Talk:Amway

Archives

• /Archive1

Off-topic

Unrelated to article improvement

Editor Eric ... you are making wholesale changes to this article with extremely POV and unbalanced editing and little or no sourcing of your claims. Please cease or discuss the changes you wish to make here first. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Eric Arthur B has continued with his edits, including posting defamatory and personal information. Request on his user page to move to talk here have been ignored. I've submitted a request to Oversight and will continue to revert. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC) His posting of your personal information was a mistake (although you have confirmed some of that information elsewhere on the net). But you reported it to Oversight, yet you yourself hinted at his identity in your edit summaries, on talk page and elsewhere? --Knverma (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Oops, I didn't actually mean that in the edit summaries, that was a mistake. What did I do in talk? Didn't even know what you were talking about until I checked. It's not only the personal info that is a mistake, he's posting stuff that is outright false not only about me but also about Amway on this and other articles. His edits here violate NPOV and OR amongst others, as you noted on his talk. Other sites is a separate issue and I was writing an article about him before he started this Wiki attack. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Outing a Wikipedia editor on an external website also seems problematic. For example Wikipedia:Outing#Off-wiki_harassment states: ...Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely. --Knverma (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Knverma, first of all I was not aware of those particular wiki rules, I will look at my post and consider changes. Secondly, nobody here would even know about it if you weren't talking about it, and I would note there were no personal attacks in the off-wiki article. See his posts with regards me on this article and on his talk pages to see what might constitute personal attacks! The poster in question is a well known anti-amway poster and author on numerous forums, which he does so using his own name. It is not a secret. Indeed his failure to disclose may be considered a major wiki blunder in itself. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC) This an absolute lie. The person to whom 'Insider' refers has not taken part directly in debates in 'numerous Internet Forums' concerning 'Amway' using his own name or any other identity. That said, he has posted an extended article using his own name, explaining the global deception that lurks behind 'Amway's' commercial façade, entitled, 'Freedom is Slavery' (which is widely available on the Net). He has also posted various comments (using his own name) after articles published on 'Timesonline' concerning 'Amway's' legal problems in the UK. At that time, an individual signing himself, David From London, posted a false and defamatory comment: 'For those of you who don't know, ----- ----- is an Anti-Amway obsessive.....'It is very probable that the author of this intentionally damaging statement was 'Insider'. The person in question is, in fact, the author of 'The Universal Identifying Chracteristics of a Cult'. Insider described him on two of his 14 Websites as being 'a well-known member of the anti-Amway cult.' The person in question is also associated with Dr. Edward Lottick (the former Chairman of the Cult Awareness Network) who has written the foreword to another (yet to be published) book by the same author, 'Amway The American Dream made Nightmare'. Unfortunately, for Wikipedia, you cannot have a neutral point of view when it comes to any form of deception. It's either a deception or its not. Casual observers, looking at a deception with misplaced objectivity, risk becoming part of it themselves. 'Insider' is using a covert hypnotic technique, Neuro-Linguistic Programing, to control our perceptions of 'Amway'. The popular phrase, 'American way', from which the neologism 'Amway' has been corrupted is itself an example of this devious technique. All persons challenging the authenticity of the 'Amway' myth (although they are pro-truth), are systematically categorized as 'Anti-Amway' which immediately colours the attitude of a casual observer. On a subconscious level, to many people (particularly in the USA) someone who is 'Anti-Amway', must be 'Anti-American'. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I didn't say "debates". I meant the word "forums" in a more generic sense, perhaps a poor choice of words. Needless to say "the person in question" has posted in many places, including the recent virtual spamming of the "Freedom is slavery" article. BTW, for quite sensible reasons Wikipedia guidelines do not consider self-published works, either on the internet or in the form of books, as "reliable sources". --Insider201283 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2008(UTC) Insider operates 14 websites: http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com http://www.amwaywatch.com http://mlmliberal.blogspot.com http://amwaynorthamerica.blogspot.com http://quixtarbusinessreview.blogspot.com http://quixtarblogspot.com http://amwaylatinblogspot.com http://amwaywiki.com http://amwayaustralia.blogspot.com http://www.amwaytalk.com http://amwayeurope.blogspot.com http://www.amwaywatch.com http://amquixvideo.blogspot.com http://ibofightback.vox.com http://ibofightback.livejournal.com These all pretend to be independent of 'Amway', but their content speaks for itself. One of them, even mimics Wikipedia (needless to say, it cannot actually be edited by its readers). 'Insider' also maintains 79 videos on Youtube.com The person whom 'Insider' is trying to damage, maintains no Website. His article 'Freedom is Slavery' was very kindly posted for him on a website warning people about frauds. It has merely been mirrored by various blogs. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Dear oh dear. Thanks for the free publicity. A few folk seem more than a little obsessed by me of late. Most of those sites are not active sites, some of them exist purely because I created an account to reply to someone else. Contrary to your false claim, Amway Wiki is quite definitely editable by it's readers.--Insider201283 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Insider is now convinced that people are obsessed with him. Sadly, whilst he remains under the influence of the Utopian 'Amway' myth, 'Insider' is an irrelevance as an individual. Like a machine, he spews forth a never-ending supply of reality-denying answers. 'Insider' is, however, highly interesting as a cultic case study. We must thank 'Insider' again for his flawless demonstration of the totalitarian mind set. All free thinking individuals challenging the authenticity of the Utopian 'Amway' myth are systematically categorized, denegrated and excluded from the authentic Wikepedia by 'Insider'- the self-appointed guardian of the supreme truth. Imagine what its like trying to post information on his very own counterfeit version of Wikipedia. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

I've blanked out collapsed a thread that had little to do with this article and mostly concerned the editors. Wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox. I recognize that some editors here may have had previous interactions off-site. Please do not bring those conflicts here. Here, we are all Wikipedia editors and must put the aims of this project foremost. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Anything else is disruption. Everyone here should review and follow the policies and guidelines linked in the talk page header at the top of this page. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nope, had no interaction with the guy before wikipedia, though obviously I was aware "of" him. But I fully agree with the blanking. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Given Quixtar has announced they are rebranding and merging back into Amway over the next year, I suggest we merge these two articles and take the opportunity to do a thorough NPOV rewrite. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is probably better to wait until the process is further along before doing the merge. It may even be worthwile to simply rename the article to something like "Amway North America". But at the moment all I can find on the Quistar website about it, tucked away, is: "By 2009, following unprecedented improvements to all aspects of the business opportunity, the rebranding of this business to better align with the global Amway® brand will be complete."[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In the members area on Quixtar, and published on other sites as well, is specifics such as "Phase 2: September 2008 Amway Global™ will be elevated to the lead brand in our communications, and Amway’s 50th anniversary will be acknowledged. Phase 3: May 2009 The transition to our new business opportunity brand will be completed." So in about 10 weeks the lead brand for North America will be Amway Global. 10 weeks is too soon to start working on the merger?--Insider201283 (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Since readers like me don't have access to the members only area we can't use that as a source for this article, obviously, though it can inform our editing decisions. If Quixtar is going to be renamed "Amway Global" while retaining the existing structure then we can simply rename the article to "Amway Global". Is "Amway" also being renamed "Amway Global" so that there is only one sales subsidiary of Alticor? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume that this has been covered in the business press and local Michigan media. Let's find what they say and follow their lead. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You can read a bit about it here, I'll see what I can find in the press. AFAIk Amway will not be getting renamed Amway Global, however I'm told the "global" will eventually be dropped for North America. I guess it's possible the reverse will happen, but either way it will be the same name. If we're going to fully follow the corporate structure, I believe virtually every market is a separate subsidiary of Alticor. I for one am not interested in a separate article for each separate Amway subsidiary, even though they'd arguably all be individually notable if for nothing more than being the or one of the largest direct selling companies in each of those markets. Separate (but brief) sections on different markets within one Amway article would I think be more appropriate. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

IHT article here --Insider201283 (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest merge. In the past we had already discussed several reasons for merging. Now we have one more reason. --Knverma (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the past I opposed the merger. As different companies, with different names, slightly different approaches, and Quixtar as a size to be notable by itself, separate articles made sense. Other markets are now closer to the Quixtar approach, and Quixtar is coming under the same corporate name, so merger seems sensible. Either that or separate articles for each subsidiary--Insider201283 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest a merge, as long as when you search for "Quixtar" it is redirected to the new article. Invmog (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Merge. They are essentially the same company. 71.106.213.155 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree a merge is appropriate, and I suggest the timing should correspond to the switch from the quixtar.com domain to amwayglobal.com domain. According to an announcement on Quixtar's web site, this is to take place during September 2008. btphelps (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The "switch" isn't a complete switch until May 2009. As of Sept. 2008 both domain names work, and will remain to work until the completion of the merger.Infero Veritas (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I support a merger of the articles with the thought process of having "quixtar" redirect to the merged article, and the idea of having sections on the different markets might be a good idea as the north american market runs very different from all the others, as well as there being a wide variety of ways people do business within the north american market.Infero Veritas (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If Amway operations in North America are distinct there may be some cvalue in having them covered in a separate article. The merger of Quixtar and Amway articles will result in a long article that should probably be split in some fashion. There may also be benefit to keeping the Quixtar article as a record of the former company. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The "distinctness" (pardon my invention of words) comes in every different teaching/training system that accesses the Quixtar/Amway Global business opportunity. So a split based on that would be tough to do, and would bring in a whole bunch of differing opinions. I do agree to the possibility that the combined article might in fact be very lengthy, however I also feel that there is alot of info that can/needs to be re-organized, minimized, or just plain removed. There's alot of repeating and rephrasing in the current article that could be adjusted. It may be beneficial to keep the Quixtar page (though edited as well) as a reference to the soon to be former company. Infero Veritas (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Credible sources

As a side note...and I know I'm asking for a miracle here *crosses fingers*. Is it possible to agree on what is and isn't a credible source? Possibly make a list of such places. And I'm talking about like chamber of commerce's, bbb's, etc. Not joebobsopiniononamway.com. If that makes sense? (I won't be responding to this until tomorrow in case anyone cares)Infero Veritas (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what the material is and how it's proposed to be used. Off hand, I would be skeptical of CoC material because they are known for being promoters of business, not of reliable information. But if a CoC source is used to show membership of Amway in the CoC, then that's not a problem. Can you give more specifics? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the credibility of our own government is always in question, so I agree with you as far as the extent of the CoC goes. I'm not sure what you mean by "give more specifics", so I'll go under the assumption that you want to know what types of sources I was thinking of. I'm mainly looking at places that can, for the most part, be trusted. For example: The Better Business Bureau, United States Chamber of Commerce, Statements put out by the Government of Canada (and other countries), Local and National Awards and Recognitions by independent researchers/companies. Those sorts of things. All to often (And not just with Amway Global) I see references to websites that are run by some idiot who had a bad day once. I only say "idiot" because anybody that claims they "lost" money in Amway or Quixtar doesn't have the common sense to read the rules and regulations regarding both companies which clearly state that startup costs, business support materials, and products used for inventory/samples are all fully refundable. Anyways, before I go on any more tangents. If you could be more specific on what I'm supposed to be specific on I'll get right on answering it, unless of course I already have answered it. Infero Veritas (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Credibility of sources is critical to an open forum. If individuals want to go out on the web and fill their minds with uneducated opinions go ahead, but this is not the place. Integrity is more important than opinion. tlb —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

caic.org.au, factnet.org, rickross.com

All three of these websites are self-published POV websites. They have no place as sources in the body of a wikipedia article and should be removed. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a few more days for comment, then modify this section. --Insider201283 (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Amway sources

Web sites affiliated with an organization can be used as sources for what the organization claims to do, but they should be clearly marked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Mind

Hassan's Freedom of Mind site is an acknowledged self-published source but has earlier been argued as allowed because he's an acknowledged "cult expert". I notice however that for Self-Published Sources (WP:SPS) the standard is higher - "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article. This particular case is a good case study of why the policy is this way. Reading Hassan's "analysis" it's clear he's actually done very little research into Amway and how it operates and has based his conclusions on a self-selected group, virtually all of whom represent a subsample of the Amway population. Poor research leads to poor conclusions, peer-review makes for more reliable sources and hence self-published sources are frowned upon. It's clear that Hassans is not "an established expert" on Amway (the topic of the article), with no WP:RS publications relating to it, so I propose this opinion be deleted. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I'd add that the cult "claim" remains as it has a WP:RS source in the Butterfield book, however it should be balanced with the Dr Shad Helmstetter opinion deleted earlier. Unlike Hassan, Helmstetter is an "established expert on the topic of the article", having published two books on Amway. The earlier text that was deleted (I've edited slightly) was -

Author and behavioural scientist Shad Helmstetter spent five years in the 1990s researching Amway and published two books on the company. In his book American Victory: The Real Story of Today's Amway, Helmstetter stated "Working in the field of human behavior, I've studied the cults for many years. The Amway business is the opposite of cult psychology." With regard to other allegations of Amway being a cult, he replied in an interview "The old myth that Amway is a cult is supported only by people who are either misinformed or uninformed. I would like to examine their research."[2].

The text was challenged on the basis that Helmstetter was not an acknowledged expert on cults. As made clear above, the standard for opinions is whether they're ackowledged experts on the topic of the article. Clearly he is. The book reference is inherently WP:RS and WP:V and the interview published on his site passes the WP:SPS standard of him being an acknowledged expert on Amway. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume that this is what you're referring to:

• Several groups associated with the anti-cult movement have expressed concern that tactics of some of the organizations that support Amway IBOs may constitute cult-like activity. Steven Hassan's Freedom of Mind Center lists the practices of some of these groups as potentially abusive according to his controversial "BITE" Model of mind control.[81] [2]

Hassan is an recognized expert on cults. He's apparently been cited in the context of Amway and cults. The topic of the section is Amway as a cult. Is there someone who is more expert on that topic?   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

welll his alleged recognition as an "expert" is controversial in itself, which contributes further to the dangers of using a SPS for a controversial issue, especially in only a peripherally relevant section and article. Still, it doesn't matter, the policy clearly states for a SPS source he needs to be an acknowledged expert on the topic of the article, not "section". He does not fit the criteria. For an expert on "the topic of the section" I'd argue there aren't any. Apart from a WSJ book review of Butterfield's book nobody has been cited in WP:RS in this area that I can find. There is at least one WP:RS source that treats the ACM accusations against groups like Amway and Mary Kay quite disdainfully (Agents of Discord) and as evidence of the excess of the self-proclaimed experts like Hassan. Helmstetter, who has both a PhD in Psychology and multiple published works on Amway would probably come closest.

In the context of Reliable Sources, Hassan is reliable enough to make comments in his field of expertise. If that happens to cross over into this article, then it's relevant as long as it's sourced and meets WEIGHT requirements. Shot info (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if it's reliably sourced. In this case it's not, it's a SPS, which has higher standards for inclusion. This article is not about cults, it's about Amway, and there's no evidence he has any expertise in that field. His "opinion" is a synthesis of knowledge, of one area is lacking then the opinion can be flawed - that's why oversight and review is required of sources. For those knowledgeable Amway it's clear in this instance his opinion is based on flawed knowledge, as one would expect from flawed (or non-existent) sampling. As it stands, WP:RS clearly states he needs to be an expert on the topic of the article. He is not, and this isn't the place to discuss changing a core Wikipedia policy. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it says the subject at hand. in WP:RS...perhaps you're thinking of WP:V? Also, if there is a problem with a particular source, let's flick it over to RS/N. FWIW - there appears to be 2 editors who think he is an RS for the subject of cults and whether or not "Amway" has application to this field - and one against (I think it's one against, it's quite hard to work out what Insider is actually saying above). This isn't really a consensus but does suggest a trend and could be expanded in RS/N (although Insider's prediliction to flood fora with long posts tends to create TLDR attitudes). On an aside, here in WP, it's appropripriate to put things about a subject, in the subjects article. Hence a commentry about whether or not "Amway is a cult" (just using it as an simplified exampel) should be in this article. Not in cults per se. But this is just normal editing here in WP. Shot info (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, my error. I cited it properly at the top of this section. WP:SPS - it clearly states "topic of the article", which makes perfect sense. A non-SPS of Hassan claiming Amway was a cult might pass muster as a source. The fact his expertise is contentious in itself and little else in the way of RS for the same "exceptional claim" would make it debatable but it's certainly not up for a discussion like the current one. A SPS where he's not even remotely considered an authority on the article simply doesn't pass muster, especially on a contentious issue. As Helmstetter, who IS an RS on Amway, said "I'd like to see their research!". Of course, you CAN see Hassan's "research" and it simply doesn't pass muster, he's done no research at all into Amway thus is in no position to authoritively comment on it. His "analysis" is little more than a rehash of other peoples claims shoe-horned into his non-discriminatory BITE model, something he's been heavily criticised for doing in academic circles. As a former academic and research psychologist/sociologist myself I frankly think his whole approach is scientifically very very weak. Again though, the source clealy violates WP:SPS, so what's the issue?--Insider201283 (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I find your wikilawyering to be rather weak and unconvincing. But rather than responding (and pointing out your arguements....again) let's flick it over to RS/N? Shot info (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the section entitled "Other Issues" is biased against the company and needs to be balanced out. I agree with Insider that Helmstetter is an expert on Amway and his commments should be allowed. Visioneer72.235.11.75 (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Visioneer, do you have an account, if so can you log into it please? Shot info (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest I dropped a line over at WP:RS/N with regards to the above (see [3]) and so far it would appear that one commentator has expressed concern that the SPS is applicable. As such, I'm going to (unless there is more input over there) agree with their decision and recommend that Hassan's analysis is probably not applicable for an RS per SPS. Comments? Shot info (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Balance

In an earlier discussion, now archived I believe, there was some discussion about the lack of "balance" provided in this article, with quite a focus on lawsuits and controversy and very little "positive". It was suggested that rather than minimise the controversy, a section should be done on awards, accolades, recognitions etc. I've been putting together a list of awards and recognitions on Amway Wiki. So far I've found more than a hundred just from the last 8 years or so. Throw in the positive reviews of Amway in books by recognized authors and business authorities (as opposed to the self-published works of most critics) and you'll understand my concerns about a lack of "balance" in this article. Any rewrite undertaken while merging in Quixtar needs to take this in to account --Insider201283 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

-Parts of this article read like corporate literature and press releases. If you are concerned about balance, a rewrite of these section might be a concern.--Drvanthorp (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Which parts specifically concern you? --Insider201283 (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the above I've added product info including information on third party awards for balance. I've tried to be as neutral as possible in wording and include sources. Some additional citations and cleanup of a few links is still needed. For "critics" who think it may be "pro" unbalanced, note that an awful lot of awards and recognitions have not been included and apart from Consumer Reports on SA8 pricing (included) I've so far been unable to find any WP:RS criticism of Amway products.--Insider201283 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the addition of product info (provided that it's not from Amway-related sources, and the fact that it's not from Amway-related sources can be verified; under the circumstances, with marketing methods suspect....), but I do object to the removal of MLM from the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) Very few of the sources were "Amway-related" sources, and I noted in the summary it needed some cleaning up to originals (2) I didn't remove MLM from the lead, I adjusted it to be more accurate. MLM is not a business type it's a marketing plan. Given a one sentence rewrite and some cleaner sources was all you objected to, on what basis do you delete entire sections? That is completely uncalled for. I've no idea what you mean by "with marketing methods suspect"? --Insider201283 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur I've added 3 references with regards Amway being a direct selling company. One academic, one media, and one Amway. There are independent sources all throughout the edits, you might want to check that before you wholesale delete again. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Specific problems:

1. Amway sources are not acceptable at any time unless either audited (SEC filings) or to support claims the company makes, carefully stated as claims. We quite properly cannot include anti-Amway and anti-MLM sources unless from industry experts, even if they are the best available sources for accurate statements as to the company, so WP:UNDUE means we cannot use Amway statements which are disputed by those sources, even if otherwise allowable under WP:SELF, unless reported by an independent reliable source. (At least one of your new "non-Amway" sources is an Amway press release at reuters.)
2. "Childhood friends", aside from being unencyclopedic, suggests you're quoting the source (a probably copyright violation), rather than writing text.
3. I don't see the product line detail as being encyclopedic, although those are not policy violations, even from Amway sources.

I'd say your edits are over 40% unacceptable, and an additional 30% not helpful, even by the minimal standards I'm trying to apply to the article. (You also appear to have reverted some benign edits in restoring your preferred version of the article.)

I won't revert again, but I may remove all Amway sources except related to claims (product info counting as claims). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines suggest that most of your additions to #See Also are inappropriate, as they appear with appropriate emphasis in the text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize about "childhood friends" comment; you increased the prominence (it was previously in the middle of the paragraph), but the phrasing is no worse after your edit than before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Not allowing private companies as sources for their sales data opens a whole kettle of fish that affects all of wikipedia. I suggest that debate be taken to a more general area. AFAIK self-published sources are acceptable sources for information about the subject itself. The great majority of article sources in the new section are independent, not Amway.

2) Each product highlighted is notable in itself, as evidenced by the independent sources and awards. The company makes nearly 500 products under dozens of brands, I've quite obviously narrowed down to those that are independently notable.

3) I checked the "in between" edits, they all seemed to have been already reverted, I'll check again

4) the see also changes were simply to already existing articles. Do you have a link to appropriate guidelines for that area?

--Insider201283 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Few companies have as much criticism as Amway; as we cannot include much of that criticism, due to questions about the reliablility of the sources, we shouldn't include information about the company, otherwise usable under WP:SELF, which is disputed by material we cannot use. I still think that this means Amway's unaudited statements cannot be used except toward claims (including product descriptions), in fairness.

2) Accepted, for the most part.

3) The only thing I'm sure got lost is the Amway UK external link, and some other changes to #See Also. I'm actually not sure it should be there, but I doubt you intended to deleted it.

4)WP:SEEALSO.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, with respect I think your opinion is somewhat unfair due to primarily being influenced by the Internet, where for a number of reasons there has been a lack of balance with regards Amway. Outside a small number of internet sites that get referenced ad nauseum, there is remarkably little criticism for a company of it's size. For a bit of background of how the internet bias came about may I recommend you read again Amway and the Internet, A History - Part I, The Internet War Against Amway - Part I and Part II., articles I think I've pointed you to before. It's interesting to note that in the last couple of years the FTC proposed a new business opportunity rule and after investigation decided to explictly exclude MLM companies from the new rule. One reason the FTC gave for excluding MLM was because there was so few complaints generated. Similarly, the BBB gets hardly any complaints about Amway or Quixtar in the US. Just this year, after a court case initiated in the UK at the urging of some of these voracious Amway internet critics, in it's judgement clearing Amway the court noted there had been NO complaints against Amway registered. A few years back in Australia, a parliamentarian enquired of the consumer affairs minister about Amway. The minister investigated and reported there's very few complaints. Yet on the other hand there are independent books by folk like Dominique Xardell, Charles Paul Conn, Shad Helmstetter, and James W Robinson. Awards from the UN and UNICEF. Corporate leaders doing videos in support of Amway. etc etc etc. When you consider this in conjunction with the fact that less than a third of writers to Scott Larsen's amquix site have had any direct experience with Amway, yet another third have decided not to pursue it because of what he has written (much of which is wrong), I think you have to accept there's something odd going on here, and that perhaps a look at the first two pages of google isn't really giving a balanced impression of the real position of Amway. The problem of course is that most folk stop there and if they happen to comment online about Amway will link to sites from those first couple of pages, further reinforcing the cycle. Re the UK link I'll check again, but in previous discussions some years back links to any of the separate affiliate sites were shot down. There'll be something like 60 of them, so a fair enough position to take.--Insider201283 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC) --Insider201283 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also add in respect to your first point that I'm not aware of anyone amongst the standard amway critic cadre who challenges Amway's sales data reports and I've never seen it questioned by the media or organisations like Forbes and Deloitte who collate this kind of stuff (see sources in first section) Note that several Amway affiliates have been or are public companies (something on my to do list of additions to the article) and produce audited financials. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of those statements are untrue, but not relevant to editing the article, so I don't feel a need to go into detail. For example, I still find "The Internet War Against Amway" unconvincing.

Also, I ask you to look carefully at the "average profit/earnings" statement, and make sure it's properly sourced, and not too misleading. Prepaid Legal's "average earnings" and retention rate statements turned out to be outright false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) which parts are untrue? I can provide sources for pretty much everything I said - though rereading I miswrote one statement, Amway UK had received no complaints, which is a slightly different beast to what I wrote. I'm also curious to know which parts you find "unconvincing". Pretty much the thesis is that Amway elected to prevent IBOs posting positive on the internet (here's a business week article on that and that IBOs have less time to do so anyway, which I think is pretty self-evident.

(2) I think a separate section on the business model (including the relationship with IBO training organisations) together with earnings statements would make sense if there's no objection and I can find adequate sources. Given Amway's position both size wise and historically in the direct sales/mlm industry an explanation of the model would seem sensible and almost necessary for understanding of other parts. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a source for "One reason the FTC gave for excluding MLM was because there was so few complaints generated. " mlmlegal.com (which seems to me have a slight bias in favor of MLM) suggests that the reason is the thousands of submissions by MLM companies and distributors, rather than any shortage of complaints.

A section on the business model may be interesting, if adequately sourced.

As for "average" earnings statements, in the late 20th century there were a number of State Attorneys General who, when (quite possibly illegally) summarizing state tax returns, found the "average" distributor had a net loss. This is not necessary in conflict with the Amway's stated income statements, but deserves equal recognition, as it may indicate a different set of costs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me if I read this correctly, but you seem to be implying you stated something I said isn't true simply because you couldn't find the source??? Apart from being highly insulting that doesn't exactly gel with WP:AG. In any case, the link I had to it was for an FTC press release that's no longer on their site. :( The official report however states - the National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (‘‘NACAA’’), after canvassing its members nationwide, stated that they ‘reported there was no appreciable number of complaints filed against direct sellers that are member companies of the Direct Selling Association.’. Note that this is members of the DSA. I suspect that you, like many folk, equate MLM with any company that calls itself MLM, when in fact it's a pyramid scheme or scam pretending to be a legitimate MLM. I actually suspect there may even be more scams calling themselves MLM than actual legitimate MLMs.

With regards "earnings", wording is important - they're income disclosure statements, or statements about how much was earned in bonuses. That not only doesn't include profit for personal sales, it also doesn't include expenses. Generic "earnings" could be interpreted as "profit" which can absolutely be misleading. What can also be misleading is reading things like the 1979 Wisconsin study (it was 1 attorney general, not several), and for several reasons. First and foremost is that it reported on direct distributors, but it didn't report on qualified direct distributors. At that time you "earned" the title simply be reaching a certain volume level once, for one month. Later this was extended to three months, now it's 6 months. One month of qualification you could have done through a big push selling cookware, and the next month, indeed for the rest of the year, your income could be zero. Unfortunately this type of "push" approach without any stability behind it wasn't uncommon back then, some groups even advised doing it! Now, combine that with the fact that a sensible business owner tries to maximise declared expenses to the greatest extent possible and you have a predictable result. I, and most business owners, spend a deal of time every year with my businesses (I have more than one) trying to get the net income as close to zero as possible. I'm trying to do that. Not by decreasing income, but by declaring as many legitimate business expenses as possible. Home based businesses have quite a few! Now, it's worth noting that the IRS has numerous times come down on MLMers, including Amway reps, for claiming heaps of expenses and declaring a loss when they weren't actually "running a business". So, you have folk who are legitimately trying to minimise their declared income after expenses and folk who aren't running a business, and thus have very low incomes, also declaring these expenses and even declaring losses while actually doing quite nicely. What would you expect the end result to be? If nothing else, you can be sure that a generic "average" has practically no worth statistically. In any case, the study allegedly found the average net income for 139 "directs" in 1979 in Wisconsin was a loss of $918 and adjusted gross income $14349. So as you can see, bucket loads of business expenses have been deducted. Given the huge changes in the business model since 1979 including a dramatic decrease in expenses thanks to direct fulfillment and significant increases in both bonuses and qualification standards, a 30 year old analysis of dubious statistical worth (in my opinion average should rarely if ever be used for income, which is pretty much never normally distributed) really doesn't have much relevance in this article. As someone who built a business of a similar size to those Wisconsin distributors, except in the 90s not the 70s, I can assure you the expenses are nowhere near that! In any case, even if we wanted to include it (and apart from noting the age and relevance I have no real objection), the only source I know of for the Wisconsin statistics is a self-published book, Fake it till you make it. I think perhaps the best thing is to ensure than any mention of incomes includes a disclaimer that they don't account for expenses. Amway usually does this on the earnings disclosure statements. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Media Articles

What's the purpose of this section? There are literally thousands of news articles on Amway --Insider201283 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no objection I'll remove this section --Insider201283 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

DMOZ

We've discussed this before and DMOZ links are inherently biased in this area, with a generic refusal to list pro-Amway websites. You helped get The Truth About Amway listed last year but there's still been zero response to listing Amway Wiki or Amway Watch, which are not even opinion sites, simply collating facts and news. Submissions of other pro-Amway blogs like the corps Opportunity Zone (nominated for a PR award) and other individual IBO blogs have also been ignored even after years. As such I have concerns about listing them here.--Insider201283 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the current listing of Amway and distributor links violates WP:EL. At least one of them is primarily a personal web site of a distributor, perhaps allowable at DMOZ, but not here. As for DMOZ, "the great crash" may have lost some of the previous suggestions. If you (through a proxy, if you don't want editors there to be able to trace your IP), want to suggest those sites again, I'll look into verifying their relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think EL on this article should be limited to the main "official" sites. Once you open it up to other "opinion" or self-published sites, either pro or con, it becames a cat fight with potentially dozens or more sites to argue over. Given that fact, and WP:EL and above I don't think linking to DMOZ at all is a good idea. Re missing listings, I'll resubmit, thanks --Insider201283 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That amway wiki is terrible, it's like it was drawn up yesterday by a 5 year old. Too much gramma flaws and links to important topics (such as 'how it works') result in blank or non-existing pages. It's got potential to be a non-biased place for collating information, but... not right now. (Xu Davella (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Like that doesn't happen on Wikipedia? :) So get in there and edit it, it's a wiki, that's the point. Mind you, you gotta love someone who critices others grammar with a spelling error. ;-) The only way it becomesa great resource is if people make it so. Right now it's best asset is archiving of Amway's mags from around the world and collating lists of achievers and sales data, other stuff, like "how it works", need a lot of work! --Insider201283 (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

UK BERR

In the DTI/BERR action in the UK, petitions were made against BWW, N21 and Amway. The first two were dismissed before it ever went to court. The third was dismissed by the court. A problem from a wikipedia perspective is that I can't find an RS either for the fact petitions were made against BWW and N21 nor the fact they were dismissed. As such it appears they should be removed from the section entirely, particularly given they're "accusations" against current organizations. However I'm hesitant to do so, especially since I know both the petitions and the dismissals have occurred. Any thoughts?--Insider201283 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

bump--Insider201283 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

More importantly - do these documents exist. If "yes" then is there a RS that says so. If not, then they should be flagged with cite tags and then (in a little while - the world isn't going to end if they stay up for a couple of weeks) removed. Shot info (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside from court documents, which as you're aware should not be used (as per Will Bebecks' comments elsewhere), AFAIK there are no RS. Also, as you are also aware, if they're allegations about a current organization then the info SHOULD NOT be left up without sourcing. I'd also note the cite tags HAVE been there for 2 weeks (give or take some hours). So I say what I've said to you before - how about you be constructive and look for some sources? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I like how you enjoy putting words in other editor's mouths...but never mind, you ask a question of editors - and other editors answer. Why is it that you aren't being constructive and looking for suitable sources? I'm telling you that if there are no sources - delete. And as you are also aware it's not going to end the world if info stays uncited on WP for a short period of time. Unlike you, other editors don't seem to spend their time in only a select few articles. Shot info (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just realised my original request for citations was done incorrectly (I put cite in tags instead of facts), so the correct tags have not been in place for 2 weeks, my apologies. I did fix it later. Secondly, if you read the OP you'll see that I HAVE looked for other RSs. I'm curious though, exactly how long do you think Wikipedia policies to delete stuff immediately should be ignored? Clearly for you "immediately" means not for at least 2 weeks, could you give me some specific time frames for "immediately" that you'd be happy with? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IAR, WP:DICK Shot info (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Was that you talking to yourself, or do you have a point? Even better, been useful and found any references yet? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that you ask a question, then when there is a reply you ask another question unrelated to the previous one. What I recommend you do is read up on policy, it's application to improving articles and why wikilawyering is bad for the project. Then (re)read my comments and then perhaps you will understand what other editors are saying. Shot info (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief, get a mirror man. Take some therapy, get a little self-insight, learn how to stop projecting. Do something useful. In the meantime, speaking of being useful - found any sources yet? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious though, exactly how long do you think Wikipedia policies to delete stuff immediately should be ignored? Clearly for you "immediately" means not for at least 2 weeks, could you give me some specific time frames for "immediately" that you'd be happy with? does this question ring any bells with you? Shot info (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since your so good at linking to Wiki opinion pieces, I'd appreciate the link to the one where "immediately" is considered to be 2 weeks. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I did - you just don't wish to look at them. Shot info (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

lol. You have no idea what I'm even referring to do you? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well with your hyperactive editing style, the logical answer is - no. How about you give editing for clarity a go? Shot info (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Contentious unsourced, potentially libellous material should, as User:Jimbo Wales put it, "be removed, aggressively"[4]. I doubt there's any consensus that means 2 weeks+, but feel free to prove me wrong. --Insider201283 (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See the links I provided to you above (and once again your hyperactive editing style sees another tangent come and go). Shot info (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No tangent come and go, and no editing has been done. I can't find anything in the links provided that modify Wikipedia core policy. IAR is closest, but it's for improving wikipedia. Having unsourced libellous information clearly does not meit IAR. Do you disagree? Could you provide me with a quote from the links you referenced to support your view? --Insider201283 (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please supply the policy that uses the term "immediately" per your comment above. Shot info (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A citation in Grand Rapids Press: [5]. --Knverma (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh joy! A cite that's factually incorrect right from the first sentence! Neither N21 nor BWW or "distributors" either in the UK or anywher else. What's more the case had nothing to do with "tools", the judge even explictly said so. Sigh ... journalism is in such a sorry state :( That copy is not RS either - Rick Ross admitted in a discussion on Talk for his article that he "edits articles for clarity" when he's reposting them. So we have no idea what he's changed without the original, make a SPS even more unreliable. Still, if we can find a copy the original should be RS that N21 and BWW were involved in the case. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please cite where Rick Ross admitted this, as I've just completed going thru the archives at Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) (presumably the same Rick Ross) and cannot find any comment that says "edits articles for clarity". Shot info (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)