Talk:ViSalus/Archives/2014

Expansion

Hello everyone, I found some information stating that ViSalus announced its expansion to Germany and Austria earlier this year, and added it to the page. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Thanks Adamh4 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, on a different note, I removed the statement in the "Criticisms" section about the espionage lawsuit. The source for the statement was a dead link, and I could not find a reliable source to replace it with right away. I will continue to search for one and put the information back on if one is found. Let me know if any of you beat me to it, or have any other thoughts. Adamh4 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Good find. Seems important. Found it archived on Wayback Machine. -- GreenC 17:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'm wondering, maybe the "Controversies" section should be merged with the "Criticisms" section? It seems strange to have two separate sections for essentially the same thing -- I feel as though they are one in the same. How do you feel about that? Adamh4 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I was looking at that also. Probably under a Controversies section, since the court case isn't criticism, but the criticisms could be called controversies. -- GreenC 17:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, went ahead and made that edit. Also, I replaced the COI flag with an NPOV flag -- hope that's okay with everyone. I want to continue to work on this page until we think it is neutral and the flag can be removed. Adamh4 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Blair

I removed a most of the info about Ryan Blair. The way his role in the company was described was not really informative. His former gang-membership had pretty much nothing to do with anything, and is adequately explained on his own article. Worse, the article only mentioned him after talking about the turnaround, but sources indicate he was part of the company before then. Implying that he saved the company seems really puffy to me, because he was also CEO when it got into debt. The sources that describe it as his own doing are fine, but their pretty soft. One is an interview about a book Blair wrote, and both of them link to Blair's (now dead) blog when discussing the non-notable DSN Global Turn Around Award. I have reorganized the section to point out that the company's return to profitability also coincided with being acquired by another company. This might be a bit WP:OR, but it seems a lot more WP:NPOV than it was before. If Blair was responsible for the turnaround, and I believe he might be, I would like the article to in some way explain how.

It seems likely that Blair was with the company in 2005 when it started actively marketing in the Bay Area, but the company was founded in 1997. In order for him to be considered a 'co-founder' I want to see a source, ideally a WP:SECONDARY one. Grayfell (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I've addressed some of my own concerns with information from this source: [1]. Probably more to come, after a break. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

COI Flag

Hey everyone. I saw that there was a flag for Conflict of Interest on this page, but then noticed that the user who was accused of sock puppetry was already banned -- I figured this meant we should remove the flag. If I'm wrong to assume so, please let me know so we can work together to fix the page. Thank you. Adamh4 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Normally you would be right, but Morning227 is something of a special case. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277 and Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia to understand why. Promotional and paid editing is a problem worth taking seriously. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely a problem worth taking seriously, I agree. Does this mean that the flag will indefinitely be on this page, or is there something we can do to remove it? Adamh4 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I made a mistake about that. I was confused about exactly how much editing had happened since Morning277 had worked on it. Maybe I was thinking of a different article? In this case it's a noticeably different article, which makes all the difference. Regardless, my apologies, I agree that it's appropriate to remove the tag now. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Outdated COI Flag

I’ve noticed that there is still a COI flag on this page, stating that “a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.” The account that originally prompted the COI flag was Morning277. This user was banned long ago, and has not made a single edit to this page over the last two years. If you compare the page now to the page when he last made an edit, you will see that it is essentially a different article than it was before. Therefore, Morning277 is not a major contributor, and the flag needs to be taken down to avoid misleading fellow editors and readers. If anything, the page could have an NPOV flag as a result of Morning277’s contributions, but the COI flag is simply outdated. Let me know what you all think. Adamh4 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Per above, I agree. I shouldn't have restored the hat, and have removed it. My apologies. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. Adamh4 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Class-action lawsuit regarding Blyth and IPO

I removed a paragraph from the 'lawsuit' section about a class action lawsuit against Blyth for misrepresenting the profitability of ViSalus and their other subsidiaries. While I could find sources confirming that the lawsuit did happen, I couldn't find enough non-primary sources to establish WP:DUE weight. It seems like it happened, and was apparently dismissed. If this is significant enough to include, I feel it should be supported by better sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Class actions on security prices are so common it's not worth disputing in particular since it was dismissed. And this talk page has a record.[2] The other RICO charges are more serious and unusual. -- GreenC 01:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup. I found this article which mentions the price suit. Not really enough to bother with, though, IMO. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)