User talk:202.187.229.74

Promotional language

Please do not insert promotional language into an encyclopedia article. Please, do not copy-paste from a company's website. It violates numerous Wikipedia rules, including WP:NPOV. Thank you for understanding. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, please note that your proposed changes are an example of false neutrality, although they seem to be an honest mistake. The company has been heavily criticized for their products and have been shown by multiple reliable sources to cause illness in some people. That is still unbiased. Sometimes the facts reflect badly on some. That is not the same as bias. Also, you may want to read WP:SOAPBOX and our five pillars before you proceed further with your editing work. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

For quality purposes of Wikipedia article, the first few paragraphs should contain a clear and fair business description about its business model, which must be sourced from its own website, and then edited to remove promotional language for neutrality. See case of encyclopedia article for Volkswagen and Google as example. Any criticisms are typically given only a small mention at the end of the introduction and detailed further in later sections. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the company's products can cause acute hepatitis is notable enough for the lede. Read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Herbalife offers science-backed products to consumers through entrepreneurial distributors who provide one-on-one coaching and a supportive community for healthier, more active lifestyles." That is not appropriate for a Wiki(pedia) article lede. I don't mean to be harsh, but those edits don't line up with out policies and guidelines. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The claim of 'can cause' is not sufficient cause to determine such editing and can be deemed biased. There were major proven and internationally publicized issues inflicting major food and automobile brands such as national e.coli outbreak, scandals, or proven global deaths in world news, but they are not highlighted in introduction sections of wikipedia articles. Therefore, to apply this stance to this particular article can be deemed bias. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with assertion that "Herbalife offers science-backed products to consumers through entrepreneurial distributors who provide one-on-one coaching and a supportive community for healthier, more active lifestyles." sounds promotional and can be further edited to portray the same business model but remain neutral in language. Example of proposed change for neutrality: Herbalife offers its health and nutrition products to consumers through entrepreneurial distributors who provide one-on-one coaching. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of collaborative and fair editing, I will wait for your responses on the bias check, and agreement on the proposed promotional language edit before I proceed with changes. If there are no further responses I shall proceed, and undos made thereafter could seem performed out of bias. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. I think it must be mentioned that Wikipedia requires WP:DUE weight. That means if reliable sources are unanimously one-sided then so are we. Neutrality does not mean that we give every viewpoint equal treatment regardless of their support in reliable sourcing. WP:FALSEBALANCE means we cannot depict a false equivalence here, and WP:LEAD requires the lead to be a summary of the article, meaning that if controversies are a substantial part of the article, they need to be in the lead as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Review 1: "...Herbalife, is a global multi-level marketing (MLM) corporation that develops and sells dietary supplements."

Note: Only mentioning dietary supplements to describe the primary business is inaccurate. The company sells a wide range of products, and the majority are meal replacements (meal replacements are typically a different category from supplements, and are known as food formula). The company also sells significant amount of "protein shakes, teas, aloes, high-protein snacks, vitamins and supplements, sports nutrition, and outer nutrition products."

Review 2: "The company has been criticized for allegedly operating a "sophisticated pyramid scam".

Note: For a more accurate depiction, this point should emphasize that the allegation of pyramid scheme was made by Ackman specifically, which remained unproven. Also, mentioning the location of where this alleged scheme by Ackman happened is important, specifically to the US, as the company's business is regulated in more than 90 countries worldwide. Separately, the US FTC case cited here is about alleged misleading claims of potential earnings in the US specifically, and not about pyramid scheme. For the US FTC case, Herbalife settled with the US FTC and agreed to pay $200 million to compensate consumers and fundamentally restructure its business. (Herbalife Refunds | Federal Trade Commission (ftc.gov))

Review 3: "The products sold by Herbalife can cause acute hepatitis."

Note: The cited article is from 2007, almost two decades ago, which could have later either been found to be untrue or to be due to unclear confounding reasons such as overuse of herbal ingredients not in accordance to label instructions, or other reasons including potential new allegations. It should be updated and cite more recent articles for a fair and current view."

Review 4: "Herbalife agreed to "fundamentally restructure" its business in the United States, and pay a $200 million fine as part of a 2016 settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) following these accusations."

Due to the use of 'following these accusations' this paragraph appears abruptly and is disconnected from the rest of the introduction contents. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Review 5: "Herbalife, is a global multi-level marketing (MLM) corporation that develops and sells dietary supplements."

Note: Is it more accurate to mention that it is a "global nutrition company" - official position of the company and literally its primary business, or MLM company? Refer to Natura article Natura & Co - Wikipedia. The introduction used is "Natura & Co is a Brazilian global personal care cosmetics group headquartered in São Paulo." Factually, Natura is a large cosmetics company that uses a direct selling model, as mentioned in its website. Even in the US, the industry term used is Direct Selling, e.g. Direct Selling Association. Similarly, Herbalife considers itself a global nutrition company, and says that it operates through a direct selling model through independent distributors. Natura is also labelled as 'direct selling' in the Wikipedia article. Considering these factors, an update is appropriate to reflect consistency in article quality and standards. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Professor Penguino: WP:DAW.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputed actions:

Tigraan talk contribs‎  71,699 bytes −624‎  Undid revision 1180722536 not in source - where are the "three independent international labs"? the RW article says everyone who challenged the paper was in Herbalife's pay

For someone who seems mad about bias, you seem to add a lot of biased content in your edits: "In a response, Herbalife challenged the paper's validity, citing deficiencies, inappropriate methodologies and incomplete investigative protocols, supported by analysis from three independent international labs that contradicted the article's findings." The article you cited mentions legal pressure from Herbalife, it does not disprove what is stated in the paper. Professor Penguino (talk)

Responses:

The "three independent international laboratories" are clearly mentioned in the same RW article cited. @Professor Penguino and @Tigraan may have missed it, please read again. Showing readers the company's official response as covered by the same RW article, gives a balanced and accurate picture to an otherwise biased narrative, and does not constitute bias in itself. 100% of the current paragraph contains only multiple one-sided allegations and is therefore of incomplete quality from a readers' standpont. Adding this to give some balance will still retaining 90% of the allegations. Even the RW article covered the company's response. As for someone who seems mad about protecting against bias, your own choices seems very biased. Mine aims to give a full picture to readers. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are mentioned in Herbalife's press release. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please review the dispute again. I am not sure you follow. My edit was to add on a balancing sentence with content from RW into an existing paragraph that contained only 100% one-side allegations which were also sourced from RW. This aims to reduce bias by giving readers a complete picture. A company's response which was also covered within the same RW source, is considered an important enough piece of information to be added. Also, @Tigraan's dispute was "where are the three independent international laboratories" before removing the edit, suggesting that it was an erroneous edit, which it was not because it was in the cited RW article. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The addition was "In a response, Herbalife challenged the paper's validity, citing deficiencies, inappropriate methodologies and incomplete investigative protocols, supported by analysis from three independent international labs that contradicted the article's findings." That is not NPOV language, nor is it from a reliable secondary source. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a factual mention of the company's official response, to give readers a balanced view of the case history: one - the allegations, two - the company's response. Therefore, it starts factually with 'In a response ... citing ...". It is not the editor's POV in this case, therefore NPOV is not applicable. The source is also from RW, which is the same source that the paragraph sources the allegations from. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know that that is reliable; the company being accused is not a reliable source. Saying "citing deficiencies, inappropriate methodologies" and so on is POV tone. If you had added "Herbalife said in a statement..." I would be better disposed to it. You could change the phrasing of how the accusations against the company are phrased so that the article doesn't seem to take sides. There are many better ways of going about trying to make the article NPOV. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's an attempt at removing the POV tone:

In a response, Herbalife disputed the paper's validity after engaging multiple independent international laboratories, whose findings contradicted the claims made in the paper. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a way to make that paragraph NPOV as 100% of its contents are allegations. The simple way to add a little balance while adhering to guidelines, and retaining the allegations, is to add a short sentence that the company disputed the findings, while citing the same source - RW. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is much, much better. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Need to get @Tigraan's consensus. And my entire IP range is blocked till December so I can't edit or even bring this to the Talk page. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to double-check? I did request that the page be unprotected. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition to reasons mentioned earlier, another justification on why adding "In a response, Herbalife disputed the paper's validity after engaging multiple independent international laboratories, whose findings contradicted the claims made in the paper." at the end of the original paragraph is important for reader's clarity, is that it is unclear why the company issued legal threats. Readers should be made aware that the company contested the paper's methodological validity, which is the basic premise of the entire case. The same reason is highlighted in the RW piece that the paragraph cites its content from. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputed actions:

• @Tigraan "The acute hepatitis is clearly sourced to this case report. Case reports in reputable journals are considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. We will not balance it with your personal doubts about the study’s methodology, applicability, etc. (but if there is an independent, reliable source that expresses such a scientific debate, we can put it in)." Response: The issue is not with the case report. The issue is the quality of the statement due to the date of the report. The statement sounds current, and for such a definitive sounding claim it is disingenuously dated 2007. If citing the case study from almost two decades ago is a must, using accurate words will provide a fair view to the readers. Example: "A 2007 review by researchers in Israel presented a causal association between Herbalife products and acute hepatitis among a case series of 12 patients. However, the researchers note that despite the alleged association it is not possible to conclude whether consumption of Herbalife products pose a major health threat." These are actual words sourced from the study and not paraphrased. I am sure you can appreciate the accuracy and fairness purely from an editing quality standpoint.

202.187.229.74 (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This I can get behind. However, the article should state that the study says that, just to avoid accusations of plagiarism and whatnot. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Need @Tigraan's consensus. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputed action:

• @Tigraan "There is a link between Herbalife products and X" is a perfectly correct English sentence if there is a link between some Herbalife products and X. Clarity is better served by a more concise formulation. (On a non-Wikipedia note, Herbalife has no problem marketing itself as a "global nutrition company", lumping together lots of products for the purpose of unified messaging; but somehow, when it comes to negative coverage, it wants to clearly delimitate between the various products. Why am I not suprised?)

Response:

There is a clear difference in reporting factually and citing the case article accurately: "a few of Herbalife's products were linked to potential hepatoxicity (in a research paper by xxx)". Compared to "Herbalife products can cause toxicity." The first is a factually accurate and responsible and fair reporting, while the second is a paraphrase and generalization. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This splitting of hairs is not necessary. I agree with Tigraan that this clarification is not needed, as someone who is very pedantic about clarification.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Disputed action

@Tigraan −659‎  →‎Sports sponsorships: regurgitation of press releases are not welcome on Wikipedia

Response

The short sentence to begin the existing paragraph would have provided a short and quick summary of the company's sponsorship activities for the readers' benefit, which is factually accurate and non-promotional. The current loose mention of 'sponsorship' in the original paragraph is deficient and does not provide clarity to the reader about the company's nutrition partnership with athletic teams and athletes, and financial sponsorship of events. There were two citations provided, firstly the citation of press release which can be removed, while the other citation is the company's website. Both corroborate with each other for accuracy, and can also be corroborated with other reputable third party sources such as news providers. Company website is also cited widely within this article and should be accepted, and therefore your dispute of 'regurgitation of press release' as justification to remove the sentence is not justified. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Tigraan's issue is more with the WP:TONE with which you wrote it. If, as I suspect, you are affiliated with them, it is going to be almost impossible to use an objective and neutral tone that truly reflects what independent secondary reliable sources have said.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged. In that case a simple summary sentence on the company's factual activities will not be compliant with WP:TONE. The specific event / partnership / program will then need to be listed and cited from independent reliable sources. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your suspicion, please refer to discussions with @Professor Penguino where we have reached mutual agreement of my proposed input to enhance neutrality in the article, and the agreed removal by @Tigraan of a statement in the article that was non-objective. A few other edit proposals are pending review. I reiterate that I have nothing to declare in response to your question of conflict of interest. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Needs Review:

Lead section: "The business is incorporated in the Cayman Islands (a fiscal paradise), with its corporate headquarters located in Los Angeles, California."

Explanation:

Including this sentence in the article's lead may not conform to WP:LEAD, which states that an article's lead should be "a summary of its most important contents". The conformity issue arises due to the annotation (a fiscal paradise), which is not relevant because there are no discussions in the article's contents pertaining to its incorporation jurisdiction. Further, the fiscal paradise annotation may not conform to NPOV, specifically WP:IMPARTIAL (Words to watch) as it "can introduce bias". We need to weigh the relevance of stating the Cayman Islands incorporation and the fiscal paradise annotation, or to focus only on the headquarters. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Your recent editing history at Herbalife shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There was one revert before proceeding to formal discussions. That is deemed sufficient cause to be classified as edit warring and being warned of potential block? This behaviour suggests that there is significant bias. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Restoring your edit before you have discussed it is not in line with the BRD cycle mentioned above. This warning is mostly being issued for procedural reasons.

That said, calling others "biased" is an argumentum ad hominem type of argument and won't work here; you have to make your case solely on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and then get a consensus of editors to agree on that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Where can I post my reviews and suggestions to get such consensus? 202.187.229.74 (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Start a new topic at Talk:Herbalife, but I must warn you that these "reviews" are unlikely to gain traction unless you cite reliable WP:SECONDARY sources that are independent of Herbalife.Jasper Deng (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I have started the topic. The reviews made are independent of Herbalife, and are about the quality of the original contents and their accuracy. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Also there seems to be a block in place. However, no spam and no reverts took place. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That's what's called a silver lock. It means non-autoconfirmed users can't edit it for 24 hours for whatever reason. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

My IP is specifically blocked, expiring on 4 December 2023. Reason cited was abuse and spam. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Huh. Maybe I can try and get you unblocked from the article then. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Your IP address is not currently blocked. Can you paste the block notice here? Jasper Deng (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think they mean that they are blocked from the page, maybe? or maybe they're confusing blocks with protection levels? Professor Penguino (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.

Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong.

Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 2402:1980:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪NinjaRobotPirate‬ for the following reason(s):

Editing from this range has been disabled (blocked) in response to abuse. A range may be shared by many users and innocent users may be affected; if you believe that you are not the person this block is intended for, please follow the instructions below:

This block will expire on 03:09, 4 December 2023. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ohhhh... ok. This is probably because of an unrelated IP address, causing the whole range to be blocked. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an IP range block and I recognize it might not be related to my case. However, the timing of when the block came on is very coincidental and immediately following the other locks on the page. I apologize for the confusion if it is unrelated. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries! I had to wait 10 days before I created my Wikipedia account a year ago cause my range kept getting blocked. I was so confused, so it's no sweat. We can workshop ideas on the article talk and, if consensus is reached, I could institute the edits on behalf of the others. I'm glad we could reach an understanding. Peace. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I am glad too. Some of the proposals I made on this page together with their justification, are pending reply. I do not have any more now.

But I think the Products section can be improved, as it is now a mix of product info and criticisms. Referring to the Wiki article of multiple other major food corporations Nestlé, Coca-Cola, there is a clear separation of information. They have a section for Product info and development history, and another section for Criticism where the criticisms related to products and business practices are outlined. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the separation of info and criticisms, there are additional info to add to give a more informative view of the company's key product lines. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the block, it looks like you are on a dual-stacked computer which has happened to choose IPv6 on some instances. However, you are editing and signing as your IPv4 address which is not blocked. This kind of situation is why we highly encourage you to sign up for an account. As for the content in question, you cannot just point to other articles and try to argue a false equivalence with them (that is, arguing they should be similar), when the proportion of reliable sources covering the criticisms of this company is much higher than with others you've pointed at.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I am unable to sign up for an account too due to the IP range block. Will wait for a while and see what can be done. If you are referring to an attempt of false equivalence in my reference to Nestlé and Coca-Cola articles, it was not an argument, but a suggestion on how some of this article's contents can be collated into different sections for better-quality. For reference, both articles have clearly distinguished sections for product info and criticisms. And the criticisms outlined within those articles are even lengthier than this company's. Put simply, the other articles have a dedicated criticism section, which leads to a better-quality article and greater clarity for readers. Therefore, I cannot agree with your counterpoint that there are a greater proportion of criticisms faced by this company, as the point seems irrelevant to a suggestion on how the content can be better structured. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please go to WP:ACC to request a new account.

For the content, see WP:CSECTION where we actually do not want to split off a criticism section, and I have to reiterate my point which is that if WP:DUE weight based on coverage in reliable secondary independent sources is that most of the article has criticism sections, we are going to do it that way. Please disclose whether you are working for any entity related to the company. Also, you keep speaking of "quality" but I do not believe you really understand what "quality" means on Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:MOS (specifically MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:TONE in this case) and cite exact parts of those style guides.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged that this is the adopted stance. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 202.187.229.74. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Herbalife, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. If you receive any form of compensation from them, you must declare that as required by the terms of use (one of the few things that is required by the terms of use). Jasper Deng (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

None to declare. But it seems there are new procedural blocks taken. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators must supply a clear and specific reason why a user was blocked.

Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page.

Wikipedia:Blocking policy - Wikipedia

These policies were not followed by the admin. 202.187.229.74 (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.