Talk:Isagenix

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Misleading & out of date stub

I would agree - the foundation of this article seems to be more of a whitewashed consumer warning than anything else. No mention is made of their work with either ChildHelp or Make-a-Wish, for example. I think a re-write is in order. (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Elpelon, I know it's been a couple of years, but I too agree that there's little balance in this article. There have been some peer-reviewed studies published in the last year that I think probably deserve inclusion. It may be worthwhile breaking out the last section into a "Isagenix claims" section, and then having another section for critiques of the system. What do you think?--Jonddunn (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION if you haven't already, as it's a good explanation of why critique sections should be treated cautiously. Unfortunatly, they're fairly common on Wikipedia, but they invite a lot of WP:NPOV problems. Content making medical claims is held to higher standards, per WP:MEDRS, also. Grayfell (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added in information on two peer reviewed publications of the University of Chicago study by Kroeger et al. There are two more studies that have been completed and are awaiting publication which I'll update as soon as details are available. I like Jonddunn's suggestion to add an 'Isagenix Claims' section and separate out the Critiques of the system to a different section Jamie Stott (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Charitable contributions.

I have reverted the addition of some information in charitable donations, mainly because the first source is barely adequate but leaves much to be desired. It says that "Isagenix associates in the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, Australia and New Zealand may make tax-deductible donations to Make-A-Wish to impact young lives in their own communities." Excuse me? Isn't this true of everybody, 'associate' or not? This kind of puff throws the article's status as a secondary source into question. It also fails to mention in what ways the company is partnering with Make a Wish, or how much money they have raised. The second source is merely a press release republished without additional commentary or verification, and is inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

While this source is somewhat better than nothing, Direct Selling News is a minor publication, and the story is entirely promotional and doesn't have a byline, which suggest it's derived from a press release (this one, probably). The phrasing was also ambiguous in a flattering and non-neutral way. The longer press release says the money was raised through "fundraising and generous Associate and corporate pledges" which is emphatically not the same as a flat donation. This is basically Isagenix donating an unknown amount and their associated and customers donating the rest while Isagenix takes the credit for the sum. Sure, that's fine for PR, but too promotional for Wikipedia. Find a much better source before restoring, please. Grayfell (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Grayfell: . I added in the Direct Selling News article with the Make-A-Wish info. I apologize that the source was not up to snuff. I guess it's part of the problem with private companies like Isagenix, who aren't covered widely in the MSM, to find those credible sources. I suppose I assumed that since DSN had been used as a ref in other areas of the article, that it would be OK to use again. Would it at least be fair to include Make-A-Wish alongside Childhelp in that section as a charity they support which is clear on the Isagenix website (and mentioned on Make-A-Wish sites as well) without getting into specifics about how the money is donated, or how much? As a new editor, I appreciate the guidance. Thank you! --Jonddunn (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jonddunn. I've added Make-A-Wish, which is supported by a current source. I understand the confusion over sources, as the current sources are pretty flimsy. I've looked for better sources, and I don't think this belongs in any detail. Corporations fund-raise and donate to charities all the time, so this is neither rare nor noteworthy without reliable, independent coverage. You mention the "MSM", but relying on press releases to write soft-news articles is about as mainstream as it gets, and that's all I'm finding: mostly press releases, with only a few passing mentions on soft news articles to balance it out.

Can you find a genuinely WP:SECONDARY source covering this? Whatever the corporate motive might be, the end result it PR and advertising, which is outside of Wikipedia's purpose without such coverage to establish due weight.

This also highlights a related problem. Right now the info about the Haitian earthquake donation is also sourced to a press release. It's a press release issued by someone other than Isagenix; that doesn't quite make it an independent source, since Stop Hunger Now was closely involved in the donation, but it only makes it a little better. I've removed that for now. The source is too flimsy. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A year without a good source seems like more than long enough. I've removed the line. Find something substantial, reliable, and independent before including this again, otherwise it's too much like PR to be appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Isagenix International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110825163255/http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/MajorProductRecalls/Peanut/default.htm to http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/MajorProductRecalls/Peanut/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

DISPUTE

Almost every fact on this page is inaccurate and/or out of date for example, the associate count is wrong, the sales amount is wrong, Jim Coover's title is wrong, the dates our international markets launched is incorrect, the business model is direct sales not multi level marketing, we do not sell cosmetics, the Harriet Hall & Consumer Choice Organization sources are outdated and inaccurate. Please advise Melizdean (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Megan

Please take a careful look at WP:RS. Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, such as information you may happen to know because you are affiliated with the company. Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources, and holds a dim view of promotional material for several reasons.

With those things in mind, can you find reliable, independent sources for the information you want to change?

You used this link from Businessfromhome.org. This site has been discussed a few places before, and it's not particularly reliable. For one thing, it's run by a single person (Ted Nyuten) which makes it similar to a blog (WP:SPS). For another, it's very obviously derived from a press release (churnalism, in other words). It could be used to update sales figures, but it would be much, much better to find a more reliable independent source for this. As for MLM, sources are clear on that, and the aggressive push by Isagenix to distance themselves from the label has poisoned the well. MLM is a subest of direct selling, and that's being charitable. You've got your work cut out for you, and again, reliable sources specifically discussing this are necessary before making this change. Wikipedia doesn't use euphemisms either.

If you would like an additional opinion from another editor, you may want to try Template:Request edit. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell there are many company facts that are incorrect as noted above. The only reason I linked to business for home is because there isn't anything else out there besides our website and you told me I couldn't cite that. Also, the direct sales business model is the least of my worries. There is so much basic company information that is incorrect and misleading. Anyway, I will get with my legal and compliance team to address. Thanks for your help. Melizdean (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Megan

Without reliable, independent sources, some material doesn't belong at all, and should be removed completely. I told you not to copy/paste promotional material from your company's website, which is not the same thing as using the company's website for citations. Using a WP:PRIMARY source isn't great, but it's allowable in limited cases.

While what you said was not a threat, if you're considering legal action, please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. This is not the venue for making legal threats, and doing so will lead to being banned until that is resolved. This would be an extremely poor way to improve the article.

How about listing the specific items that are wrong, with whatever source you can find, here on the talk page. This edit difference page might be helpful. Again, please do not make these changes to the article, only to the talk page. From there we can figure out how to fix errors without turning this into spam. Grayfell (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Here are the items I will be addressing. Since we are a private company, there are unfortunately not very many independent sources available.
Employee count this is NOT 200 it's 1,000 - http://www.isagenix.com/en-US/network-marketing-company/newsroom/2016/press-release-isagenix-achieves-4-billion
Customer count - http://www.isagenix.com/en-US/network-marketing-company/newsroom/2016/press-release-isagenix-achieves-4-billion
Company sales amount - http://directsellingnews.com/index.php/view/2016_dsn_global_100_list#.V05uNZMrJE4
Jim Coover's title - http://www.isagenix.com/en-US/network-marketing-company/founders
date our international markets launched (this is an internal document I can't link to, but here is this http://anz.isafyi.com/get-exclusive-10-year-anniversary-jersey/) we do not sell cosmetics, we sell skin care products http://www.isagenix.com/en-US/products/rejuvity
Harriet Hall - need to consult my legal and compliance team on this one
Consumer Choice Organization - need to consult my legal and compliance team on this one
Melizdean (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Megan

I've made some changes based on your suggestions.

Fun fact: Skin care product is a redirect to Cosmetics#Products. While I understand the difference, it's too subtle to matter, and many sources legitimately consider them the same. If you don't consider them the same, this isn't the place to fight that battle. "Skin care product" is basically a euphemism or form of WP:JARGON, which would be overly promotional. As an encyclopedia, the article should use plain language when possible, and this one such case.

Being a private company without very many sources is probably a good thing. Although Wikipedia has a spam problem, most companies which meet notability guidelines do so because they attracted press coverage, which is typically unflattering. This doesn't actually matter here, however. If it's not sourced, it doesn't belong and can be removed at any time. I've removed the employee count, and it should not be replaced until it can be sourced. An out-of-date source could be attributed to the year, such as 200 (2013) for example. That would still be better than nothing.

I've adjusted the titles. "Master Formulator" is essentially meaningless, and doesn't belong as a title. It is already explained as the company's title, but it should not be presented as having an established meaning or prestige.

If you have a problem with Harriet A. Hall, you should take it elsewhere. If you feel this isn't a reliable source for this article, you should explain why, either here, or at WP:RSN. Same with CHOICE.

Incidentally, the inclusion of a primary study to imply medical benefit goes against WP:MEDRS. Any adjustments which suggest or imply a medical application absolutely must be supported by high quality secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isagenix International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/MajorProductRecalls/Peanut/default.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131125141911/http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ArchiveRecalls/2009/ucm128661.htm to http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ArchiveRecalls/2009/ucm128661.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Section proposal

Study performed to test Isagenix products in relation to health through WP:RS.

In a study done conducted at the University of Illinois at Chicago and funded by Isagenix, it was found that intermittent fasting combined with calorie restriction in the form of liquid meal replacements is effective for weight loss and cardio-protection in obese women. The study was conducted in two phases. A two-week phase weight maintenance phase, and an eight-week weight loss phase. One group consumed a standard ‘heart healthy’ diet for six days a week, and the other IsaLean Shakes. The group that consumed the IsaLean Shakes had a 56% greater reduction in average weight loss, 47% greater reduction in average body fat loss, and twice as much visceral fat loss.

In another study conducted at Skidmore College and funded by Isagenix, researchers found that combining a system of ‘Shake Days’ and ‘Cleanse Days’ with the use of Isagenix products improve body composition and contribute to better heart health during weight loss. After the initial weight loss, the subjects who continued to use Isagenix products had significantly improved weight maintenance and body composition.

A study, sponsored by Isagenix, was published in 2016, and was the first to demonstrate that physically active women who used Isagenix products for increased protein while engaging in exercise enhanced their muscular endurance, strength, power, and cardiovascular health. In the study, the two groups of 30 randomized women were seperated into a control group, and a PRISE group (protein pacing, resistance, interval, stretching, endurance training). Both groups engaged in a RISE exercise training protocol to improve multiple aspects of performance. Zeelyone (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Those are all WP:PRIMARY sources connected with the company, and therefore, not in keeping with WP:MEDRS. Th proposed text also reads like cherry-picked WP:PROMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup, cannot include anything making health claims without WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the feedback. In reading further about WP:MEDRS, I noticed that a primary source may be used so long as it is presented together with a secondary source. If I also referenced this secondary source, and trimmed down anything that could be considered WP:PROMO, could we include the study on the page? Zeelyone (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Good lord, no! That doesn't come even remotely close to being a reliable source. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry! What about this article? The author appears to be a professional journalist/author. Zeelyone (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No. From the profile on that website, Matt Gersper is a retired business man who self-published two books and now writes a blog. Anyone can do that, so this is WP:SPS. There is no indication of strong editorial oversight, or a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, which is the baseline for reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Zeelyone, when WP:MEDRS says presented along with a secondary source, it means a medical secondary source, i.e a scientific review or something like that. Even reliable news sources are considered primary (see WP:MEDPOP) and the sources you've presented as secondary are definitely not reliable at all Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd go a step further and say that the source is blatantly misleading promotional BS. The mere suggestion that it be included overtaxes my editorial patience. A reminder -- WP is not a soapbox for promotion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. Zeelyone (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Frontiers and MDPI are both a flat "no" for MEDRS. The BMC one also fails MEDRS because it's a primary study and because of the obvious product placement - the finding that "Intermittent fasting combined with calorie restriction is effective for weight loss and cardio-protection in obese women" is scarcely novel and there's nothing to indicate that this rather obvious bit of PR is significant or that the findings are in any way relevant to this article. Sure, they will use it to try to sell their product, which is what they paid for, but any one of a gazillion other products would have the same effect. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Harriet Hall a WP:MEDRS?

There are multiple occasions where this source shows up on the page. I have read into WP:EXPERTSOURCE and I understand keeping the page WP:NPOV. I still don't understand how a source that may as well be a blog post sponsored by one committee is acceptable. Harriet Hall is an ex surgeon, and you could argue she is an expert in the field, but the site used to display her thoughts is not reliable. Zeelyone (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer is not a blog, and therefore EXPERTSOURCE doesn't apply. If it did, however, having contributed to textbook on consumer health (ISBN 978-0078028489) would demonstrate her credibility on this topic. From what I see, the only medical claim (as opposed to marketing claim) Hall is making is about the amount of vitamin A, which is not an extraordinary claim. Perhaps this could be explained better in the article, but I don't see how this broad, simple comment fails MEDRS. Further, the burden of proof is on Isagenix to support its claims, and any challenge to these claims must weighed against that burden. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Harriet Hall is one of the best known writers in the field of skeptical inquiry into quack medical claims. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Intro - necessary content

Material is not important enough to belong in the summary of the company. Zeelyone (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Sez who? The lede summarizes the body, including the unflattering bits. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I think the bit about its founding can stay there, it doesn't bloat the lede too much and the reality-based perspective is quite strong enough that the marketing fluff doesn't overwhelm it. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The point is that the Harriet Hall inference in the introduction does NOT summarize the body, so it shouldn't be included in the overview. It is also captured in the products and business model section making it redundant content. @JzG|Guy can you please revisit. Melizdean (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The lead says: "Physician Harriet Hall, writing in the Skeptical Inquirer in 2011, said that many of the claims made about the products are false." The body texts (in products and business model section) says: "Physician Harriet A. Hall published a lengthy critique of Isagenix products in Skeptical Enquirer, in which she said that many of the claims made about the products are false". In other words, the lead captures the gist of the body text perfectly. BTW, couldn't help noticing that you are an WP:SPA, which raises the specter of WP:COI. If that's the case, please act in accordance with COI policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Areas Served

The article currently lists a number of countries in the "areas served" section of the corporate infobox. The entry is currently unsourced. The only source that I could find that pertains to this detail is a company fact sheet which refers to having an "independent network of associates" in 18 countries.[1]

That seems pretty weak, as it's self-published for one but also because it's vague. It doesn't refer to having corporate offices in those countries; merely that they have MLM distributors in those countries, which is trivial. In fact, this company press release explains that they don't have offices in Belgium and Spain but rather that the products are available in those countries via the London UK office.[2]. Again, weak. I think we need a WP:RS to back this up and can't base the claim solely on the vague details the company has provided to date, as it borders on being WP:PROMO. There's no evidence that the company is authorized to sell in any many of the countries listed.

Also, I checked the infobox for IBM for guidance, and it simply lists the number of countries where the company does business -- it doesn't name each of them individually -- and it provides a secondary WP:RS to back it up. Unless someone can come up with better sourcing, this issue will require some chopping in the infobox and elsewhere. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a MLM. The area served is generally the bank account of the founders. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Amped NOx Study has no COI

Hi @Grayfell: the source used for this info comes from a highly credible journal, and at the bottom of the study results, you will note that there is no COI between the results and Isagenix. "Dr. Eric Gumpricht is Director of Research and Science at Isagenix International LLC. Dr. Gumpricht was not involved in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data. All other authors report no conflicts of interest." The results were not affected by Isagenix. Zeelyone (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

An author declares a conflict of interest, and you say that there is no conflict of interest? This reflects poorly on both the source, and your ability to interpret a source. This is why, especially for medical content, we do not rely on editors to interpret studies. Find a reliable secondary study and summarize, or better yet, propose a change on the talk page. You have already been linked to WP:MEDRS, and if you do not understand it, you should be asking questions until you do instead of making flimsy promotional edits to medically-adjacent articles. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

As explicitly stated in the study's disclosure section,[3] the senior author is an Isagenix exec, and the study, as well as the lead author (and one other author), were funded by Isagenix. The COI couldn't be more obvious. I can't believe we're even having this discussion. It's also not a "highly credible journal" -- it's a low-tier pay-to-pay open-source nutrition journal. These partisan edits and staggeringly oblivious comments by Zeelyone are cause for great concern. Take a break! Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)