Talk:Usana Health Sciences/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Talk page deletion? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pyramid Scheme Allegations Editing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Advertising and the recent changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think that sock puppetry has something in this. See my checkuser request. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article blanking without comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Any uninvolved volunteers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Usana Suing Minkow and Minkow's Past 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ''"...It says he is a CPA. It does not say he is an "active" CPA."'' 

message: My new fav site; see . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. LessHeard vanU 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  re; Wikipedia Scanner results for "Usana. Salt Lake City. USA" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My feelings about NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Forbes allegation 

message: Dear Sir, Thank you for the notice that I am no longer allowed to post messages on the board. Please tell me who I can contact to dispute the many incorrect allegations in this article, which are currently being countered by USANA in a lawsuit. I sincerely want to follow protocol, but I am concerned that Wikipedia is unintentionally allowing misinformation to be posted here. Would it be possible for me to get your sources? I believe it is important to let your readers know that the person who began the lawsuit, Barry Minkow, is a convicted felon who placed "put" options on USANA's stocks just prior to launching an attack on the company, and then made a significant profit when the stock fell 15% the next day. You might also want to contact USANA directly, as the company has been more than forthcoming with opening their records. I believe that Wikipedia will improve its image by disallowing spurious allegations on its site. Sincerely, Terri Hamel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs) 10 October 2007
:Terri, Barry Minkow's former conviction for Fraud as well as his put options have already been listed in this article.  What information would you like sources for and which allegations do you feel are incorrect?  Also, could you provide more information regarding the "significant profit" Minkow made from his put options?  I've been unable to find any specific number anywhere.  I should also mention that I am not a Wikipedia moderator, but am instead a simple poster who is looking at expanding this and several other related articles.  Jean314 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The block was for 31 hours, which has since expired. You are free to discuss matters here or on your talkpage. Please do not, however, edit the article in a manner which is not consistent with consensus. LessHeard vanU 12:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Terri Hamel 

message: I am proposing that the NASDAQ delisting notification now be removed from the article as the company filed an ammended 10Q for the second quarter and has since been cleared by NASDAQ to continue to be listed. Any objections?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by La grenouille (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it appears to be not uncommon for companies to be notified of delisting pending proper filing I think the notability is such that it can be removed without further comment. LessHeard vanU 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been edited accordingly and the external link updated to the ammended 10Q. La grenouille 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Usana to stay in Nasdaq; Q3 earnings rise 7.5%, SL Trib. Removing this story was proper, but I'm concerned that other criticism has been improperly stripped out. Losing a long-time auditor is a big deal and the markets tend to consider it an ominous sign, even if the immediate threat of delisting has passed. Cool Hand Luke 01:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the resignation of Grant Thornton was significant news at the time. But USANA engaged PwC, one of the top four accounting firms in the world (arguably the top firm), despite GT's resignation. Additionally, GT sited no accounting disagreements as reason for their resignation  . All said, I would agree that it should be included as historical information, but suggest that the appointment of PwC with a description of the accounting firm's qualifications be included as well. This will depict an accurate account of the current situation. La grenouille 18:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is a source quoting the markets reaction to GT's resignation then that might be permissable - understanding that Wikipedia is not a news service - but changing of auditors and "difficulties" in filing accounts is not unusual. Only if there is some fallout regarding either the resignation, the filing, or subsequent developments does it become an encyclopedic matter. Other sourced criticism of the company, however, should not be removed. LessHeard vanU 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting Notification 

message: I haven't been around much, and I think my writing will further demonstrate that.  There's an intersting situation regarding this company and allegations that they are illegally operating in China.  I threw together a small section about it, but don't want to place it in the main article until after we can come to some sort of agreements as to whether it is NPOV or not (I've been away to long to trust my writing).  Here seems like a better place to battle it out, so I'll copy and paste the text below and we can begin going over it.  Thank you in advance for your help.Jean314 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Addition to the Article 

message: How much Minkow has profited from his put options is something I've been trying to find out, but have yet to get any clear picture of.  The only references I've seen so far state that he didn't even manage to cover the cost of his investigation because he bought too late.  Also, it would appear that shorting of USANA stock is no longer allowed.  All that aside, I would agree with your phrasing provided the intent of the organization is also referenced.
:"Barry Minkow, co-founder of the Fraud Discovery Institute, a for profit organization which investigates charges of fraud...."
Something to that effect.  Of course, it still needs to be worked in that these investigations etc. are being done through the FDI as opposed to by an individual.  This is intended to be set into place at the first reference to Barry Minkow and the initial report submitted to the Wall Street Journal.Jean314 (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The stock is still available to short. It may be expensive, but people are still selling the stock short. It is clear that there is some serious naked short selling taking place with this stock. Just take a look at the short interest compared to the available float. Additionaly, there are still put options for sale, which is one way to take a short position in the stock (this was how Minkow shorted the stock originally). What do you have that indicates otherwise?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by La grenouille (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is sort of off topic since I don't think we're discussing putting anything related to this in the article, but there was a financial web-site which listed it as being unable to be shorted, or restricted, or something to that effect.  I wasn't very interested in the topic since it didn't seem to fit in anywere, so it is very possible I misunderstood.Jean314 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDI Reference 

message: A lawsuit which was being brought against USANA in Utah was dropped today.  This lawsuit hasn't been mentioned in the article (We've only provided information regarding the lawsuit in California).  Does anyone have links to information regarding when the Utah lawsuit started?  Belows is a link to its dismissal
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/03/ap4490601.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I spoke to soon, it turns out this lawsuit wasn't against the company, but against a chairperson/director brought about by shareholders.Jean314 (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The article you're referencing says nothing about any of the lawsuits.  From what I've been able to find the Shareholder lawsuit was dropped because both sides agreed to it being dropped, there was no verdict of innocent given by any judge.  The distributor lawsuit seems to still be on going.  There is also no reference in the article you site of any judge clearing USANA of any wrong doings.  The article says that the SEC "recommended no enforcement action."  If you have another article which says the remaining lawsuits were dropped please update the wiki-article and reference it.  I'll search again in case I missed somethingJean314 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I talked to Dave from the legal department at USANA this morning. He told me that the only lawsuit still pending was the one in California and it "should be a long one", he said. That should resolve any doubt about whether it had been dropped or not. The answer is "nope". Markburger83 (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's sort of what I had figured since I was certain they would have released an announcement had the California suit been dropped.  I looked for further information about this and came across some more proposed lawsuits involving USANA.  Recently Myron Wentz attempted to take the company private and some shareholders felt he was acting inappropriately.  The deal didn't go through so we can probably wait and see on what happens next with it.  I'm surprised you didn't stumble across this while you were looking for information pertaining to the Distributor Lawsuit.  I'd recommend you start looking at the Salt Lake Tribune for information on USANA.  USANA is headquartered in Utah so local media normally picks up stories involving them.  Here are a few links
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9679243?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9690574?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,700237629,00.html
I'd imagine that these newspapers could provide you with good current information for your thesis. Jean314 (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah I was totally aware of the privatization issue, but did not stumble across possible lawsuits. I read that many investors were unhappy, but that is always the case. I am very positive that it will lead to legal actions. Thank you for the links.Markburger83 (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit Dismissal 

message: I wanted to provide oportunity to discuss additions I made to the article today in regards to information provided by the WSJ January 11 article. The additions are clear and stick to the facts provided in the print version of the the Journal. Perhaps there is a better place for, or better way to state these facts? La grenouille (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that the detail regarding Minkow more properly should be in his article; in Usana it is enough to indicate that he had a financial interest in the effect on share prices created by the report so as to balance the claims which reflect poorly upon the company. As far as the Wall Street Journal reports regarding the investigations... relevant and appropriate, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall Street Journal January 11 article information 

message: Perhaps the page Usana should be protected, firstly so to stem the flow of any vandalism, and secondly to prevent IP's registered to the company, and other IP addresses that might happen to vandalize the article, from editing it and providing a one-sided view of the subject in question (violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If one's to check the edit history, there's even a user named "USANA1" (sole edit made 14/15 January 2008); note that USANA1's only edit (see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account).
So, should it be protected? Qwerty (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it needs protection. The NPOV question is very well dealt with and the major editors on this article have previously dealt with vandalism appropriately and it doesn't get a lot - really. With Wikiscanner you can easily determine if a batch of vandalism is coming from the company, and that isn't the sort of info the company needs having available via Google - which trawls talk pages as well as article space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you mean semi-protection? Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest and page protection 

message: There are two "froms" where there needs to be one, plus a "to". I can guess which goes where, but sometimes an increase which is below the rate of inflation is regarded as a net decline as the value of the income is less, and it would be best if it were sorted by the editor concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline? 11.1 to or from 11.06 

message: I've reversed many of the edits made recently because they are already covered in the article, in another article, lacked sufficient referencing or didn't seem appropriate for another reason.  I've recorded what took place in each change and will cut and paste them below
Change 1
Added information about USANA being named one of Utah's Best Companies to Work for.  I'll re-add this
Change 2
Deleted references to the Distributor Lawsuit currently being faced by USANA.  I have been unable to find any information about THIS (Distributor) lawsuit being dropped. - If you are aware of a link, article etc. which states that the Distributor Lawsuit is over with please provide it.
Change 3
Added information about Myron Wentz which is already available on his article.  We don't need to mention it here since it's already covered in the Wikipedia article on Myron Wentz.
Change 4
Added that USANA is based in Salt Lake City.  This information is already covered in the background.
Change 5
Added link to the Albert Einstein award Myron Wentz received.  Already covered in Wentz' article.
Change 6
You added "repeatedly" making it read "In 2008, Utah Business magazine, repeatedly, named USANA one Utah's "Best Companies to work For."  I don't think they were named this more than once for 2008.
Change 7
Changed "In 2007" to read "During the same year".  This references the year that Wentz received the Albert Einstein Award which is covered in his own article.
Change 8
Added link to Pachuca Soccer Club, Mexico under the WMA.  You included http:// twice so it's not going to link properlly.  I'll re-add and fix this up
Change 9
Changed 
"a network marketing company, based in Salt Lake City, Utah, that produces a variety of health-care products" 
to 
". USANA Health Sciences' network of associates offers career trainng to prospective clients and associates all across the world. The company produces a personal line of health-care products"
What associates choose to offer shouldn't be included with the what the company offers.  It will confuse readers.
Change 10
Fixed spelling mistakes in previous change.
Change 11
Made adjustments to Change 9
Change 12
Linked the name Myron Wentz to his article in the section about the Einstein award.
Change 13
Adjusted Change 9 again.
Change 14
Adjusted information about Albert Einstein Award
Change 15
Changed "The company produces a personal line of health-care"
to
"The company produces science-based health-care"
- Can you provide information which documents this?  LessHeard VanU reversed this.
Change 16  
You reversed LessHeard VanUs contribution.
Change 17
You added a link to a press release of the companies to back your claim that USANA produces 
"science based" health care.  Do you have an unbiased source?  Like a peer-reviewed journal?
Change 18
Added link to soccer club again.  I'm not sure where it was deleted.  Either way, it's still broken.
Change 19
Adjusted reference to Soccer Club link.
Change 20
Fixed link to Press Release.
If you would like to discuss ANY of these changes please do.  Also, there's an "Edit summary" box above the Save Page button when you're editing a page where you can write about the changes you've made and why.  It makes it easy for people to review your changes and gain an understanding of why you've made them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: === comments ===
I am really sorry for all that trouble and I will try to provide better references.
I am also sorry for the spelling. As a German citizen and English not being my first language, I always appreciate the extra help. 
Question: I am more familiar with edits on German companies. However, it struck me as odd that in the first paragraph lawsuits and fraud are mentioned. Isn't that covered further down, already? This being a third-party influence, it should not be in the description part of the company. ...I think.... I do not see that in the majority of articles for companies, e.g. Coca Cola, who certainly have many law suits ongoing, as well. 
DankeMarkburger83 (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: You really didn't cause any trouble whatsoever.  I wouldn't worry too much about any spelling mistakes since they happen frequently when anyone does additions.  I know I've certainly had my fair share and will continue to have them in the future.  The comments in the opening are to give the reader information about what is present in the entire article.  You'll also notice that the opening makes a reference to USANA sponsoring Olympic and professional athletes which, as you already know since you elaborated on this list, is also covered in the body.  Have you been able to find any article which says that Distributor Lawsuit has been dropped?  I checked again but couldn't find anything.  Some other tips - when responding to comments in the discussion page people tend to place a colon to start their paragraph.  Placing the colon at the beginning indents the persons post making it easier for readers to follow the dialog and when closing your statement you can use 4 of these symbols "~" without spaces to sign your name.Jean314 (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It really depends on what information you're choosing to display.  I would caution against including detailed descriptions of their products in the article since I would think of it as a promotion.  I would certainly recommend you not use the descriptions provided on their web-site as they certainly promotional and seem to contain misleading statements in my honest opinion.  As for "Best of" and "Worst of" I'd would say it depends on whether or not its note-worthy and comes from a decent source.    Is there anything specific you'd like to discuss?Jean314 (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markburger83 Edits 

message: :I found some MLM industry titles, that USANA has received many years running. That is of importance to people who like to have information about the network marketing industry. Also, I agree with you on the product info. It should not look like a sales pitch. However, in other articles (I am thinking of Coke again) there are detailed descriptions of what Coke is. To understand the company, one should know what, for example, the Essentials are. I mean that's what the company does.  
:: In the Coke article there is a history of the product which is sourced from independent articles.  If there is information from independent peer-reviwed journals about USANAs products which are noteworthy we can discuss adding a section to the article.Jean314 (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, is there a category or a place for a category where we can put the MISSION and VISION of the company, since (as the MBA student I am) there should always be reference to those two things in any good business plan. They would, however, be quoted directly from the USANA website. Finally, USANA seems to have this USANA Green program/philosophy/idea(?) that appears to be of importance in the current business-direction of the company. I can elaborate on that and think it should be its own category with a header. Maybe it should be all put under a big header "Company Principals"!? Markburger83 (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be against that since a MISSION or VISION statement would most likely be be a promotion for the company.  If it were a non-profit company I would agree to it but with a for profit company I think its best if we stay away from those sorts of comments.Jean314 (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 

message: Can USANA Green be added to the article as a new category as either No.2 or No.3? I believe it is a stand-alone part or should be integrated into Background. But it is too complex for that. Considering that I am planning to write more, we should expand the categories rather sooner than later. I am writing my MBA master thesis in Germany about USANA and I am getting myself a little ready. Serves me well as a study session. =)
:That's excellent that you're getting your MBA!  Could you tell me more about what your thesis entails?
::I haven't decided what title it will be. It will be in German. My paper shall introduce the American network marketing models to a German audience. I will focus strongly on USANA, since it appears to have to most success in that area.Markburger83 (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: In the wave of companies developing environmentally friendly business models, in 2006, USANA launched ‘USANA Green.’  In order to create an environmental policy statement and develop programs, employee volunteers formed the USANA Green committee.  The committee supports the following actions:
*Implementation of an Environmental Management System (EMS)
*Ensuring that EMS meets or exceeds all relevant environmental regulations
*Training of employees in environmental responsibility
*Promoting energy efficiency
*Recycling of raw materials and natural resources through innovative technologies
*Upgrading USANA’s products in order to minimize environmental impacts 
*Continuously refining the EMS standards to align it with technological advances and evolving business needs
*Communication of the environmental business needs  
Subsequently, in 2006, the committee instituted a paperless-office and recycling program.  Furthermore, USANA became a Visionary Partner with Rocky Mountain Power by agreeing to purchase 750 blocks of wind energy each month, in an attempt to limit the emissions of the toxic carbon dioxide. Today, USANA's headquarter operations are powered to 27% by green energy.  
In the same year, USANA became a Founding Reporter of The Climate Registry, which measures and reports greenhouse gas emissions annually.
*http://www.epa.gov/grnpower/partners/partners/usanahealthsciences.htm
*http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS152284+17-Jan-2008+BW20080117
*http://www.directsellingnews.com/article_app.php?articleid=285
*http://www.directsellingnews.com/article_app.php?issueid=26&catid=4 
*http://www.usana.com/dotCom/company/green/index
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markburger83 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the content requires the addition of such a long section to the article.  I should also pont out that the Reuters article is a Press Release and I would be hesitant to use directsellingnews.com as a source.  Also, much of what you've provided here seems to have been taken directly from USANAs web-site.  Does anyone else have any suggestions?  LessHeard?Jean314 (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usana Green 

message: (2006)
In the wave of companies developing environmentally friendly business models, in 2006, USANA launched ‘USANA Green.’  In order to create an environmental policy statement employee volunteers formed the USANA Green committee. 
In the same year, USANA became a Visionary Partner with Rocky Mountain Power by agreeing to purchase 750 blocks of wind energy each month, in an attempt to limit the emissions of the toxic carbon dioxide. Today, USANA's headquarter operations are powered to 27% by green energy. In the same year, USANA became a Founding Reporter of The Climate Registry, which measures and reports greenhouse gas emissions annually.
(2007)
In 2007, USANA completed the construction of its new earth-friendly office building. The project consisted of a 75,000 sqf office tower and a 84,000 spf warehouse. Xeriscaping and solar panels, planned to be finished by 2008, are part of the USANA Green initiative.
*http://www.epa.gov/grnpower/partners/partners/usanahealthsciences.htm
*http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:puLtovwnh0gJ:www.greenbuildingcommunity.com/news_full.php%3Fcpfeatureid%3D22946%26PHPSESSID%3D76936fe7509548e48c7dcb7181+usana+green&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=32&client=firefox-a
I recommend it will be added to the BACKGROUND part, simply in addition to part 1. Also, I think we should make every year a new paragraph to make it look more organized.Markburger83 (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think? 201.172.39.156 (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usana Green Edited and Third Party Sources 

message: just a blog, but something worth following
*http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/06/19/usanas-asia-pacific-vice-president-resigns-why/  
Markburger83 (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this blog and several others.  While it never hurts to read these arguments be careful especially when writing your thesis.Jean314 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usana's Asia Pacific vice president resigns 

message: "Due to this, products from the company are not available through retail channels, but instead may only be obtained by a direct order to the company through one of its independent associates."
According to my research products may be sold through retail channels, at an extra cost (monthly fee) to the vendor and higher costs (retail price) to the consumer.
Therefore it should read:
"Due to this, products from the company may be distributed through retail channels, however, they are mainly obtained by a direct order to the company through one of its independent associates."
*http://www.usana.com/media/File/dotCom/bin/MalaysiaCompPlan.pdf (I know it is the USANA website, but it seems obvious. Furthermore it is mentioned on many blogs)
Markburger83 (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I might not be reading this correctly but it seems to me that the use of the word retail in the link simply means sell.  I didn't notice a reference to a USANA selling their products through a Retail Business.  Even if a Business did carry USANAs products I think that the principal would be the same and the owner of the business would have to be a distributor for USANA.  Correct?Jean314 (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What it means is that associates purchase products wholesale (autoship) and sell it, to the recommended retail price, which appears to be 10% over the autoship price. I have seen a sign-up form in the Netherlands and associates who choose to do retail even pay a higher monthly fee for being able to open a store. As far as I understood it, from the Dutch associate, one would be able to have a stand, cart, store..whatever, but it is not very common. Markburger83 (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Correction: Retail Channels 

message: Wouldn't you say that the SEC investigation part, which nearly takes up 50% of the space, is outdated? When I write my thesis, I am certainly not gonna write that much about a case that was dropped by the SEC. It diverts attention from more striking issues: Usana Green, China, Products, maybe a Logo etc.. I recommend to refer to the law suit, rather than to elaborate on it. It was important at that time, but now, as we would say in Germany, it is "Schnee von gestern" (snow from yesterday), old. Markburger83 (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the topic of your thesis?  I'm not sure I fully understand what it is you're going to be writing about.  The information isn't outdated because it is related to lawsuits which are currently on going.Jean314 (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEC Investigation and Minkow 

message: What about this? And, can we add a logo without violating copyright laws? Markburger83 (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  InfoBox 

message: The link to the Linus Pauling Institute which is supposed to reference their relationship with USANA has no mention of USANA.  I can only find press releases where USANA says they have partnered up with the Linus Pauling Institute.  Does anyone have references from LPI stating the same or going into detail about what they mean by partnering up?Jean314 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linus Pauling Institute 

message: The lawsuit brought against Barry Minkow by USANA has been settled.  Both sides agreed to it and it is no longer on the books.  I recommend that we change the legal allegations section to a section entitled either USANA vs. Barry Minkow or something else more appropriate and update it with the current events.Jean314 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has been settled then I doubt it needs its own section. If we expand the resume section to include it (rename it "resume controversy and legal allegations"?) we can give a very brief outline and note the settlement, and link to the Minkow article which will presumably still have more details - since it is much more notable for him than Usana. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After waiting for a while, including for sources for the settlement, I have cut a lot of the legal allegation content. I still think it should merged with the resume section, just as a single section dealing with negative content regarding the company so it doesn't appear to give undue weight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this section be subdivided into different categories depending on the topics?  I think a single category without subdivision could be difficult for some readers.  Could you provide an example in another article?Jean314 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have thought that seperate paragraphs, with appropriate language demarking the difference between legal claims and business impropriety, would suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest way to see if it would work would be to try it I guess.  Would you mind demonstrating what you mean either here or on the main page.Jean314 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. It is past midnight here, so I shall do it tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the changes you made how you would like to summarize the lawsuits?  I'd like to suggest adding the other various lawsuits that were separate but related to the Minkow incident.  I'd like to suggest we re-tool the old information into a better format here and then add it back into the article as a closed topic.Jean314 (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not wedded to my edits, I just wanted a merge between the old sections now that the legal allegations side has become historical, and if they can be improved then it would be fine. You do as you see fit, as you have access to sources and like. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minkow Lawsuit Over