Talk:Nu Skin Enterprises

message: I'm working on this article and I'm putting this paragraph here for now. I don't know if it's important enough to include yet. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph in Transit

message: someone should mention the placenta use it is notable 
-Paul the less  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.8.136 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide more details? Leef5 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Placenta!!?!!

message: Because there seems to be a lack of consensus on what should be included regarding controversy claims, I am moving this discussion here until we can determine appropriate content, if any, that needs to be added.
Here is the paragraph that is currently in transit...
:Pyramid Scheme Alert has alleged that Nu Skin operates using compensation system of a pyramid scheme or a multi-level-marketing system to mislead distributors and future investors.[8]
DrewP (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Discussion 

message: I thought it would be good to move the discussion on what to include in the intro paragraph for this company here so we can come to a consensus on what should or should not be there. 
Seems to me that adding controversies into the opening paragraph is somewhat contrary to maintaining a NPOV. Look at company pages for companies like Avon, Ford, Citi, etc. 
What do you think?
DrewP (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably, the articles on those other corporations should include some mention of notable controversies in which they've been involved. But that misses the point.The lead is supposed to briefly summarize all relevant aspects of the subject, in proportion to their handling by independent, reliable sources. It seems to me that this article is extremely light on independent, reliable sources and rather heavy on press releases and the like. The repeated charges of deceptive marketing, and the repeated large settlements paid by the company to settle these charges, seem like an important aspect of the topic and one of the few that is actually reflected by independent, reliable sources. On that basis, I think that some mention in the lead is appropriate, although I'm not wedded to the wording in my edit. MastCell Talk 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the controversy is of defining nature of the company, it shouldn't belong in the lead.  The lead describes in a nutshell about the basics behind the company.  Is this particular controversy foundational to the explanation of what the company is?  It does not appear so.  I believe the controversy section is sufficient for article readers to find out enough about this particular issue.  I do agree with MastCell that overall the article is light on reliable sources, especially for the age of the company. Leef5 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what would make it of defining nature? It seems to me that if an otherwise low-profile company has paid repeated, large settlements on charges of violating an FTC order about deceptive marketing, then it's an aspect of the subject significant enough to be covered in the lead. If there were a lot of independent, reliable sources describing other aspects of the company (as with Ford, Citigroup, etc) then I think there would be a stronger case for relegating the FTC info to a subsection, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. MastCell Talk 17:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the FTC settlements are from ~15 years ago, I don't see them as being company-defining.  If they were defining, the company would have been shut down by the FTC and then we'd be talking about an article about a defunct company in which the FTC would certainly be a defining role.  It appears that NuSkin has "cleaned up their act" if you will.  If there are any recent re-occurring FTC issues, they should be brought to light and then perhaps we are talking about an ongoing issue with the company's marketing. Leef5 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Leef5 on this issue. Unless I'm mistaken, a consent decree or settlement by its very nature is a non-admission payment by an entity to avoid a more protracted and potentially costly legal entanglement...hardly the stuff that would belong in an overview in my opinion unless it has a significant material impact on the company's financial results, which I very highly doubt these settlements did. 216.169.204.172 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since you are posting from a IP associated with nuskin.com, presumably you have more insight into the impact of these settlements on the company's bottom line than I. MastCell Talk 21:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Since your IP is clearly a WP:SPA, please register your account and update your bio with your company details (PR/marketing, etc).  You are certainly welcome to discuss issues, but your actions will be watched as you have an obvious bias to the article's direction. Leef5 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to include in the opening paragraph... 

message: I reverted this edit because I don't think it's encyclopedic. The edit basically turned the majority of the article into a promotional-sounding product catalog. We should be aiming for a more encyclopedic tone. I think it's appropriate to summarize the products marketed by this company, but that summary shouldn't take up so much space. Surely the reader can click on the link provided, to the NuSkin web page, if they want detailed information from the company about its products. That's the role of a company's marketing arm, not of a neutral encyclopedia article. MastCell Talk 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - just because the material is sourced, does not automatically mean it is encyclopedic nor of appropriate due weight.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 17:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So what would be the most appropriate way to add information that is relevant about a company and its products or services? I want to make sure that the information on this page is accurate and balanced. There are definitely positive and negative aspects to any company. However, it seems like there is undue weight given to minor things like the FTC settlements the company paid in 1994 and 1997 - 17 and 14 years ago respectively - while more current sourced information about products is removed even when it appears to be properly sourced and is considered to be materially significant information about the company (NOTE: I did not add this product info BTW, it existed when I started editing on Wikipedia). Why can some companies put lists of products or other offerings (take episodes lists for TV series that are clearly available on and even sourced from company sites, or companies like Apple, Inc. for example)? I'm new here, so my ignorance may be showing...please help me to understand so I can be a better contributor to this article and to Wikipedia as a whole. Nscomms (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If other company webpages feature long lists of products, then they should be improved as well. It hasn't been my experience that this is the case. Certainly, our highest-quality corporation articles don't seem to feature such product catalogs, although Leef5 may have more experience with corporate articles than I and be better placed to address your question.By way of comparison, Microsoft is a featured article. It prominently mentions Microsoft's legal difficulties and antitrust litigation, despite the fact that these issues occurred mostly in the 1990s. It also outlines Microsoft's product catalog without going into detailed marketing-based product summaries. I think that's a reasonable bar to aspire to for our articles on corporations. MastCell Talk 21:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks...that is good input and helps me understand your edits a bit better.Nscomms (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive product descriptions 

message: There seems to be an issue with editors from IP addresses associated with this company edit-warring to remove material from the article. It might be worthwhile to review Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest, and to discuss the changes in question. I think that an appropriately sourced review of a Nu Skin Product is appropriate for this article, yet it continues to be removed by IPs from Nu Skin Enterprises (e.g. ). MastCell Talk 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally have a subscription to that site - the IP editors (with an obvious COI) may want to review WP:V#Access to sources which discusses the issue of verifiability.  Just because the verified information is behind a paywall doesn't invalidate it as an WP:RS.  If it means so much to you to see the information 1st hand, then pay the subscription and have a look.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 00:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with reliable sources behind a paywall. There's a tremendous amount of research that's a not free; theoretically most published analytical sources are not in the public domain.  There are certainly situations where this is abused, but I have no reason to think this is the case here. Is there a real suspicion that the reference is transcribed inaccurately; or is this just smoke?  Would be happy to verify if there's a real concern. Kuru (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing by IPs associated with Nu Skin 

message: In 2011 two Utah incorporated business entities linked to top executives of Nu Skin each made $1 Million contributions to the SuperPac "Restore Our Future"..  Restore our Future is a political action committee established by former aides to US presedential candidate Mitt Romney to support his bid for the White House.
It seems that these political activities are centered around individuals...not Nu Skin as a company.  It would seem that this information would be more appropriate to be placed on the individuals page. (Blake Roney, Steve Lund) I can not understand how the contributions of individuals has to do with a corporation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by  Ezeug  (talk • contribs)  20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a similar blurb in the Amway article (see Amway#Political causes).  It would be WP:OR if an editor drew the conclusion themselves that these were Nu Skin executives, but here the article text mimics the text in the RS.  This is a fairly benign statement overall, and seems to meet WP:NPOV as this is just factual information.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 00:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, this related article popped up this week.  Seems to provide a richer source. Kuru (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Political activities

message: I'd like to start some discussion about this recent revert. I strongly believe that, per our project guidelines, the lead section needs to reflect some of the regulatory material. We cover it comprehensively and appropriately in the article body, which makes its repeated removal from the lead all the more puzzling. This is clearly a relevant aspect of the topic, and while it should not be given undue weight, it clearly deserved mention in the lead.I'm wondering if the editors who have repeatedly removed this material in the lead could explain their reasoning a bit more fully? I'm also going to mention in passing that I'm mildly concerned that this page is being heavily edited by IP editors registered to nuskin.com along with several newly registered accounts, but that's a side concern at present. MastCell Talk 22:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the lead needs to have a bit of controversy in it. I don't understand the need to take out the other edits that have been made. Each time you revert back to the old edit, it is taking out other information regarding additional brands that Nu Skin has acquired. 216.169.205.169 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we incorporate the following statement in the Lead and remove it from the scrutiny section to reflect an unbiased view - 
"In 1992, Nu Skin reached settlements with 5 states which had accused the company of operating a pyramid scheme. Following a 1994 investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, the company paid $1 million and signed a consent decree prohibiting it from making deceptive or unsubstantiated claims about its products. In 1997, the company paid an additional $1.5 million to the FTC to settle ongoing allegations of unsubstantiated promotional claims. As of February 2012, Nu Skin has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau"
This seems to satisfy both parties and allows for a fair and balanced online article. This seems to also satisfy the argument regarding the lead, while still keeping the rest of the fairly balanced article intact. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. (Ezeug (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Material from the lead needs to be covered in the body of the article as well - it shouldn't appear solely in the lead. I have no problem with mentioning the current A+ BBB rating in the lead. MastCell Talk 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: I agree that the lead should have some of the controversy surrounding Nu Skin. My intent in putting it in the controversy section was because there was quite a bit of it. I recommend using the below statement in the lead:
"Throughout the 1990s Nu Skin faced scrutiny through several investigations and lawsuits over allegations of misleading marketing practices, and operating a pyramid scheme."
and place it between the sentences beginning "One year later..." and "In 1996..." so to follow  chronological order of events.
Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.206.69 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add lead back 

message: Check it out.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-21/nu-skin-to-review-china-practices-after-pyramid-scheme-claims
Also, what I found on this blog is interesting
http://amlmskeptic.blogspot.mx/2014/01/breaking-news-nuskin-in-serious-legal.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.148.3.122 (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investigation in China for possible pyramid scheme? 

message: In compliance with Wikimedia's terms of service, because of a COI, I am respectfully requesting an edit to this page, specifically the adding of a new section "Awards and Recognition", and the content below. I would like to disclose that I do not work directly for Nu Skin, but am employed by a company they employ. The purpose of this request is to add content to, and fill out the Nu Skin Wikipedia page. Below are the requested additions and their neutral, third party sources. BagongMali (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: this is just a bunch of badly sourced WP:PROMO.  If you want to weed that down to things with coverage in media that is independent of BOTH the company and the entity giving the award, it may fly.  Maybe. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit on 29 July 2014

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nu Skin Enterprises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614055823/http://www.consumerlab.com:80/reviews/Multivitamin_Multimineral_Supplements/multivitamins/ to https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/Multivitamin_Multimineral_Supplements/multivitamins/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: .
 
In the Infobox on the right side, there are some updates that need to be made:
 
According to this Bloomberg page https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/NUS:US, the “Key People” section should be updated to the following information:
 
Key People:
Ryan S Napierski (President)
Ritch N Wood (CEO)
Joseph Y Chang (Executive Vice President)
Mark H Lawrence (CFO)
 
Jakevh28 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will decline this request as it appears promotional. The current list of Key People already appears to have proper sources other than the Bloomberg article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates to the Key People section in the Infobox on the right side