Talk:Usana Health Sciences/Archive 1

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&#39;s End 13:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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Your update of "out of date information" also included a massive deletion of current events.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)

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.

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, Je tL ov e r  (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)

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)

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.-- Crohnie Gal Talk  11:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

"...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)

re; Wikipedia Scanner results for "Usana. Salt Lake City. USA"
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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

Comment by Terri Hamel
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)
 * 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)

Delisting Notification
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)
 * 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)
 * The article has been edited accordingly and the external link updated to the ammended 10Q. La grenouille 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Possible Addition to the Article
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)

Allegations of Illegally Operating in China
October 19th, 2007 saw the launch of the Fraud Discovery Institutes website www.cheatinginchina.com which claims to feature evidence of USANA illegally selling products in mainland China. Minkow, a co-founder of the FDA, alleges that hired investigators spoke with several USANA employees in Hong Kong to discuss how citizens from the mainland could bypass Chinese law governing Multi-Level Marketing companies by operating out of Hong Kong, which has separate rules governing its economy.

A phone call which is claimed to be placed with an USANA employee emphasizes the importance of having an account at China Merchant Bank, located in Hong Kong, to set up Chinese distribution lines "[because] we will not send a check." The same employee is also alleged to have said that USANA has 30,000 distributors in the mainland China.

A USANA spokesperson claimed these allegations are without merit and that USANA is not attempting to side step its own strict rules in order to break Chinese law.

Company filings show Hong Kong to be USANAs fastest-growing market with sales increasing by 81% between the second quarters of 2005 and 2006. []

comments
Needs third party sources, not secondary/primary (USANA & FDI) ones, to be included in the article. I should think that the third party sources would need to be impeccable (national newspaper/specialist publication), too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The New York Post is a third-party source. Very tentative headline though MINKOW ACCUSES USANA OF ILLEGAL SALES IN CHINA. Cool Hand Luke 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that The New York Post was a good source from which to draw information. I'll supply a link here to the article so those who are more experienced can at least see the story and make suggestions.Jean314 (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10192007/business/minkow_accuses_usana_of_illega.htm


 * LessHeard vanU, Cool Hand Luke, is there a consensus as to whether the New York Post is considered a third-party source or not? Also, do either of you have further suggestions about what to do with the information from this article?Jean314 (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I have just read I think it may be included as a sentence or two as part of Minkow's actions against USANA. The link doesn't paint Minkow particularly favourably, and it has a USANA rebuttal so... yeah, I agree it could be included. No WP:Undue weight, though. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider the Post to be a good third party source typically. But in this case, the author offers no opinion as to the validity of the claims and doesn't appear to have done any due diligence in reviewing Minkow's evidence. Notice that the author says "Minkow claims to have" evidence throughout the entire article, but never suggests that he has seen or validated it himself. Additionally it doesn't appear to have had any serious affect on the stock price or the performance of the company. And no other major publications bothered to report on it. I would argue that the article fails to provide the third party validation we are looking for here.La grenouille (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that it would be inappropriate and dangerous for a reporter to verify such claims until the authorities have reached a conclusion. While I haven't reviewed them to verify, I'm certain any article we have used to make reference to the various lawsuits taking place right now have not stated emphatically which side is correct.  If we're waiting for the authors to validate the claims of the parties involved then we'd be required to remove any reference to any legal proceedings currently taking place since, until there's a ruling since, up until that point, they're merely allegations. LessHeard vanU, you suggested we include it as a short addition to Minkow's actions against USANA.  Would you be willing to do a re-write and post it here to see if we can reach a consensus?Jean314 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will have a bash this evening (UK time zone) if nobody else has had a try. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, this is it - and feel free to edit for style and typos"<-- existing text -->In early August, 2007, Forbes reported that through sources the FBI had launched a criminal investigation into Usana . Usana has denied these allegations, stating that they have not been contacted by the FBI and are not aware of such and investigation .<-- existing text --> In October 2007 Minkow alleged that USANA is illegally trading in China, which claims the company has denied.{ref}"Unless anything comes of these claims I don't think any more needs saying, the link is sufficient for anyone interested further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Although I think we should also include a link to the website where these allegations are made as well (www.cheatinginchina.com). (User:Jean314|Jean314]] (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Be bold and insert the other link - if it is reverted we can always discuss the matter here. LessHeard vanU 13:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not revert the edit because I think it would be better to discuss it here prior to messing with the article. I disagree that it should be included as a link in the article. It completely contradicts what we have discussed above by overweighting the article in support of Minkow's opinion and fails to represent an equally weighted opposing view to remain neutral. It is not much different than a USANA supporter linking the article to a pro USANA website. Additionally, the way it is written solely for the sake of including the website is a stretch and is not consistent with the rest of the article. LessHeard had it right. I suggest the following
 * In October 2007 Minkow alleged that USANA is illegally operating in China. The company denies these claims.{ref}  —Preceding unsigned comment added by La grenouille (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? Does including the Minkow ref give it undue weight, seeing as it is only two sentences, or does it illustrate the claim - the existence of which is given credence by the New York Times link? May I suggest that the FDI link is held pending any development in both the discussion or the matter? (I am assuming that La grenouille has reverted the bold linking, and we are now discussing - even though he has AGF'd by not removing it.)LessHeard vanU 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the link was not to simply weight the article in support of Minkow's opinion, but to provide further information about what the company is being accused of doing. The issue (Minkows allegations) were written about in a legitimate journal and commented on by representatives of USANA which (from what I've learned above when I disagreed with including the supposed FBI investigation) makes it relevent for inclusion.  Providing the link offers readers the opportunity to find out more if they're so inclined.  Whether or not readers agree with these allegations is up to them, but they should be given the opportunity to find out what those allegations are.  Simply stating that USANA has been accussed of "illegally operating" could cause more damage by allowing people to speculate as to the severity of the alleged crimes.  Also, further information will help distinguish these allegations from the previous allegation made by Minkow when he accused USANA of being a pyramid scheme.  For the purpose of informing the reader I think the link should be included.  Jean314 14:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, if La Grenouille cannot give a rebuttal of the argument then it stays in. However, if La Grenouille or anyone else finds a legit link that clarifies or expands the USANA position in this matter - except if it is only more "ex-felon" language - then it can also be included. Agreed? LessHeard vanU 21:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. I have no additional links to contribute to the article in response to these accusations. This is because the matter has obviously not warranted any serious response from the company. The fact that the company answered a couple of questions from the one reporter who found the story news worthy, does not, in my opinion, contribute to the legitimacy of the claims or the need for a direct link to be included in the article. With past allegations made by Minkow, the company responded with a press release. But in this case the news failed to affect the stock and did not merit a serious response from the company. I would settle for the article being included as a reference. And I would still like to see the wording changed. "Minkow alleged through a new Fraud Discovery Inst. website..." is irrelevant and sounds more like a promotion for the Fraud Discovery Institute than information pertaining to USANA. "Minkow alleged..." is sufficient.La grenouille (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speculating on how seriously the company takes these charges doesn't really get us anywhere since it's merely speculation. None of us here have been hired to speak for USANA, so we have no idea how they've reacted to this news.  I'm not trying to promote the Fraud Discovery Institute, but instead I'm trying to put this into context.  These allegations are not coming from Minkow as an individual, but are instead from an organization he co-founded and heads which have been involved in assisting law enforcement prosecute and convict several fraudulent companies.  Representing this information as thought it was merely coming from a private citizen would leave out relevant context.  Are any claims made in the news related to this company required to have an outcome on their stock price for inclusion?  I don't understand why the stock price is relevant in this matter.  Please, clarify.Jean314 (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned the company's level of response to the allegations because you used it as support to include it in the article, "The issue were written about in a legitimate journal and commented on by representatives of USANA which (from what I've learned above when I disagreed with including the supposed FBI investigation) makes it relevant for inclusion.". I fail to see how the company's vague response to the Post makes it relevant for inclusion, same as you and I disagreed with the inclusion of the FBI allegation. In regards to the FDI and Minkow, it is difficult if not impossible to draw a line between him as an individual and the institution. From what I can see, the only difference between the two is the fact that Minkow took a short position in the stock, and the Institution did not. To now pretend that Minkow's short position is irrelevant by pretending that it is the institution making the claims rather than Minkow, detracts from the facts. Which brings us around to the stock price. A decline in stock price would not only mean more money in Minkow's pocket, but would also demonstrate the markets' response to the news. The fact that the stock showed no significant change as a result of the news, supports my argument that it is irrelevant and hardly worth including in the article. If I am not mistaken, the affects on the stock price were an important matter when we discussed the relevance of his original report. Why would they not now be similarly important. Please clarify.La grenouille (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A company’s response to allegations was stated as being an important part for inclusion previously by posters who know more about the rules and regulations of Wikipedia then I. Whether or not it is "vague" is irrelevant.  They've denied the claims to make their position known making this topic worthy enough to note.  No one is making the claim that Minkow's short position is irrelevant because these claims are being made through an institution he co-founded and runs.  In fact, we're not talking about his short positions at all.  The "investigation" is being conducted through his business, Fraud Discovery Institute, and it should be recorded as such.  As for why the stock price was previously relevant, it was because we were discussing it in regards to lawsuits being brought against USANA and Minkow which were related to declines in the stock price.  The stock price itself was not considered grounds for inclusion, but was information supporting other additions to this article.  The same relevancy does not seem to apply.  How would a decline in the stock price add legitimacy to whether or not we should include a reference to the FDI and a link to the article in the New York Post?  Please, clarify.Jean314 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although our discussions typically yield better results, it is clear that we may not reach the consensus we are searching for in this case. Perhaps we can begin to look for ways to agree, and agree to disagree on these points. I am proposing that the link be included in the article, but that the sentence be written differently. Here is what I propose
 * In October 2007 Minkow alleged that USANA is illegally operating in mainland China. The company denied these claims. [Post ref] La grenouille (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had read your proposal when you first suggested it LessHeard vanU. If your concern is the over promotion of Minkow’s company may I suggest we not mention its name directly?  Given your previous additions I would have thought that you would have agreed with posting such information because it demonstrates that there is a financial motivation for Minkow by engaging in these allegations against USANA.  As I’ve said before, by omitting this information I feel that readers will interpret Minkows actions as a private citizen fighting for a cause when, in actual fact, matters such as this are a source of income for him (FDI is For-Profit).  Also, this is not the first time his company has engaged in such a campaign.  Here is what I suggest.
 * ''In October 2007 Minkow alleged through his company’s website that USANA is illegally operating in mainland China. USANA has denied these allegations.” Jean314 (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can live with the sentence above. You are right, the article should be clear that the FDI is a for-profit organization. This would allow us to include the name and to avoid such drawn out discussions moving forward. As of now, it is only clear that Minkow is gaining financially from his short position. Would you have a suggestion for making the addition to the article? The inclusion of the information should most appropriately be noted earlier in the article where the FDI is first mentioned. It could really be as simple as, The Fraud Discover Institute, a for-profit oranization........You're thoughts? If you think it deserves more attention, we may want to start a new thread to discuss this. You're probably as tired of scrolling through this one as I am. La grenouille (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

FDI Reference
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Lawsuit Dismissal
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)
 * 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)

LAW SUITS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED

Reuters told us so: http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUKBNG13838520080111?symbol=USNA.O

Can we please get rid of those nonsense comments, now, in the text. All class action law suits were dismissed, because the judge found no indicators that USANA conducted in any wrong doings.Markburger83 (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Wall Street Journal January 11 article information
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)
 * 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)

Conflict of interest and page protection
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 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 Single-purpose account).

So, should it be protected? Qwerty (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Do you mean semi-protection? Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparative Guide - Should its reference be removed?
From what I've been reading on-line the Comparative Guide isn't a peer reviewed journal and a number of those that contributed to its analysis are related to USANA in one way or another. Since it is not an independent analysis should its reference be removed from the article? I'm asking because I don't think the article should include references to biased periodicals/magazines etc. Also, there has been some judgements granted in the case of USANA vs. Minkow that should probably be updated soon. I've only found references to these updates on personal blogs of people related to the story so I'm waiting until I can find a better source.Jean314 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the absence of better sources... I suggest keeping them. Provided that the source data is considered legit I don't see the harm. Independent third parties may be reporting Minkow, but there is a question of whether his information isn't biased. As usual, its a question of finding the right balance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which issue you're referring too. The Comparative Guide or the Court Judgement.  For the sake of keeping this simple lets just stick with the Comparative Guide for the time being.  Its reference in the article is only a minor one, but my concern is that it is mis-leading and gives them impression that an independent peer-reviewed journal has tested USANAs products.Jean314 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just the comparative guide; if there are no better references then adding that the guide may or is not be independent would suffice in the meantime.
 * Re the judgements, citing reliable third party sources is always best since it gives an indication of how serious they are considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the comment regarding the dispute over the independence of the publication due to lack of reliable third party sources. My search for an article in a reputable paper or other reliable source that documents this dispute yielded nothing. La grenouille (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The complaints have been made, for the most part, in on-line forums and have surround several individuals and their connections to USANA. For example


 * Dr. Ray Strand is on USANAs Advisory Board

http://www.usana.com/dotCom/company/ag/mab


 * Dr. Ray Strand Helped develop the Blended Standard used in the Comparativve Guide

http://www.diversehealth.net/products/comparative-guide.html


 * An official complaint was published by a competitor and responded to by the comparative guide, but the original complaint has since been removed from the web. Here is The Comparative Guides Response http://www.comparativeguide.com/melaleuca.html


 * If you would like to suggest a re-wording of the sentence I'd be happy to hear it. We could take off from LessHeards example and say something like "the guide may or may not be independent."Jean314 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just "...may not be independent..." should suffice. While the credibility may be questionable, it depends if the information contained is sufficiently noteworthy and otherwise unavailable. That is the only criteria for inclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "...,a publication which may not be independent"


 * Until the issue of the independence has been resolved (which is certainly worth asking), don't you guys think that this comment should be removed, since it has no references associated with it? It might as well say "..., a publication which may be independent" Of course that wouldn't be a scientific redaction, either. As of now, this comment does not serve the reader as an objective source of reference.Markburger83 (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not this issue will ever be resolved (Written about in an unbiased media article) is unlikely. Despite that there is still legitimate cause for concern when those involved in writing the Comparative Guide are related to USANA.  Melaleuca's complaint can be found at the following link and the Comparatives Guides response in the one after


 * http://www.melaleuca.com/wc/pdf/comparativeguide.pdf
 * http://www.comparativeguide.com/melaleuca.html


 * While Melaleuca raised concern regarding Strand's previous history with USANA the Comparative Guide did not respond to this. Also, I'm sure you're aware that Ray Strand is a spokesperson/distributor for the company.  Personally I think given the evidence the Comparative Guide should be noted as having been partially written by a USANA distributor.  I think it is only fair that readers learn this information and that it be presented as clearly as possible for them to understand what we're referring to when we say that it might not be independent.Jean314 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline? 11.1 to or from 11.06
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)

references 3 & 4
I note that reference 3 is a Forbes report on USANA, and reference 4 is a news report of the Forbes report. I don't think we need both, but which one should go? The primary report is more detailed than the secondary report - I would use the Forbes report. Any opinions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you already answered your own question. If one is to go it should be the secondary report in the National Business Review.  There have been new developments in the Court case of USANA v. Minkow.  Does anyone care to update the article?  I'm unable to do it at the moment.  Here is the link.
 * http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3249326
 * Additionally there is no reference in the USANA article on Wikipedia to the defamation suit they brought against Minkow and later dropped. I think this is worthy of inclusion if someone has the time.Jean314 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see if La grenouille is around to post regarding the link - I try not to post new content to keep myself "uninvolved". As for USANA dropping the defamation suit; a dropped case is not notable of itself (there can be any number of reasons why it was dropped) but might be mentioned in passing in the general matter of USANA vs. Minkow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Markburger83 Edits
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)


 * === 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markburger83 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

I haven't found anything persuasive on the class action lawsuit yet. I will tab the judicial data banks for more infos next week. I am also planning on creating new categories like "Accolades", where "Best of" and "Worst of" etc.... . can be displayed, with easy links and more organized, since it can get crowded and confusing. I might do it in chronological order with small 1992-2008 headers.

Also, I would like to extent the product categories and add more descriptions. Can I use the USANA website as one of the sources of reference, while upholding my objectivity? Markburger83 (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

comments

 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

further comments
What about a HISTORY part of the company? Before I get started, I just want to make sure that there is a general aproval. The history part would include developments of the company, from day one to today. So BACKGROUND should probably be renamed to HISTORY or Background would have to be rewritten and mention the founder of the company. Please let me know, if I can write a more extensive piece.


 * You seem to be intersted in including the founder in this article. May I suggest adding to the opening paragraph so it reads "USANA Health Sciences, Inc., is a network marketing company founded by Myron Wentz that produces a....."  If you wanted to include a history it would have to be from 3rd party independent sources.Jean314 (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about a list of executives?
 * If the executives in question are particularly notable and have their own articles I guess I could see you're point but if they're not I'm not certain why the article would include this.Jean314 (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would, of course, present all my results in this forum first.Markburger83 (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I think it would make sense to put Myron Wentz in the beginning paragraph. And I get your point. Since, we are talking about the company, we should only mention Myron Wentz in a history part, but not elaborate. Correct?!


 * List of executives: I wouldn't call them "particularly" notable, but, like it is the case in other articles, the readers would appreciate to see a list of people who are in charge. I am particularly thinking of research projects and homeworks that require things like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markburger83 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

question
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)

Usana Green
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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markburger83 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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


 * 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)

Usana Green Edited and Third Party Sources
(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)


 * What do you think? 201.172.39.156 (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Usana's Asia Pacific vice president resigns
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)


 * 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)

Small Correction: Retail Channels
"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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

SEC Investigation and Minkow
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)


 * 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)

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

Linus Pauling Institute
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)

Minkow Lawsuit Over
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Will do. It is past midnight here, so I shall do it tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Previous Article Information
Below is the information that has been removed from the article too be updated accordingly. I think there have been a number of articles recently about the more recent happenings that have yet to be included or referenced. I'm hoping we can review this and make necessary changes to make it more readable and reflect what took place.Jean314 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ==Legal allegations==

Usana was previously involved in a legal dispute, which was settled in July 2008. In March 2007, Barry Minkow, an executive of the Fraud Discovery Institute, delivered a 500-page report to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accusing Usana of operating a pyramid scheme. The report alleged that:

-*86% of profits are derived from sales to associates.

-*Only 37% of sales associates had ever earned a commission.

-*Of the 37% who earned a commission, 87% did not earn enough to cover the original $116 cost of becoming an associate.

These allegations prompted an informal investigation into USANAs business practices by the SEC which concluded on January 11th with the SEC recommending that no enforcement action be taken against the company.

Barry Minkow, a convicted felon-turned-investigator of corporate fraud, had openly admitted to short selling Usana's stock, in order to make a profit from a decline in the stock price, prior to delivering the report. On page 8 of the report, Mr. Minkow admitted to receiving payment for writing the report, which was submitted under the name of his company, the Fraud Discovery Institute (FDI).Mr. Minkow has since netted about $61,000 dollars from option activity related to USANA's stock. Usana denied Minkows claims and initially sued him for defamation, a claim they later dropped. USANA then filed a lawsuit against Barry Minkow citing stock manipulation. On March 5th 2008 a federal judge threw out all but one of USANAs claims against Barry Minkow after she found USANA guilty of violating California's anti-SLAPP law by suing Minkow for fair criticism. The judge determined USANA did now show a reasonable probability they would win based on those claims and cited two examples where USANA failed to refute Minkow's claims that USANAs products were overpriced due to their not being of better quality than other lower-priced brands. On May 9th Federal Magistrate Samuel Alba ordered USANA to pay $142,510 to Minkow to recoup his attorney fees for defending himself against the thrown out charges. The judges ruling retained USANAs ability to identify and sue any institutional investors, hedge funds an individual investors it believes conspired with Minkow to profit from the company's falling stock. Currently no further lawsuits have been laid in this matter, but the charge against Minkow is still moving forward.

One day after the release of the Barry Minkow report, shares of the company's stock declined by 15%. Accusations leveled against Usana by Barry Minkow and the FDI, were listed as contributory factors in the decline of the stock price and have subsequently led to several lawsuits being filed against the company.

On April 4, 2007 Guerin Senter and two other USANA shareholders filed a class-action lawsuit against USANA Health Sciences, Myron W. Wentz, David A. Wentz and Gilbert A. Fuller. The suit alleges that USANA presented materially false and misleading statements about the company's financial situation and business practices. Included in the allegations were that USANA's business model was unsustainable and amounted to a pyramid scheme. The lawsuit references several of the allegations made in the Minkow report.

USANA has also been named the defendant in a proposed class-action lawsuit brought against them by some of the company’s distributors. On June 21st the Associate Press reported that the lawsuit was being filed in the state court of California, which has tough multilevel marketing laws. This lawsuit seeks to ban USANA from doing further business in the state, which is one of USANA’s largest markets. The lawsuit alleges that USANA failed to disclose “material adverse facts” to those recruited to sell the companies products. The lawsuit seeks damages for "downline" distributors who purchased products which they claim they were unable to sell due to the inflated prices.

In early August, 2007, Forbes reported that through sources the FBI had launched a criminal investigation into Usana. Usana has denied these allegations, stating that they have not been contacted by the FBI and are not aware of such and investigation.

In October 2007, Minkow alleged through a new Fraud Discovery Institute website that USANA is illegally operating in China. USANA has denied these claims.

On January 3rd 2008 a derivative lawsuit in the Utah state court, which was brought by shareholders of the company against its directors, was dismissed by the court after USANA filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiff agreed with prejudice. 

On January 11, 2008 it was announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) closed its informal inquiry and will not take any action against USANA. Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI has deferred to the SEC and is not investigating the company.
 * Much of that would have been relevant had the matter been proceeded with, but since it has not then it is of no real notability to the company now. If one or two links to a stable source which provides much of the detail can be linked into the article as it now stands, I feel that that would suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red edits
Could we discuss the changes made by Rhode Island Red (a USANA competitor) vs. the current revision at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usana&oldid=244905499

RIR removed a large amount of text about USANA, which was not done on concensus. Andrewmizzi (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I wasn't aware that RIR is a competitor, I was watching the edits throughout the day and thought they were reasonable - much of the content was being condensed rather than erased, there was some clarification issues (whether it is a USANA claim or the athletics body regarding the purity of the supplements) and grammatical changes. I think we should AGF and accept that these were WP:BRD edits; the bold edits were made, they have been reverted and now it is open for discussion. Was there anything "removed" by RIR, or an emphasis changed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There were a lot of changes, I'm bound to miss some.


 * However, I'll mention what I can found.


 * "The company has sponsored and provided products to several Olympic and professional athletes" is relevant because there are many individual athletes sponsored, not just organisations.


 * I don't see why it's relevant to have the Q4 earnings for 2007 mentioned, we're well past that period and unless we go through each and table each quarterly earnings since USANA was listed, I don't think it is NPOV.


 * The company doesn't claim that they do business in the markets listed, they DO business in the markets listed. It's not a company claim, its fact.


 * Product section cleanup looks ok.


 * Sponsorship section can definatly get cleaned up aswell, I don't see why we're mentioning the Bobsled Team. The WTA reference however is quite relevant.


 * The linebreak in the legal section I think is necessary to separate the resume controversy and the Minkow claims.
 * However I think the Minkow claims are a non-event, only represented a small percentage of USANA's history yet takes up a large amount of this article. All proceedings against Minkow are over, none of his original reports are available from him anymore, and in terms of a NPOV it isn't.  There is a lot of concensus elsewhere on the Internet to suggest he only did it to short the stock, a practice which is now illegal in many parts of the world.


 * Philanthropy section should be cited, not removed. As should the partnerships with not only the LPI but universities worldwide.


 * Many of the external links are irrelevant and are form a negative point of view towards USANA. Many of the links don't even work...
 * Andrewmizzi (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Q4 earnings of 2007 were included because a previous poster felt it was necessary to show USANAs financial track record up until the stock began its decline. It was only added to give an updated perspective on the situation.  I am in full agreement that the section should be removed.  Whether or not Short Selling is illegal in many parts of the world seems irrelevant since it was perfectly legal when Minkow did it and he did it openly.  Consensus elsewhere on the internet?  Could you be more specific?  The Minkow situation featured a lot of observation from the press and so it can be properly cited.  I would say that it's very relevant to this company.  On what basis do you claim that Rhode Island Red is a competitor of USANA?  Can we not accept he made his changes in good faith or should we start discussing people's motivations?Jean314 (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted the last round of edits to the last stable version from when I finished trimming. Let's go over this point by point in clear detail rather than doing wholesale deletions of referenced content.


 * "The company has sponsored and provided products to several Olympic and professional athletes" is relevant because there are many individual athletes sponsored, not just organisations."


 * I would argue that this is trivia. Companies give away products in promotions all the time; that fact is hardly encyclopedic


 * "I don't see why it's relevant to have the Q4 earnings for 2007 mentioned, we're well past that period and unless we go through each and table each quarterly earnings since USANA was listed, I don't think it is NPOV."


 * I didn’t add the information, it was what remained after deleting improperly referenced content. If you have other reliably sourced financial details, let’s consider including them


 * "The company doesn't claim that they do business in the markets listed, they DO business in the markets listed. It's not a company claim, its fact."


 * Not unless there is a source other than statements from the company -- if not it is is only a company claim. We define facts based in part on the sources that support them.


 * "Sponsorship section can definatly get cleaned up aswell, I don't see why we're mentioning the Bobsled Team. The WTA reference however is quite relevant."


 * Why is the WTA and the company giving away products to Olympians worth mentioning but not the bobsled team? I don’t really think any of the sponsorship is particularly noteworthy but why pick on the bobsled team?


 * "The linebreak in the legal section I think is necessary to separate the resume controversy and the Minkow claims."


 * I have no particular issue with that; it just looked odd to me. Is doing so consistent with WP style/formatting guidelines?


 * "However I think the Minkow claims are a non-event, only represented a small percentage of USANA's history yet takes up a large amount of this article. All proceedings against Minkow are over, none of his original reports are available from him anymore, and in terms of a NPOV it isn't.  There is a lot of concensus elsewhere on the Internet to suggest he only did it to short the stock, a practice which is now illegal in many parts of the world."


 * Strongly disagree. That and the resume controversy are the most interesting aspects of the USANA story.


 * "Philanthropy section should be cited, not removed. As should the partnerships with not only the LPI but universities worldwide."


 * Strongly disagree. The link to substantiate the claim was dead and the company making donations to charity is a long way from noteworthy – it is trivia. Talking about this donation smacks of backhanded advertising rather than true philanthropy.


 * "Many of the external links are irrelevant and are form a negative point of view towards USANA. Many of the links don't even work..."


 * Which links are dead and which are irrelevant? I haven’t gone through them yet but I would like to before you delete them. If there are good sources in there, we should weave them into the article. I’m generally not a big fan of such lists because everything worth reading should generally be cited in the article itself. This should be used as a temporary holding area only.


 * I'd be content to see Sponsorships to go all together, as well as ", but the company failed to make the Forbes list in 2007.


 * USANAs Q4 earnings for 2007 fell flat with earnings declining slightly to $11.06 million from $11.1 million. The company attributed this to a 5% decline in the number of US associates.[4] A month later USANA cut its estimated earnings per share for its first quarter of 2008 from 63 cents - 66 cents per share to 44 cents - 46 cents pers share.[5]?


 * I have removed the dead links in the external links section, however the others should be cited into the content of the article or removed.
 * Andrewmizzi (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, as Jean queried below, Andrewmizzi should address his accusation that I am a USANA competitor. What is the basis for this accusation? I would appreciate a retraction/apology. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)