutritional supplement industry. Alamada, who has more than 30 years of experience in the industry, said Usana's vitamins are not that special. "The economic reality of Usana, and other [multilevel marketing] entities, mandates that their products invariably lack robust distinctiveness and convincing evidence of consumer relevance and superiority—achievable through rigorous clinical trials only—to their retail counterparts," Almada said. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, the new quote you just provided says "The product costs significantly more than standard retail varieties of vitamins..." and that indeed supports the "poor value" statement. You could have provided that quote earlier :-) That's three sources now, so perhaps it could go into the Lead. If it does, I'd suggest including (in the footnotes) the exact quotes from the sources as shown here in the Talk page, so future readers can get the detail and context. --Noleander (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Only so many hours in a day y'know :). Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's please not mislead Noleander - he is here to try and help us work through this. Almada only said the part that has been previously quoted. The prior "quote" you listed wasn't Almada, that was a rehash of Minkow's report. Almada's comments don't corroborate anything about the value of the product, he merely states a generality about MLM products that don't do rigorous clinical trials. Noleander, if you have the time and wish to read the full Forbes article where the quote from Almada is, it is at :

www.forbes.com/2007/08/08/usana-vitamins-marketing-markets-equities-cx_er_0808usana.html

What we have on product value is whatever was in Minkow's report, and the Canadian comment. As far as addressing the argument from silence issue, there are RS sources that have certified the quality of Usana's products. It doesn't appear the "standard retail varieties of vitamins" like Centrum go through the kind of quality certification process that Usana subjects its products to. To say that only negative things have been said in RS about quality/value of their products is inaccurate. There certainly isn't a "consensus" that their products have lack of value.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I misread the quote provided by RIRed. The person that wrote "the product costs significantly more than standard retail varieties of vitamins.." was Evelyn M. Rusli, apparently a writer for Forbes, and it is not clear on what she is basing that opinion. Almada did not say that there is poor value. We're back down to only two sources: Minkow and the Canadian comment. I'll stand by my previous opinion that only two sources is not enough to add an opinion into the lead section of an NYSE traded company. Controversies mentioned in the lead should be "prominent" according to WP:Lead, and if only two sources talk about it, that doesnt strike me as prominent. --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So we're back to 3 sources being the magic number to establish prominence? Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hey all. I was contacted at random to comment on this RfC, but it seems to be working out quite well some far. However, you'd find this all a lot easier if you simply expanded the lead, which is too short at the moment. Once you've done that, you won't worry about unnecessarily focussing attention on negatives.

I would say that about the moment, 33-40% of the article is negative commentary. Therefore, I would recommend a chunky paragraph addressing the company, and positive aspects, followed by a smaller paragraph about criticisms. (Two lead paragraphs is entirely justified by the length of the article.) If in doubt, quote, attribute, and cite controversy directly.

With regard to "magic number" of sources, take a step back. Look at the prominence given to a viewpoint in the article itself. Get that right first. Then, have the lead mirror the article (%-wise), and tweak where necessary -- it's always worked for me in the past. Hope that helps. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 09:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Having read the article and the discussion above, I find Noleander and Jarry1250's advice to be right on point. Applying this will improve the article according to Wikipedia guidelines. Is the initial debate (version 1 vs. version 2) still valid? Does this still need to be an open RFC? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The latest proposal is an attempt at compromise, although Rhode Island Red had issues with the new proposal he identified in 4 points. I have answered those points, and that is where we are at currently. Page protection just lapsed, and I have restored the original lead before this debate took off while consensus is being reached. This is the latest proposal:

"In 2007, USANA came under heavy scrutiny after Barry Minkow submitted a report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleging USANA was operating as an illegal pyramid scheme and that several executives had incorrect credentials in their biographies. Several other critics echoed these allegations. The SEC conducted an investigation and recommended no enforcement action. Several executives revised their biographies to correct errors identified by the report. Minkow agreed to remove the report and all other related published information about USANA in 2008 as part of an undisclosed settlement."

 Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 13:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I suggested above, expanding the lead first would help. At the moment such an addition would look like overload, but it needn't be. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Shall we resume discussions on both the latest proposed criticism statement above as well as expanding other non-critical elements as suggested by Jarry1250? Going to remove the RfC unless we end up at an impasse again.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct company description (Direct Sales, Network Marketing, MLM)

Part of this lively debate about the lead also spawned off a discussion about the correct language to use when describing the company. Quote from the WP article multilevel marketing: "Network Marketing" and "Multi-level Marketing" are generally considered to be synonyms, and a subset of direct selling. And another quote: Network Marketing tends to be modern preferred term. Based on this (and the RS behind those quotes in that article), I attempted to update the article to show that the company is a direct selling company, that utilizes a network marketing compensation system. Based on what I can find, this appears to be the most technically accurate description of this type of business.

Rhode Island Red disagrees because a number of RS refer to Usana as multi-level marketing and not direct sales. I just did a simple analysis based on Google News results utilizing different terms to describe the company (direct sales/selling -175 occurrences; network marketing -86 occurrences; multi-level marketing/multilevel marketing -99 occurrences) and found there isn't a huge statistical swing one way or another here, with the majority of news articles coming from Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News (both Utah publications where the company is based). What is humorous, is those two publications showed up referring to the company as any of those 3 methods in different articles without any consistency.

Since "network marketing" is the preferred term, and refers to the type of compensation type they chose of direct sales, shouldn't the company be referred to as a direct sales company utilizing a network marketing compensation system?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If the phrases are synonymous then neither of them are necessarily "more accurate." Considering Multi-Level Marketing seems to be the original phrase, that the two are interchangeable and that Multi-Level Marketing seems to be the preferred phrase for other articles on Wikipedia ([50], [51]) I would be inclined to stick with it on any and all company articles which fall under the Multi-Level Marketing method despite what they may prefer to call themselves (Word-of-Mouth Marketing, Interactive Distribution, Relationship Marketing etc.) As someone who is concerned with consistency amongst articles I'm certain you can see the benefit of this approach. Jean314 (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what Usana wants to call themselves, that's not even a consideration in this discussion. I'm concerned if the preferred term according to the WP article (and the RS supporting it) is network marketing, why are we referring to them as MLM? I remember reading Kuru's statement that MLM was being used as a pejorative term - (found it - linked below). I think we have several factual issues we have to deal with. We debated this once before here and Jean314 reached out to LessHeard vanU to weigh in on the issues here At the time, we left the "old" consensus in place. However, there seems to be enough compelling evidence now to revisit this since its clear that "other sources" refer to Usana in an inconsistent way.

1. MLM is not the preferred term for this type of compensation plan [52]
2. MLM is being used as a pejorative term [53]
3. Newspapers are referring to Usana as any of those 3 descriptions (direct sales, network marketing, & MLM), so there is no consistency nor consensus amongst news sites
4. Usana's NAICS code is 325411 (Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing) according to business listings like this one.
5. There is no NAICS code for "multilevel marketing", nor even "network marketing", yet there is one for 454390 Other Direct Selling Establishments (feel free to search here)
6. The SIC Codes have been discontinued (replaced by NAICS) except for the SEC who still uses them. The SEC has Usana listed as: SIC 2833 - "MEDICINAL CHEMICALS & BOTANICAL PRODUCTS"

This is why I propose that Usana should be referred to as Manufacturer (NAICS/SIC), that uses direct sales (method of sales) utilizing a network marketing compensation system (type of direct sales method of commissions)  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not implying that you were concerned with the wishes of USANA I was merely pointing out that a number of Multi-Level Marketing companies have begun favouring a variety of terms (Word-of-Mouth Marketing, Interactive Distribution, Relationship Marketing etc.) which all amount to the same thing – Multi-Level Marketing

From what I can tell “Network Marketing” seems to be a rebranding of the term “Multi-Level Marketing.” Since both phrases refer to the same type of system and different companies seem to want to use their own unique phrasing (see examples above) for when they refer to their system I would advocate Wikipedia employing a single term to avoid confusion. Since Multi-Level Marketing appears to be the original term as well as the one used by other Wiki articles ([54], [55]) I would back it as the appropriate term.

As for your points

1 – While it may be the modern preferred term according to that one source it is one whose definition simply refers back to Multi-Level Marketing. Since companies rebrand the phrase as it suits them (see examples above) I’m inclined to agree with your usual stance that consistency amongst articles is important.

2 - If Multi-Level Marketing it is being used pejoratively that is a problem of public perception not in phrasing. Anyone who wishes to use the phrase Multi-Level Marketing pejoratively for whatever reason will find no trouble using the term Network Marketing pejoratively next week. USANA has been referred to as a Multi-Level Marketing company by a number of third party sources including Forbes[56],The National Business Review[57] etc. which would satisfy the requirements of the editor you’ve decided to quote. Forbes even has the words Multilevel Marketing above the articles title.

3 – You are correct that newspapers are referring to USANA by these three terms. I would agree with both Direct Sales and Multi-Level Marketing (a sub-section of Direct Sales) as being correct with Network Marketing being just another way of saying Multi-Level Marketing.

4 – Industry includes distribution method which in the case of USANA is Multi-Level Marketing.

5 – I know what the NAICS code for Direct Sales is because as you may recall I was the one who informed you of it. [58]

6 – You forgot to mention that there is also a Multi-Level Marketing SIC Code 8742-48 [59] which as you may recall we’ve discussed before [60]. I believe this lends sufficient credence to the argument that Multi-Level Marketing is in fact the correct term and not Network Marketing.

I would propose that USANA is a Direct Sales company engaged in the Multi-Level Marketing of their own line of Nutritional and Skin Care products. Sorry about the lenghty reply but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss any of your points. I may not be able to check back again tonight so have a great weekend! Jean314 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Network marketing is the preferred term". Nonsense. According to what source? Can you provide substantitation (i.e. a full quote from a RS) for that claim?

Re: "I just did a simple analysis based on Google News results utilizing different terms to describe the company (direct sales/selling -175 occurrences; network marketing -86 occurrences; multi-level marketing/multilevel marketing -99 occurrences) and found there isn't a huge statistical swing one way or another here." A Google search of this type is meaningless because it does not distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. Doesn't matter a lick how a non-RS refers to the company. I've already shown that multiple sources cited in this article clearly refer to the company as being an MLM; not "direct sales" and not "network marketing.[61] I cannot condone any attempt to whitewash MLM out of the company's description. Furthermore, (1) the body text of the article itself refers to USANA as an MLM (and not by any other terms) (2) direct selling is not as specific a term as MLM (direct selling may or may not involve MLM, according to WP's article on direct sales)[62]; USANA is included among WP's list of MLM companies;[63] and the "network marketing" link on WP redirects to MLM.[64] All compelling points as to why the article should continue to use the term MLM rather than any of the weasel words proposed. One cannot propose using an arbitrary vague synonym when the obvious term for the company is MLM (bear in mind that the WP article also lists "pyramid selling" as a synonym for MLM, so using Leef's logic, we have just as much justification to refer to USANA as a "pyramid selling" company}. I would be a OK with referring to the company as a manufacturer that sells its products using a MLM distribution/compensation scheme. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to Jean: 1) Consistency for the sake of consistency would not be prudent if it is wrong. The debate isn't about a company "rebranding" itself, network marketing appears to be the modern term. All of the other deritives you mentioned may be what companies want to call themselves, but whether they like it or not, network marketing is the correct term. 2) I never said there were RS that did not refer to Usana as MLM, quite the contrary I listed out the stats of the different ways they have been referred. If this is the predominant way the company is being referred, then that would be the correct term, regardless of whether it was perjorative or not. 3) Agreed - MLM and network marketing are synonymous - the difference is network marketing is the modern term. 4) Do you have a reference/policy that specifies industry includes distro method? 5) Agreed 6) That would have been the case, except for 2 very important points about SIC Codes. First, SIC codes are only 4 digits long - the official list is here Codes beyond 4 digits are unofficial. They were generated by various data aggregators in an attempt to disambiguate the official 4-code list. I used to work for a data aggregator so I have some 1st hand experience with SIC/NAICS. Secondaly, the SIC codes were replaced by NAICS in 1997, with major revisions to NAICS in 2002, and 2007. There will be another big update next year to NAICS. So unfortunately, the argument that SIC 8742-48 validates the use of the MLM term is incorrect as it was never official in the 1st place, and SICs have been for the most part, discontinued in use.

Response to RIR: Sure, luckily the quote came up in the beginning of the book that is available via preview in Amazon. The quote is on page 2 of Chapter 1: "Network marketing-known in the past as multilevel marketing and historically disparaged as pyramid schemes for schemers and suckers-is today emerging as the most powerful distribution method and the most appealing enterprise model in the new economy." You are correct in that a search engine like Google News can't differentiate between RS and non-RS since that's a WP definition. However, it doesn't take much effort to sort through the list of articles by SLT and Deseret to see they use the terms interchangeably. You also may want to review the definitions of whitewash and weasel words, as they are being used incorrectly here. If network marketing is the modern, preferred term, then how can using that term be "whitewashing"? On the other hand, a case could be made why if its the preferred term, and a perjorative term is being used instead, that there is a POV being pushed. Referencing "using my logic": my logic is simple, use the correct, modern term.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That book isn't really a very good basis for what euphemism we use to describe USANA's activities. Is it from a scholar? Or is it instead from someone who would write a book where "Quite a few of the companies edified in the book are now shut down, out of business and some of the company founders are now in jail."? I think the later. Does it refer to USANA's activities? Maybe. Do you have a quote from it saying what euphemism we should use to refer to USANA? No. Nevard (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: (posted by Leef):[65] "However, it doesn't take much effort to sort through the list of articles by SLT and Deseret to see they use the terms interchangeably."

Then do the work and get back to us with verifiable evidence. Isn't that the point of this discussion; to back up our opinions with verifiable evidence based on RS? You're making the rather extraordinary claim that "network marketing" is the preferred term (or at least synonymous with) "MLM". But you haven't provided extraordinary evidence to support the claim. You refer to a Google search that you allegedly conducted but never linked to it or provided teh details to support your claim.

Re: "If network marketing is the modern, preferred term, then how can using that term be "whitewashing"?"

Your argument fails with the opening assumption "if...". The book you cited doesn't say anywhere that "network marketing" is the preferred term over "MLM", and as I already pointed out 3 times now, there are multiple sources[66][67][68][69] cited in the USANA WP article that refer to the company as an MLM and no sources cited that refer to it as "network marketing". At best, your source represents a WP:FRINGE opinion and it doesn't even literally support the argument you are trying to make.

Re: "if...a perjorative term is being used instead..."

There you go with the "ifs" again. That's a hopelessly weak accusation. The only evidence you've supplied so far to support your assertion that MLM is being used perjoratively consisted of nothing more than a link to an opinion expressed on a WP Talk page by a lone WP editor in 2010.[70] Are you joking Leef? You take this non-evidence and then try to use it to support such a whopping accusation? Puh-lease! That's insulting Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: John Nevard: The book was written by Dr. Charles King, professor of marketing at University of Illinois at Chicago (found the university link here). From what I can tell of my own research on this business model, this appears to be one of the most well-researched books on the history of MLM. I may end up requesting this through local library to read the parts I can't read via Amazon's preview. Do you have a source for your quote you listed? The only place I could find that quote was from an Amazon user leaving their personal opinion review of the book. Of course this book isn't written about Usana - this particular discussion point was regarding what is the correct modern term for MLM.

Re: Rhode Island Red: I didn't make any "extraordinary" claim - I merely referenced a RS that said this very claim. The book I cited does indeed say that - read page 80. It says: "Network marketing is the preferred term for the new millennium." I can't copy and paste the entire excerpt per WP:NFC#Text 2, on page 79-81 titled, "Network Marketing, Multilevel Marketing: What's in a Name?" Those pages, the author gives some history on to the naming of MLM originally, the other terms used, and concluding with network marketing is current, preferred term. I don't see how you could label Dr. King's research Fringe - that seems quite a stretch to try to denigrate his credentials and research on the topic. The "lone WP editor" is the admin that page protected this article, and has an MBA per his bio. He appears to be well-respected in the community and has acted as mediator on numerous occasions on sensitive business areas like MLM. As for your last sentence, I'll take the incivility matter up on your talk page rather than here.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

1) Agreed but it's not wrong so lets be consistent.

2) If you'll recall the editor you quoted to support your claim that the term Multi-Level Marketing was pejorative said they would "rather there be a direct mention of the term in a third party reliable source..." Forbes (amongst others) provides a reliable third party source which would would justify using the phrase Multi-Level Marketing based on what Kuru said in that posting.

3) The words are synonmous and your argument(s) in favour of using Network Marketing are looking more and more like Wiki:I Just Don't Like It.

4) It's kind of funny that despite your previous work experience you didn't bring this up in our previous discussion about SIC codes and I had to find you the code for Direct Selling. :P Either way Multi-Level Marketing still seems to be the preferred term with Network Marketing only being mentioned as an "also known as." Take for example this page from the IRS web-site [71]

Leef5 your argument isn't growing but instead seems to be focused on simply attacking the points raised by other editors. May I suggest that all parties involved consider an alternative solution where we treat this in much the same way we treated the use of the phrase Distributors despite USANAs use of the phrase Associate? In the article we write something to the effect of "USANA is a Multi-Level Marketer (referred to as "Network Marketing" in company announcements)". I'm not completely enthralled with this idea but I thought I'd propose it. Jean314 (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Jean:

1. MLM isn't a "wrong" term per se, since its a synonym, but according to the RS I pointed out, it is not the preferred, modern term.
2. The second part of his statement, was to add a company to that article list. Not whether or not a company should be referred to that as the default term in the company's article.
3. Actually, I don't really have a personal preference one way or another on the terms, they are both synonymous to me. However, one term is more accurate/modern than the other per RS, and not my own personal views.
4. Why is that funny? It seemed irrelevant at the time, since you reached out to an admin for clarification. At that point, the NAICS/SIC discussion wasn't necessary if MLM was the overwhelming choice of terms used to describe the company. If I would have dug deeper at the time on how the company was referred to, we could have resolved this months ago. The IRS site doesn't specify which term is preferred; I have read that in length hoping that would give some clarity to the discussion. If you have a RS that supports your view that MLM is the preferred term over network marketing, then let's please review that.

Although I appreciate the attempt at reconciliation, the order is reversed on the intro - It should/could read: USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (NYSE: USNA), or USANA, is a Utah-based manufacturer of various nutritional and skin-care products distributed via direct sales using a network marketing distribution model (also known as multi-level marketing). This would state the correct technical terms, and yet ensure that MLM was mentioned in the lead.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We’re down to two key points here. (1) One source brought forth by Leef allegedly claims that “network marketing” is the preferred term over “multilevel marketing” (I say allegedly becuase the text in question is not available online and therefore cannot even be verified). However, even if this lone outdated (2000) source makes this claim, that alone clearly does not make it a fact; merely an opinion and not a widely held one at that. That’s why I said previously that it constitutes, at best, a WP:FRINGE opinion. (2) Leef claimed that the term “MLM” is pejorative. However, the source Leef presented to support this allegation was not a RS but rather merely a 2010 Talk page comment from another WP editor. Again, that does not constitute a fact – merely an opinion, and one which is neutralized by my own opinion that the term MLM is not perjorative. As I pointed out already, multiple RS cited in the article clearly refer to USANA as an MLM while none refer to it as a “network marketing” company. Lastly, as I pointed out already, “network marketing” redirects to "multi level marketing” on WP. That also undermines Leef’s argument in favor of using “network marketing” as a preferred term. I’d have to say that Leef is fighting a losing battle on this issue and I agree with Jean that Leef’s argument is degenerating into a weak WP:DONTLIKE argument. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Found a rather interesting article on the nomenclature issue posted on the FTC's website.[72] It states the following:

"Network marketing – a term devised by MLM companies to get around the implications of "multi-level marketing" which sounds too much like a chain distribution or pyramid form of marketing."

In fact, the article explains the nomenclature issue in great detail (I suggest that all involved in this discussion at least scan through it). This, in addition to the other issues I've raised, shows why we shouldn't get sucked into the whitewash ploy about "network" vs "multi-level" marketing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't muddy the waters by adding non-RS quotes to the discussion. RIR, you have linked someone's comment to the FTC's proposed Business Opportunity Rule. This was written by Jon Taylor, an outspoken critic of MLM who runs this SPS website. First, you opine that the book the marketing professor at Univeristy of Chicago wrote that covers the history of MLM is WP:FRINGE, and then you go on to quote a non-RS source with a critical viewpoint as justification of the majority point of view. There should be enough materials for us to discuss the issues at hand civially without your need to cross the lines into WP:TE.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comment does nothing to advance your tendentious opinion that network marketing is the preferred term over MLM. Do you have anything else to add or are your finished trying to make your case? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I wasn’t proposing citing Taylor as a source in the USANA article, but the book that he published (and it is a book,[73] not simply a comment on the FTC’s proposed Business Opportunity Rule) discussed in detail the exact same issue of nomenclature that we’re now discussing, and he also provides excerpts and references (RS) that are easy to verify. Taylor has what appears to be reasonable credentials, and there was an extensive Talk page discussion about whether or not he is a reliable source [74] – I don’t see any conclusion that Taylor is necessarily unreliable -- on the contrary; the arguments in favor of Taylor’s credibility were detailed and at the very least, not at all unreasonable. Nonetheless, credentials aren’t really an issue here. It’s quite simple to see from Taylor’s book that nomenclature is a hot button issue and that there is at least some controversy about MLM’s trying to rebrand themselves using different (and poorly defined) terms (terms which if used in this case would merely cloud the issue for the WP user).

The issue here Leef is that you’re pushing for a controversial redefinition of USANA as a “network marketing company” rather than an MLM. However, because many reliable sources in the article identify USANA as an MLM, not as a “network marketing company”, it is incumbent on you to provide strong evidence to support the proposed redefinition. You haven’t done that by a long shot.

First off, WP doesn’t even have an article on “network marketing”; it has an article on MLM, to which a search for “network marketing” redirects.

Secondly, you claimed that the term MLM is pejorative, but the ONLY justification you provided for that claim was a 2010 talk page comment from a single WP editor –- that’s not an RS source and that doesn’t make your assertion a factual one -- your argument in that regard is an epic fail.

Moving on, you make the rather extraordinary claim that “network marketing” is the “preferred” term and should therefore be used (presumably in any instance) instead of the term MLM. You base that extraordinary claim on your interpretation of the opinion of just one published source, which is insufficient to support that the term MLM should be replaced with “network marketing” in the USANA article (I’ll ignore for the moment that there are also issues with the source’s POV – which seems to be slanted towards Amway – and the lack of verifiability of the claim about “preferred” nomenclature – i.e., the alleged text is not readily accessible online). What’s worse, the source doesn’t even refer to USANA and doesn't even say who it actually is that "prefers" the term "network maketing". As a lone source on a controversial issue, it’s poor and insufficient. You simply don’t have support to make a an arbitrary nomenclature rule that demands “network marketing” must be used in place of MLM. At best, what you have in that source is a one-line entry in the MLM article that would say something like: "The authors of X opine that “network marketing” is the preferred term for MLM". But even that would be weak and not very meaningful.

In summary, (1) MLM is not pejorative according to any RS; (2); the notion that “network marketing” is the “preferred” term is merely Leef’s interpretation of the opinion of a lone source (see WP:FRINGE) that wasn’t even referring to USANA and din't specify whose preference they were referring to; (3) multiple sources in the article refer to USANA as an MLM -- none refer to it as a network marketing company (a key point); (4) on WP, “network marketing” redirects to MLM.

Cab we move on now? I don’t see how you can continue to argue about this without it being a simple case of WP:DONTLIKE and POV pushing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

While I have prepared a response to Leef5 I don't think at this time it's really necessary to post. I honestly feel this topic is dead and I would much rather move on to other topics which require review. Jean314 (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the projects I manage needs some intervention - going to be swamped this week. Also, going to use this time to review the entire discussion. If you had a response prepared Jean, I'd like to hear it. I definitely don't consider this debate "dead" (as in resolved). However, we may be at an impasse with the editors involved over the remaining issues.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Since MLM was the prior consensus, I'm going to research more before possibly continuing the discussion at a later time.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Time Magazine Article

There's a relatively recent article from Time Magazine that I don't believe has been used in the Wiki yet

Nutrition In a Pill?

Jean314 (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)