Talk:Amway

7

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)