Talk:ViSalus/Archives/2013

Upcoming changes

To any editors of this page: I intend to make changes to it in the near future, including large incorporation of content from the research of Roddy Boyd, which can be found here: http://www.sirf-online.org/2012/11/the-infernal-machine-from-powder-to-dust/. This particular report has been pointed out as an example of good journalism, so the credentials shouldn't be in question in case anyone wanted to complain about that (for example [1]). OK, that's all, just a courtesy note. In the process of editing I will also be reviewing the current article for advertising and so forth. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Another rewrite

"History" section

I've been doing some copyediting in the "History" section - to try to make it more concise, clear and readable. Having already done some work on the wording and structure (although not the content) of this section's first paragraph, yesterday, today I made the following changes:

I split the second paragraph into two paragraphs, since it deals with two separate subjects. In the first of these new paragraphs, I reorganised the material (again, without substantially altering the content) relating to Blyth's takeover of the company, to make it more concise and readable.

The second of these new paragraphs deals with the company's near bankruptcy, and Blair's efforts to make it profitable again. I made quite a few changes to grammar and sentence structure, again in the interests of conciseness and readability. I also made mention of the fact that Blair won an award for his role in reversing the company's fortunes, since it seemed notable, and both of the sources cited mention it. I also made mention of the size of company's debt at the time of its near-bankruptcy, and corrected the figure given in "...its turnaround to $34 million income in 2010" to the fifteen million a month that was actually mentioned in the cited source. I also repaired a bare URL in one of the citations in this section.

I'll be taking a closer look at the rest of the article over the next two or three days - I think it could probably do with some more copyediting. Phrenology (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

Today I made the following changes:

More general tidying up of grammar, sentence structure and the format of citations throughout this section.

In the material relating to the class action lawsuit, there were potential problems with the neutrality of some of the language (eg. "slapped"), and also with the overly-legalistic style of the writing. I therefore rewrote the paragraph so that it gives the same information in a more neutral, concise and easy-to-read form. I also introduced a brief summary of the company's response to the allegations, again in the interests of neutrality.

I removed the sentence hinting that ViSalus might be an illegal pyramid scheme - given that the sources cited provided no firm evidence that ViSalus is either a pyramid scheme or that it has broken the law, this seemed to come too close to the 'gossip and scandal mongering' that the 'What Wikipedia Is Not' guidelines prohibit.

I'll continue working through the article tomorrow. Phrenology (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Overall your changes look good. However, I do not agree with the removal of the pyramid scheme text, as there is an RS source from CNBC on that. The second source was not RS, so that hasn't been restored. I've restored the text minus the 2nd source.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 15:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leef, and thanks for your input. I've taken a closer look at the source, and at the Wikipedia guidelines relating to sources, and as far as I can see, there's still a problem with this part of the article. Of course, I agree with you that CNBC is a reputable source – but the wikipedia “Reliable sources” guidelines (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_kind_of_sources_should_I_use.3F) say that even when using this kind of reputable source we need to “be careful to avoid articles which express the writer's feelings and opinions, not facts.” The writer of the CNBC piece clearly points out that he's expressing an opinion, not fact: “...ViSalus walks what appears to me, based on the my read of the comany’s filing, to be...” (my italics) The previous paragraph of the “Controversy” section provides the source that the CNBC writer quotes as the basis for his opinion, and an overview of what that source says. It seems to me that including the CNBC source therefore only adds opinion to the article, not fact. For these reasons, I still think that that sentence and source should be removed. Please let me know what you think. Thank you.

There's a couple of other sources in the article that I'd also appreciate your input on, if you have the time to take a closer look. The Roddy Boyd source, that's cited at the end of the lead, seems extremely questionable to me, for (amongst other reasons) the same reasons – that it gives an opinion, rather than fact. Looking over the edit history, I see that this source has been removed from the article before, for what looks like exactly these reasons – so there already seems to be a certain amount of consensus that it's not suitable. I was therefore planning to remove it, too, when I set to work on the introduction. I wonder what your thoughts are with regard to this?

The metroactive article cited at the end of the “Products” section also seems somewhat problematic to me, for again the same reason – more specifically, it seems to me that the quotation from Michael Shermer expresses an opinion, rather than a fact. There would be a stronger argument for it being a factual statement if the source provided more details of which particular “health claims” are backed up by which particular “anecdotal” evidence, but as far as I can see, the source doesn't go into any details of that kind. I was therefore wondering whether to remove this, too.

Once again – thank you for your input. Phrenology (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I restored the deleted text from CNBC. The author has expertise in the general subject area and there is no policy that precludes use of the source. However, the text was not properly attributed, which I fixed when I restored the deleted material. I see no problem with the Metroactive article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Rhode Island Red - I appreciate your taking the time to look into these sources. I'm still unsure about the CNBC source, though - you say that there's no policy that rules out this kind of source, but as far as I can see, there is - the "Reliable sources" guidelines specifically say that we should "avoid articles which express the writer's feelings and opinions, not facts." (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#What_kind_of_sources_should_I_use.3F) The writer of this piece takes care to point out that he's expressing an opinion: “...ViSalus walks what appears to me, based on the my read of the comany’s filing, to be...” - and it therefore seems to me that this is exactly the kind of opinion piece that the guidelines tell us not to use. Please can you explain why you think this guideline doesn't apply in this circumstance? Thanks. Phrenology (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

First, the guideline you are citing refers to articles that are clearly labeled as and editorial or opinion piece. The Metroactive article does not qualify in that regard. It qualifies as investigative journalism. Secondly, even if the article happened to be opinionated, that would not disqualify it from being used (see WP:RS under Opinionated Sources). Lastly, the article quoted an expert source (Michael Shermer), so clearly this is not the author's opinion but rather an assessment from a credible reputable authority; and it is a attributed appropriately. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that, Rhode Island Red - that clarifies the situation for me, and I now agree that these sources should stay. I slightly changed the Herb Greenberg sentence, so that it now directly quotes, rather than paraphrasing - to help keep clear that this is his opinion, rather than wikipedia's. I also removed the Lazyman source that Leef removed, since I agree with Leef, there are questions as to this source's reliability, and in any case, the sentence is already well supported by the CNBC source, and also only refers only to Herb Greenberg, and not to Lazyman. I've also added what Visalus themselves have to say on the issue of direct selling - in the interests of neutrality, and in order to provide readers with more precise details of exactly what their business model involves. In the material on the class action lawsuit, there were still a lot of problems - the paragraph was very repetitious, giving the same content two or three times, and on one occasion even exactly repeating a sentence. I've therefore rewritten the paragraph so that it gives all of the same content without repeating itself. I also did some copyediting of the Michael Shermer sentence, to make it more clear and concise. Once again - thank you for your help. Phrenology (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Leef – today I went ahead and made the changes I outlined, above. Please feel free to contact me, either here or on my talk page, if you'd like to discuss this some more. Thank you. Phrenology (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"Products" section & lead

Today I finished working through the article, and made the following changes to the "Products" section and lead:

General copyediting - grammar, sentence structure, etc.

In "Products", I removed "Visalus products are available only in North America," since the source cited did not appear to back up the assertion, and the lead and infobox both state that the company's products are available in both the US and Canada. I also removed the sentence dealing with "anecdotal evidence" of "health claims" - for the reasons I outlined in my reply to Leef, above.

In the lead, I removed "ViSalus' 90 day Body by Vi Challenge is a program in which participants can win prizes for purchasing products and losing weight." - this seemed like excessive detail for the lead. I moved the sources cited in this sentence to the part of the "Products" section dealing with the Body by Vi Challenge. I also removed the Roddy Boyd source from the lead - again, for the reasons I outlined in my reply to Leef, above. Phrenology (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

SIRF Research

There was an RS article a few months ago that doesn't appear to have made it into the article, and there's some pretty good nuggets in here. I'm still quite swamped IRL and WP is most certainly on the back burner at this point in my life. Feel free to incorporate the pertinent information into the article where appropriate. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/27/will-blyth-investors-suffer-powder-burn.html

I've been pleased with some of the recent discussions and debates for neutrality, and thought this article would worth including, albeit in a neutral manner.

 Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 01:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Some points for discussion

There's some changes that I'd like to propose for this page - I attempted to make some of them, but my edits were reverted, so I thought I'd start a discussion on the subject here.

1. I think the term "spin off" is the sort of technical language that the average reader wouldn't understand, and that it should be replaced with "issued public shares".

2. I think the terms "folded" and "went under" aren't the kind of language that encyclopaedias usually use - "ceased trading" seems to me to be a more appropriate way of putting it.

3. Is withdrawing an IPO really a controversy? My understanding was that this was a fairly common occurence, and not scandalous. Wouldn't the material about the withdrawn IPO be more appropriately placed in the "History" section?

4. In the "History" section, the following seems to me like it might potentially be excessive detail, because it relates to a company that is not the subject of this page: "The Free Network, a multilevel marketing company that went under because it provided obsolete services in long distance calling, dial-up Internet access, and paging" - should this part of the sentence be shortened, or perhaps removed?

What do you think? I look forward to hearing your views. Thank you. Phrenology (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

1. "Spin off" and "issued public shares" have entirely different meanings. The sources cited refer to "spin off", which I would guess is a generally well understood term, but to avoid any potential ambiguity, the term can simply be wikilinked to Corporate_spin-off. The section already refers to IPO, which is synonymous with issuing public shares.

2. Free Network, as far as I can tell, was never publicly traded, so "ceased trading" would not be appropriate. The terms "folded" and "went under" were direct quotes from the source, but suitable alternatives would be "ceased operating", "closed", or "went out of business".

3. The IPO cancellation seems to be well situated in the controversy section, as it occurred right in between the major downgrade by Moody's and the filing of the class action lawsuit. No one is saying that it is "scandalous', but it would appear to qualify as controversial.

4. It's only one sentence, so I see no reason for concern about excessive detail, and it's no less relevant than any of the other details about the founder. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rhode Island Red, and thanks for your reply. I've made "spin off" into a wikilink, as you suggested, and have also changed "folded" and "went under" to some of the alternatives you suggested - I had a feeling there were problems with "ceased trading", and agree that the terms you suggest are more appropriate.

With regard to the Free Network material - my concern is that as it stood, the first paragraph devoted at least as much (if not more) space to the Free Network as it did to Visalus - and this reads strangely to me, since the section's purpose is to tell Visalus' history, not the Free Network's. I've therefore rewritten this sentence again, changing it from "...a multilevel marketing company that ceased operating because it provided obsolete services in long distance calling, dial-up Internet access, and paging." to "...a multilevel marketing company that ceased operating because it provided obsolete telecommunications services."

Once again - thank you for your reply. Phrenology (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Body by Vi Challenge

I tried to add some more information to the material relating to the Body by Vi Challenge, in the "Products" section - details of celebrities who have participated in the challenge. My edit was reverted, and I don't quite understand why, so I thought I'd try to explain more about what I was trying to achieve. I attempted to add this information because I've noticed that it's fairly common for wikipedia articles for dieting products to mention any celebrity testimonials and endorsements. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Craig,_Inc.#Endorsements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrisystem#Effectiveness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slim_Fast#Celebrity_endorsements

I can see why some of the sources I included might be considered unreliable - but weren't some of the sources much less questionable? For example ABC News and the Miami Herald? Would the sentence I tried to add perhaps be more acceptable if I removed some of the sources? If so, which ones?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks. Phrenology (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The examples cited above are poor examples, as they do not include references to reliable secondary sources. In general, WP articles should avoid having a promotional tone, and mentioning the names of random celebrities whose affiliation with the product/company is unclear should be avoided. If there are reliable secondary sources that refer to specific individuals signing contracts with the company as endorsers/spokespeople, then that might be worthy of inclusion, otherwise not. If you have examples to discuss further, you can post them here for review. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The Miami Herald mentions "celebrity endorsements from the likes of Hulk Hogan and Alfonso Ribeiro": http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2898417_visalus-marries-biggest-loser.html - and I think the Miami Herald is a reliable secondary source? Phrenology (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems trivial...and sad. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, Rhode Island Red - I'll not add anything about the celebrity endorsements. I wonder, is the Miami Herald usually a reliable source? Just wondering for future reference - I'll avoid it in future, if there's problems with its reliability. Thanks. Phrenology (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Class action paragraph

I'd like to propose some changes to the paragraph dealing with the class action lawsuit. I feel that there are problems with the phrases "also alleged" and "and issued", which make it sound like the alleged Securities Exchange Act violation was in addition to, rather than being identical with the overstating of results. I think that this should be made clearer, by changing "also alleged" to just "alleged", and "and issued" to "by issuing". I would also like to suggest some more general copyediting changes. I propose that the paragraph should be edited so that it reads as follows:

In November 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of shareholders alleging that Blyth overstated the nature and ongoing viability of strong financial results reported for ViSalus, which masked declining performance in Blyth's other operating units and product lines. The suit alleged that Blyth officers and directors had violated the Securities Exchange Act by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding Blyth's financial performance and prospects.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this proposed change? Phrenology (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes look OK to me. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)