Talk:Usana/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk page deletion?

This talk page and even its history have been somehow deleted. Since no history remains, it cannot be told if this happened with this article's restoration on May 14, 2007. Anyone has an idea? --Childhood's End 13:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyramid Scheme Allegations Editing

I posted the original content (as sparse as it may be) and others have noted that the SEC have dismissed these charges, but cite the article I posted which makes no reference to these charges being dismissed. Could someone post a link to a reference for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs)

Done... Although I only found out about it today so I didn't know you already did. Edwardw818 (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Regarding Jean's changes

Non-neutral information - The Wall Street Journal, Court Filings, MSNBC and Business Week aren't neutral? Could you please define what you would consider neutral. Also, you left the Business Week article from 2005 which discussed Usana's "Hot Growth" despite the publications "neutrality" being called into question.

Your update of "out of date information" also included a massive deletion of current events. Your reasoning and your actions are contradictory and did not remove the 2005 article, despite it's being far older than anything else posted.

Regarding Pharmaceutical grade GMP's, from what I've read it is at the discretion of the FDA to make such rulings and they have alwasy rated supplements as food, not drugs. That being the case I would assume that GMP's that Usana lives up to is probably Food Grade, not Pharmaceutical Grade. The FDA will begin treating supplements as drugs in late August of 2007. I'll leave the comment for now, but could you please find a neutral source where such a claim is made and post it here. I've searched, but can find only advertistments for Usana. I couldn't even find it on Usana's official web-site, but I'm totally open to the possability I'm missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs)


The pyramid allegations are written as if by the plaintiff lawyers or Mr. Minkow. It is extremely misleading. You are also incorrect regarding the GMPs. Supplements are required to follow food level GMPs. USANA voluntarily follows drug level GMPs. Beginning 1 year from August the FDA's new GMPs for supplements will go into effect for supplements. Supplements will have to be manufactured to a GMP standard for supplements, inbetween food and drugs. They will not be treated as drugs. USANA already follows the stricter standard set for drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcineman (talk • contribs)


Who enforces this standard? If the FDA is not enforcing it whose authority states they are pharmaceutical grade? As for the information being mis-leading, it is stated as an accusation, not as a fact. If I had intended to mis-lead I would have written "proving Usana is a pyramid scheme", something which has not occured since the matter is still under review by the SEC. Also, if you're merely trying to be non-biased why delete the article entry regarding the resume controversy and all the links to articles regarding current events with Usana? You've also forgotten to address the issue of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Advertising and the recent changes

I will not argue point by point with the above. There are numerous logical and legal holes in each of the points 65.95.54.111 makes. Mrcineman's changes had the effect, and probably the intent, of advertising and polishing the image of this "company." With the prior attempts by block-evading IP's and the use of nonce accounts, all changes to this article have lost the assumption of good faith. Since there most definitely is an effort by officials/victims of this company to edit the article, all of these things are suspicious. (For an analogy, look at the Herbalife article and its history.) Wikipedia is not for advertising. It is not for "setting the record straight." With all MLM's, edits need to be supremely NPOV. Jean314 has it right. Geogre 11:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Reminder: When you folks want to argue with each other (and I'd hope you just wouldn't), type four tildes in a row at the end of your message. It looks like this ~~~~ and it signs your name or IP. This lets other people know who's talking. Otherwise, you look like one message from a schizophrenic. Geogre 03:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Wrong about the law, and the intent. Had the pyramid allegations been relevant they could be here but they woudl have to be written with all the facts, not Jean's polished version. An convicted stock fraud felon took a short position on the stock and then proceeded a multiple month campaign of releasing false information in the process of enriching himself. Its called a bear raid. The 80, not 500, page report didnt uncover any of the facts you claim. Each one of the resume issues you bring up range from false to extremely misleading. Don't use wikipedia to bolster your lawsuit. stick to the facts. Regarding GMPs, USANA has been certified as being in compliance by NSF and has passed several FDA audits.

What lawsuit are you talking about? I am in no way involved with Usana, any form of their competition or any lawsuit being brought against them. I have not used their product in the past, nor do I have any plans to "profit" form wikipedia in the future, so you can stop with the conspiracy theory. I decided to "cut my teeth" on this article because I was aware that the article was previously blocked and deleted due to attempts by non-registered users to use it as advertisement. I was willing to be civil about this and open to your arguments, but you've repeatedly ignored my request for citations from "neutral" sources. Saying "You're wrong" and then deleting everything which you disagree with is no way to establish legitimacy.

[edit] Article blanking without comment

I'm getting a bit tired of these IP et al article blankings without comment. I consider these edits, without justification, to constitute vandalism and I'll protect the article from editing if it continues.--Isotope23 talk 19:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that sock puppetry has something in this. See my checkuser request. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is why I put out the call on this article. Too many people hoping against hope to make money and thinking we're somehow a way to do it. Geogre 03:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any uninvolved volunteers

The current form is really quite ugly. E.g. "the companies officer" instead of "the company's" just shows how much the text has benefitted from all of this angry push and pull. So, is there an established, trusted user with an interest in current events and experience with this kind of article (not really the type of article people associate with my name, you've got to admit) want to take on a clean up? I hate to ask for volunteers and be unwilling to offer myself, but this kind of thing is really viscerally distasteful to me. Geogre 02:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usana Suing Minkow and Minkow's Past

The only article I can find regarding Usana suing Barry Minkow is on the Wall Street Journals web-site, but I'm no longer able to access their on-line articles. Can anyone else find an article about this which isn't written from a blog? Also, many people want to place emphasis on the fact Minkow was formerly convicted of Fraud. I myself wrote it in the artile several weeks ago only to have it removed. While the statement is true, it ignores his current work uncovering fraud and sets it up as though the situation with Usana is entirely a scheme and without merit. An attempt at being "balanced" would require mentioning both his past and his current involvement in uncovering Fraud which would really just turn this into another Barry Minkow article and may even cause people to automatically assume Usana's guilt. IMO if people wish to learn more about who he is they can go to wikipedia article on him or do their own research.Jean314 17:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It was covered in the Salt Lake Tribune several times including April 20 under "Usana Health Sciences scales back its projections for growth", and March 28 "Supplements suit says USANA duped investors", but that's not freely online anymore. A Deseret Morning News article is here. Cool Hand Luke 22:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
http://www.casewatch.org/civil/usana/minkow_complaint.pdf This should be checked out about the litagation that is on going.--CrohnieGalTalk 11:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Find A Consensus

Some posters fail to accept even minor changes to this article. Please refrain from reverting back to unsubstantially documented information. Barry Minkow's short interest in the stock is something investors and consumers should be aware of when researching his allegations. Deletion of these facts simply shows cowardice on your part and lack of respect for consumers and investors seeking information. I propose that this page only be altered for substantiated reasons. Wikipedia relies upon consensus information. Your failure to allow this natural process to occur by true users of Wikipedia demonstrates your desire to deceive and qualifies as vandalism. Allow users to find a consesus.La grenouille

A familiarity with WP principles in one with so few edits (and only to this article, and on this day)! FYI, this article is about Usana and not Barry Minkow and the fact he was previously convicted of pyramid selling and now campaigns against it is not as important as to the effect his report had on the share price of (and subsequent legal proceedings taken against) the company. Furthermore, except for the new items about the continous quarterly record sales, this section is being edited to very much the same text as a couple of previous editors (who were in fact the same editor = sockpuppets = not allowed) which the community reverted to the version you have since amended (which has "allegation" linked twice in the section, plus an alleged - where is the NPOV balance there?). The consensus is not to the style preferred by you and the companies supporters/apologists. Live with it. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In re his familiarity with policy, WP:AGF. Users sometimes pick up the nuances of Wikipedia quickly when policy is constantly cited against them. Cool Hand Luke 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I was tagged as a vandal, hardly AGF there, for applying previous consensus and it is only my impartial admin principles that disallowed me from using my buttons to block him for violating WP:NPA... and the fact that this is a new account, of course. LessHeard vanU 21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Not impressed with your admin principles if you would block for his non-directed attack. As it turns out though, you're right. User is obviously the ip 63.67.170.150, which resolves to usana.com. Dunno why Utah companies are so unsubtle. WP:COI problem. Cool Hand Luke 22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm wrong. You did an admirable by simply not engaging in the attacks. Cool Hand Luke 22:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree in part. The Dereret News artcle "As stocks plunge, Usana sues Minkow over report" says he personally owned 225 put contracts for USANA. Depending on when he sold and what kind of contracts her bought, he probably made over $250,000 from the price drop with relatively little risk. This is my original research, but we should certainly mention his short position.
Your edits go wrong by smearing Minkow in passing and by relying upon marketwaveinc.com. Although not owned by USANA, they have a decidedly pro-MLM POV. I will try to selectively remove changes I think are unsupported. Cool Hand Luke 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have now made your edits, I can live with the current article. What I did not agree with was LessHeard immediately reverting the document with no consideration for valuable points to the topic at hand. My intention was not to smear Mr. Minkow, but to create awareness about the source of the allegations. Without a short position in the stock, less attention would be given Mr. Minkow. La grenouille
No, I got into an edit conflict so figured I'd revisit it in a few hours when it's more stable. I hate accidentally undoing another editor's work. I think that most of the negative additions about Minkow should go, but his short position should be precisely covered. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
LessHeard, what is your take on the current version posted? Did you make that revision which apears to be a compilation of the prior revisions?La grenouille
Yes, that is my edit. The subject of the article is the company, so the report leads the section, followed by the substance of it, followed by the rebuttal (including the nature of Minkows past and present), followed by the consequences. My complaint is that previous edits have smeared Minkow before the fact of the investigation he conducted, in what appeared to be a concerted campaign to discredit it. My edit, I suggest, is NPOV since it gives equal weight to both sides. LessHeard vanU 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I find it to be fair. Although I think the title should be Legal Allegations, as his allegations include much more than just pyramid schemes. Additionally, his report is really only 86 pages, addendums making up the rest of the 500 pages. La grenouille
Well, yes - that is what a report is; a finding based on research. If the findings are greater than the references then it will not hold up to scrutiny. LessHeard vanU 19:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usana's Filing for the 2nd Quarter of 2007

La grenouille added a link to Usana's 2Q filing for the 2007 fiscal year citing

"The most recent financial reporting is very important to someone looking to invest in the company, through this link a reader can find all historical financial info"

as the reason. This is all well and good, but apparently this filing is without the review of an independent auditor (Usana's Auditor quit a little while ago) which means it violates on of the SEC's rules for this sort of filing (http://sec.gov/rules/final/34-42266.htm).

Usana has openly admited this in their filing (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/896264/000110465907060966/a07-18905_110q.htm) under their "Explanatory Note" section, but I'm wondering if we should include some sort of note etc. with the link. If the link was added to provide investement information for potential investors I'm certain that I, if I were looking to invest, would want to be made aware of this. Mind you, it does state under the headings that it's "unaudited", but I don't believe that most people will understand that this is in violation of an SEC rule.Jean314

I am not up to US company financial filing regulations, but if it is in violation of the rules then IMO it shouldn't be linked to - it is by definition a non-reliable source. Also, and this is pretty important, it isn't WP's mandate to provide information for prospective investors. It doesn't stop financial data from being linked to, if it illustrates the text (such as growth patterns or rise to top 250 quoted companies, etc.) but Wikipia is not an advertising or promotion site for the subjects of its articles. This latter point is something that seems to have escaped the attention of a number of editors with a very pro-Usana POV. I would (and will) remove any content that seeks to promote the subject over that of an encyclopedic article, and I will have blocked any editor who seeks to violate Wikipedia guidelines and rules in that respect (this is not referring to you, Jean314, as I see you are following a NPOV approach in your editing). LessHeard vanU 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The link I posted was to Yahoo! Finance. Are you saying that this is not a credible source? The 2nd quarter 10Q was filed with the SEC regardless of it lacking an auditor review. The company fully disclosed this in the 10Q and made a press release to clarify the NASDAQ notice. This can all be found at Yahoo! Finance, which I believe is a non-biased source of information. If you are saying that information from the company can not be trusted due to their lack of an auditor (which they are currently replacing), then you must be arguing to remove the company website and other links that contain any response from the company. Additionally, LessHeard stated, "this is pretty important, it isn't WP's mandate to provide information for prospective investors." If this is true, then it must also not be WP's mandate to inform consumers of business opportunities, and this entire article is void and should be removed. One can not post "pyramid scheme" information in an attempt to deter investors and business seekers, and then in the same breath claim that this site must not be used for informing investors and business seekers. Who else could possibly be interested in reading about USANA??? Perhaps consumers of the product? Then this article should only contain information pertaining to the products and sources that show pros and cons of its consumption. That would be the true content of an encyclopdedic article.La grenouille
The posting in Yahoo! Finance is labelled as a "press release" and gives a projection on the companies future from the companies point of view. As well, this projection has not been verified by an independent auditor. Usana has not hidden any of this information, but people interested in Usana's financial position should be made aware when reading it that it comes strictly from the company with no third party evaluation. Also, we have a link to Usana on the NASDAQ at the very beginning. The article is still featured in the External Links section for the moment (Most Recent Financial Reporting), but I'm just trying to say that I wouldn't want to base my decision to invest in a company based on that companies point of view. Also, I provided links in my original statement which show the rule being violated and Usana's official filing which they sent to the SEC. You can see that they openly admit that they have not been able to send this filing to an independent auditor because they recently severed their business relationship on amicable terms.Jean314
Ironically, Usana may be de-listed from the NASDAQ for not providing an independent auditor. Personally, I'm certain that they'll get one before that happens, so I think the NASDAQ link will continue to be safe in the future to provide anyone who is curious about the financial situation with the information they need. This article discusses what I've talked about above as well as thier current situation with the NASDAQ (http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_6625538). On a side note, it says that Barry Minkow denies short selling in his most recent posting, but his posting actually has him denying "naked short selling." His posting can be found here (http://www.frauddiscovery.net/FullerWentzLetter081107.pdf).Jean314
Please read up on the rules and guidelines for content on Wikipedia. The basis of inclusion for articles is notability, and independent third party verification. The reported 20 quarters continuous growth is notable, the unverified press release of current financial situation by the company is not. The reported allegations are notable, as are the companies reported rebuttals of several accusations. If people believe that reading an encyclopedia article is an appropriate way of scrutinising a companies financial status, rather than through a financial medium, then they are not being entirely wise with their (prospective) investments. WP attempts to be the distillation of third party reporting of vatious subjects, and nothing more. I suggest you read WP:SOAP carefully. LessHeard vanU 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention of preaching "buy USANA" from a soapbox. I have been responsible for posting links with opposing points of view as well. But when I came across this article it was very much weighted in the other direction, with only information under the title "pyramid scheme allegations" listed. For some reason or another, I felt it was my duty to even things out by including more neutral information. For this reason I have taken a stance on the other side of the fence. I think this article should be similar to other WP articles, remaining neutral. Since the article discussed the fall in stock price as a result of the allegations, I believe it is only just that the financial position after the allegations be noted as well. La grenouille
Just to clarify, the fall in stock price listed was necessary because its what led to a lawsuit. This is why I moved your reference to the 10Q higher because it has no bearing on the case and seemed to me that it's location and phrasing seemed more to negate/disprove the lawsuit then be informative. If I wanted to force an opinion which was anti-Usana, I would have chosen a different method.Jean314 15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "...It says he is a CPA. It does not say he is an "active" CPA."

This is wikilawyering; unless CPA is a title (like Doctor) which enables the bestowed person to use it whether practicing or not, referring to oneself by a professional rank or abbreviation infers that it is current - especially when used in conjunction with business matters with which the person is affiliated. It appears that the Utah Association of Public Accountants require that inactive CPA's do not use the title. LessHeard vanU 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re; Wikipedia Scanner results for "Usana. Salt Lake City. USA"

My new fav site; see [1]. Now that there are usernames prepared to discuss and argue for their edits (of both POV's) then this is of historical interest only. LessHeard vanU 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as I commented above, La grenouille is probably editing from that address. The ip made the same edits just minutes later. Cool Hand Luke 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
La grenouille is discussing their edits, and therefore WP:AGF means that I (and everybody else) do not concern themselves where these edits come from. Your point, however, is well taken. Let us all try to create a good article, here. LessHeard vanU 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I am. COI is not an issue unless user is breaking our policies, and this user seems willing to abide by them. Cool Hand Luke 00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. LessHeard vanU 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, are you saying that La grenouille is posting from the same IP address as my good friend Mrcineman (aka Gotcha115 aka Chadtibb aka LbUT) and this IP address is registered to Usana.com? Jean314 15:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
To clarify; it is not known if La grenouille is editing from the same ip address as Usana, but a trace does put them in the same geographical area as the company. It is not known because there has been no reason to find out, since La grenouille is continuing to discuss their concerns regarding various edits.LessHeard vanU 16:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Right. If the alleged socks were acting in concert to break the 3RR or some other policy, then we should request a checkuser and block if positive, but as long as users play by the rules, they're OK. Cool Hand Luke 18:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There may be conflicts of interest (ok, there surely are), but, if the responsible parties are not insisting, then they are merely another voice. My concern remains that some of those others with an incentive to evangelize will pile on as well. While tracker is interesting, we all pretty much suspected what it confirms; it is when we get mobs flying in from outside that we're going to have to semi-protect and shut down the chaos. Let's hope that never happens. Geogre 19:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The page should be protected from those who would also wish to "demonize" it. La grenouille seems to feel I've taken that position, so if any of you disagree with my wording, sourcing etc. please feel free to rap my knuckles... although something tells me I didn't really need to say that. Jean314 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem. NPOV allows all reasonable POV to be represented, not just some hypothetical "middle ground". It is only when verifiable content is removed does the knuckle rapper need be introduced. Angels and demons alike are allowed to edit. LessHeard vanU 23:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback. I have had no intention of overloading this article in USANA's favor. As I mentioned before, when I first came to the article I felt it was heavily leveraged against USANA. For that reason I have taken time to make edits to it and have defended my edits. In that very brief time I have been very impressed by the change in the article. I feel it accurately depicts USANA and its current events. Jean314....I have had no intention of demonizing you or claiming that you have done so to the article. I apologize if it has appeared to be so. My feelings are that you and I have professionally competed for the proper edit of this article. As a result of our discussions, the article has drastically improved. I too am very new to Wikipedia and have appreciated all of your patience for my learning curve. La grenouille 05:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Poor wording on my part. I meant that my role seems to be more as the antagonist, or devil's advocate on this article. I agree that the article has been much improved by the recent flury of activity surrounding it.Jean314 12:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My feelings about NPOV

I believe that the best neutral pov article is one where both sides of the argument are properly represented, and not some wishy washy middle way which is careful not to upset anyone and ends up boring. Providing that all parties do not remove or alter the other editors version then the reader (and really, this is who we are creating this thing for) is provided with the facts to enable them to make their own decisions. Therefore, all verifiable content is welcome - from any source. LessHeard vanU 19:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forbes allegation

An article posted on Forbes.com is inherently a reliable source, coming as it does from a respected and widely-referenced business news publication. Whether it's right or wrong, we don't know, but we should not omit it merely because Forbes says one thing and Usana says another. FCYTravis 20:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Usana have commented subsequently on the claim establishes notability, as far as I am concerned. The edit includes Usana's denial, and thus also looks okay to me. LessHeard vanU 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
My thought was that posting about an unamed source reporting to the media should be held off until further information became available. Personally, I trust Forbes, but since the person was not signed in I was concerned about their intent in posting the information which is why I figured I should suggest a discussion before I got entangled in a massive delete-undo war. However, you happy = me happy Jean314 20:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)