Talk:Amway

Source Repository

I'm compiling a list of RS sources here - User:Icerat/Amway_-_references --Icerat (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Added another couple of dozen, mostly foreign language, sources to the May 2011 references to the source repository. As per above quite a bit of coverage of an Amway India incentive trip to the Alps. Last year and earlier this year was a lot of coverage of Amway China trips to Australia --Icerat (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Global markets section

@Rhode Island Red, thanks for your work on the section about China. Do you have a source for your addition of the information about Amway China disallowing doctors, teachers et cetera from becoming Amway distributors? It is unclear if it is a policy of Amway China or the Chinese government[1]Octopet (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, NP. It was government policy, not Amway policy. It was mentioned in one of the articles you cited.[2] Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've made a small edit to clarify that sentence.Octopet (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1998 Amway riots in China: cause or result?

Superficial googling leads to old news stories which say that the riots in China broke out due to the ban on direct marketing. This article says something opposite: that some riots broke out due to direct marketing abuses and then the government stepped in with bans.24.85.131.247 (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Polish court case

The problem is that the "false" facts are "true" by our standards; i.e., published by reliable sources. We need to say that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No Arthur, the problem is the false facts are believed to be true by some people, including yourself, and some unreliable sources have spread the myths. Wikipedia should not be promoting myths. --Icerat (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean myths like more than 5% of Amway distributors have net income? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no way to know, but evidence would suggest that is not a myth. "Critics" analysis relies on a rather large assumption regarding expenses (everyone has them), as well as wilfully ignoring the most significant income source (annual performance bonuses). Independent analysis released in the Pokorny case shows that only a small percentage (less than 20%) even have $100 expenses in a year, yet IBOs average nearly $2500/yr in income without including the annual bonuses. You need pretty complicated math (perhaps impossible math) to come up with a scenario where that means 95% are losing money. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. --Icerat (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the analysis. I believe it has been shown that at most 20% of IBOs had net income (commissions received less commissions paid) of over $100/yr. I have no doubt that the average is near $2500/yr; the median, on the other hand, is almost certainly $0. But this discussion relates to the subject of the article, not to what should be in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Dat Bias

This has very apparent bias,Mostly in controversy Excuses, Excuses India problem: Marriage Dispute,Pyrimad Scheme: No they weren't. Seems Legit. The article is very narrow-minded on discussion on Amway, Caveman after reading Amway article Amway Good,Lawsuit filers BAAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russianarmy13 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC) To elaborate some more, The Amway article is biased and should be re-written.