Talk:YTB International/Archive 1

Archive 1

Incorrect Information

After reviewing the page, reading the history of edits, and researching the company, I would have to agree that the information that is displayed is incorrect information. YTB International, Inc. is the parent company, and YourTravelBiz.com, YTB Travel, and REZConnect are subsidiary companies. So shouldn't all of this information be display either at YTB International, Inc. or YTB. I don't feel that YourTravelBiz.com should be the location for all of this information.

What is very concering is the information in the 1st paragraph. Each subsidiary is a different part of the company, and they all do different things. YourTravelBiz.com is the Network Marketing part where it is free to participate, YTB Travel is the actual travel company where it does cost to purchase a website ($449.95, and $49.95 per month, and REZconnect is a company that offers many different products to travel agencies.

I would make these changes and correct the info, similar to what Laura did with information from YTB's corporate websites and several articles, but I don't want to get flagged like she did.

Who is responsible for correcting this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatingwa (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me this is an important distinction. These types of scams often change their names and corporate structures in an attempt to keep lawsuits against one part of the company from endangering the assets of the other parts of the company. In the end they are all controlled by the same people and the money all ends up in the same pockets. But if you have reliable secondary sources (not corporate web sites) for this information please list them here. Rees11 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a very important discussion if you want Wikipedia to be truthfull information. And YTB is not a Scam, they are a legitimate company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatingwa (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read up on Wikipedia policy. Verifiable, reliable secondary sources are the measure of truth here. As for YTB not being a scam, you may want to read the "Lawsuits" section of this article. Rees11 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Information Fix

After reviewing the page, the information has been fixed so it is truthful. The confusion over the two sides of YTB (YTB Marketing and YTB Travel Network) and what they do is part of the issue that has been confusing people from the first day. Now you can see a clear difference between the companies. Also, taking out opinionated newspaper and blogging articles and leaving only the facts that can be verified helps to give people a chance to research this company on their own. Let's face it. We all have our own opinions, but everyone should be allowed to make their own educated decisions.

As far as the lawsuites go, CA has settled (meaning it should be dropped) and IL is pending, so no information is avaliable to post about the ongoing case unless either side releases a press release. And they haven't released anything new, so we can just update as stuff comes out. As for getting flagged, a lot of that information was out of date... the links didn't work and therefore the information wasn't verifiable. Trust me, I checked. Will they really flag you for that?

Zulualpha (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid spamming the external links section

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-insider-deals-ytb-raise-questions-concerns-/2008/08/31/3626566.htm http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/business-news/biz-buzz/2008/09/simmons-quits-ytb-board/ John Nevard (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I found the article on Tomer's history with interesting schemes to be good context, though not really up there with 'In. Re. Tomer'. Perhaps in an expanded article. John Nevard (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's lots of good info here too. These don't belong as external links but the information needs to be abstracted out and put into the article. Rees11 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Tim Logan. "Small bank is forced to change". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. - about a closely connected bank
• James Gilden. "Card mills take 'agents' for a ride". Chicago Tribune. - article about YTB's recruiting practices

Dubious section

The article currently says: "YTB also sells online travel agencies under another division. Therefore, the company model of selling agencies that sell travel is a completely legitimate way to increase travel sales, as they use individuals instead of spending money on advertising." Is there any reliable source that supports these claims? That another division of the same company has the same business practice doesn't prove the legitimacy of the practice.--chaser - t 03:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for edit...

I propose making edits to this page to reflect the business as it is now. Something along these lines (and please feel free to make any edits here or leave NICE comments. Remember, I’m new at this.)

Please follow this link: http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid197476.aspx?terms=*ytb*

Here you will see that YTB receintly sold Rezconnect Technologies, Inc. Because the first section of the YTB article is incorrect in describing the company (and the first section is all I will be going over today), I am proposing this edit for the following reasons: Getting the names of the subsidiaries and what each company does correct is extremely important because incorrect information will only cause further confusion to the people who are considering becoming a part of YTB and those who are already a part of the Company. Further, information about the settled California lawsuit does not belong in this section as there is a designated section for lawsuits. This area is for a brief overview of the company and almost half of the text is about the California lawsuit. Please note, I am not proposing deleting or covering up information, I am merely requesting correct information and links be moved where they belong, if they are correct.

Paragraph 1 currently reads: YTB International Inc (OTCBB: YTBLA), sometimes known as Your Travel Biz, operates a "network marketing" opportunity under the holding company YourTravelBiz.com, Inc. through owner-affilliate websites offering travel, excursions, and lodging. Participants, who pay a $495 set up fee and $50 per month to maintain an "online travel agency" website,[1] can collect commissions for recruiting new participants, utilize the website for their own travel purposes, as well as sell travel packages to others,[2] but make most of their money by recruiting new agents rather than through travel sales of their own.[3]

I propose a change to this: YTB International Inc (OTCBB: YTBLA), operates through two subsidiaries: YourTravelBiz.com, Inc. and YTB Travel Network. Recently, YTB sold REZconnect Technologies, Inc (insert link http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid197476.aspx?terms=*ytb*). YTB International is a member of the Direct Selling Association.

Link number 1 is a news story about a lawsuit that has been settled. This news story has nothing to do with the structure of the company. Further, the amounts are misquoted here as well; the amounts are $449.95 set up fee and $49.95 per month hosting fee. (these amounts may be mentioned, but since the link is not reliable, I edited it out.) Link number two is another news story, again about the lawsuit and not the company. Number three (from 2007) is alleging YTB and other online travel agencies are card mills and nothing more. Link four... another link to a news story about the lawsuit. Not a link to the Direct Seller Association. Please consider using this link instead http://www.dsa.org/forms/CompanyFormPublicMembers/search?action=find. YTB is in this list, at the end (in alphabetical order). The verbiage in this paragraph seems to be pretty “even”, but I would say the person who wrote the original article and inserted these links has a Wikipedia: conflict of interest if you look at the pattern. Also, with so many mentions of a lawsuit that has been settled, and so many links not leading to the information they should, but to articles about a lawsuit, I believe this may be a case for Wikipedia:undue weight.

Second paragraph reads: California Attorney General Jerry Brown and former employees sued the company in early August, 2008, alleging it to be a pyramid scheme, among other claims. The Illinois Better Business Bureau and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined Brown in investigating the company.[5] On May 14, 2009, California authorities settled their suit with YTB for $1 million in fines. As a condition of the settlement, YTB agreed to restructure, possibly hastening a transition to a franchise system. That same day, Madigan filed a similar suit in Illinois.[6]

I propose to take this section out and/or move it because it belongs in the “Lawsuit” section. It honestly has no business here since there is an entire section dedicated to this. The lawsuit information typed here was more than a third of this section. Plus, all of the links here (five and six) are news stories, not reliable links (Wikipedia: reliable sources) to actual articles from "sources of a high calibar".

Third paragraph reads: Other YTB subsidiaries include YTB Travel Network, Inc. and REZconnect Technologies, Inc, with which YTB merged in 2004.[7][8] The company is based in Wood River, Illinois. International subsidiaries operate in the U.S., Puerto Rico, the Bahamas, Bermuda and Canada.[9]

I again suggest taking out the incorrect information. And the newspaper articles links. Although link 9 is linked to YTB's 8-K filing for January, 2008 (old, but it shows YTB operates in those countries?)

Here is my proposal for what the first section of the YTB article could look like:

YTB International Inc (OTCBB: YTBLA), operates through two subsidiaries: YourTravelBiz.com, Inc. and YTB Travel Network. Recently, YTB sold REZconnect Technologies, Inc (insert link http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid197476.aspx?terms=*ytb*). YTB International is a member of the Direct Selling Association.

YourTravelBiz.com is a multi-level network marketing company that sells online travel websites (booking engines). The core business of YourTravelBiz.com is to provide a booking engine to individuals who can earn travel commissions on the business they drive to their booking engine. YTB continues to execute its business strategy by growing their network of Travel Site Owners (TSOs) and increasing their online travel websites through a nationwide network of Independent Marketing Representatives (Reps).

YTB Travel Network (YTBTN) establishes and maintains travel vendor relationships, processes travel transactions, collects travel commissions from vendors, and pays travel commissions to TSOs. Currently recognized as the 25th largest seller of travel in the U.S. in 2008 by Travel Weekly (insert link: javascript:qm_showNews_1313('23496946', 'YTBLA') ), YTBTN provides Internet-based travel booking services for home-based independent representatives in the United States, Canada, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Bahamas.

Please note that I am not requesting a complete delete of the information in the article. I am requesting that proper source links be used, correct information be given, and information be placed where it should be. I am also announcing an affiliation with the company (along with thousands of other people). I understand the rules and regulations that are put in place by the FTC, the California settlement agreement, and other government agencies because of this affiliation. All I am doing is trying to use my knowledge of the industry and this company to help others make informed decisions. I know that if I announce an affiliation I am opening myself up for an attack, but please know I am simply following rules and do not wish to argue positive or negative with anyone. If you feel the need to say something personal, please use my talk page, and not this page as it is not the place for it. Thank you for your help and consideration. I know this is very long! Have a great day!!!

Zulualpha (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)}}

I don't have time to work on this now but I would be opposed to most of these changes. News organizations are considered among the very best sources for Wikipedia, below only peer reviewed scholarly sources. Obviously there are some junk news sources but I think the St. Louis Post-Dispatch would be considered high quality. See WP:RS.

As for giving undue weight to the lawsuits, this company, according to the reliable sources given, is a scam, or at least was at the time it was founded, so the lawsuits are absolutely central to the article. They belong in the intro as well as in the Lawsuits section, and certainly deserve more weight than the REZconnect sale.

The $495 figure does seem to be wrong and since it seems important to you I will fix it, and add a source. Rees11 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me give you a few facts: of the 25 reference links on the Wiki article, 19 are news stories, and 5 of those 19 are broken links. Only 6 links reference press releases or actual filings by a trusted entity. Which of these "reliable sources lead you to believe YTB is a "scam", as you say?

YTB is a member of the Direct Selling Association which has a very difficult application process and strict code of ethics. The California lawsuit was settled, and it states what the allegations were and that YTB admits no fault. (Section 4) This agreement is actually signed by the CA AG. This alone would lead anyone with an unbiased opinion to believe that there is Wikipedia: undue weight given to the California lawsuit.

As for the "high quality" news sources, I must refer you back to your own reference WP:RS. Let me quote: "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. ... While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." You may think that the St. Louis Post Dispatch is a "high quality" news source, but this is a paper that is published only in this area. It is not published country-wide like the examples given in the Wiki article. Further, these articles were written and no verifiable outside sources were given to back up the "facts" in these articles. This alone makes the quotes and facts unreliable. Give another source at least.

From your comment above it doesn't seem that you are unbiased and neutral WP:NPOV. It seems that you already have formed an opinion that the company is a scam without doing any outside research, only by going off of these newspaper articles. If I am wrong, please accept my apology now. But the fact you are willing to gloss over the fact that the corporation sold one of its subsidiaries, which is an IMPORTANT fact for Wiki as an encyclopedia, throws up a big red flag for me. Anyone agree??

I would like to state again that I am not requesting for the lawsuit information to be removed. It happened and it was settled. I am ONLY requesting the CORRECT information be included, information taken from sites/publications that have weight, and for reference links that give correct information about the topic it is linked to, be used.

Finally, if you don't have time to do this, I understand. There are MANY admins on Wiki who can look at this. You also didn't correctly fix the figure; you gave a round-about figure. The correct figure is $449.95 and $49.95 - even the "source" you give (another article about the lawsuit) states these figures! My only request is that since there is such a back and forth of editing on this article (I mean the history, WOW!), that people please put any edits here for discussion before they try to edit the page.

Thank you for looking at this (everyone). :) Zulualpha (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:RS. Press releases and filings are not considered reliable secondary sources. News stories are. The cited stories are not opinion pieces. The broken links make verification harder, but have no bearing on reliability. If the extra ten cents bothers you, I will be glad to mail you a check. Rees11 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I did read WP:RS. The court filing is not what I was referring to; I was referring (and linked to) the actual settlement agreement, which is a legal document and is a valid source. Also, I said "press releases or actual filings by a trusted entitity", meaning the settlement agreement, the 8-K report, etc. Please don't twist my words. I was stating what was already linked in the article. :) If you read, I also state "I am ONLY requesting the CORRECT information be included, information taken from sites/publications that have weight, and for reference links that give correct information about the topic it is linked to, be used."

I could disagree with you; one link, for example, goes to a news story that uses John Frenaye, "the sponsor of the MLM petition, "MLM Travel Agents Cheapen Industry," that has to date won over 2,600 travel agent and supplier signatures, Berstein confirmed the review to ensure YTB complies with state law and oversight of the travel industry." He confirmed it on Frenaye's blog. This is taken straight from the article and is the only source for the issue about Rhode Island. In fact, all travel agents there were being investigated because RI was requiring a license for travel agents. This story just spun the issue at hand to be negative toward YTB because of the author's opinion of the company. The entire story says "Frenaye stated, Frenaye says, Frenaye believes" and uses his blog as a reference. You can visit his blog if you like, but one of them is an anti-YTB blog and I won't post the address here.

As for the comment about sending me a check, please keep it professional. I am going to put this article up for a review of accuracy and point of view. If you cared at all about the accuracy of the information available on Wikipedia you would have inserted the correct purchase amount, inserted the correct information about the selling of REZconnect, inserted the correct information about the companies, and not been so flippant if you actually cared about the mission of this site. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. I can bet you that Brittinacia does NOT round up or down when it comes to figures. Sure I am passionate about this, but this part goes beyond YTB, this is about putting correct information out there for people to have access to. So many people do not know that Wiki can be independently edited and take everything on here as fact. This may be one area where I am a bit of an expert, and because of that it frustrates me to no end that I can prove to you that there are incorrect facts here and you just dismissed them. I sincerely hope everyone on here is not like that. Thank you for you comments, however.

Zulualpha (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I did follow your link to Travel Weekly, but there was nothing there about the two subsidiaries, so I did not make that change. I did make one change you requested, correcting the $500 figure to $450. I am sorry you did not find this helpful. If you would like to get more help from neutral editors, I would suggest posting a notice to WP:COIN. Rees11 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked into another of your suggested changes and made what I think is the appropriate edit. I hope you find this more useful than the last one.

The crack about mailing a check was not intended to be flippant. It was intended to point out the insignificance of the rounding error, which is 1 in 9000 for one figure and 1 in 1000 for the other. Writing $50 as "$49.95" is an old marketing trick intended to deceive the reader. I don't think trying to deceive the reader is compatible with Wikipedia's goals. Rees11 (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the link to TW, there was an entire article about the SALE of REZConnect Technologies, Inc. It is sourced that YTB had three subsidiaries; the 8K filing (from 2008) is sourced. I'm not sure what the issue is to include that one of the subsidiaries has been sold. Again, writing the exact amount charged for the booking engine and monthly hosting fee is, I feel, compatible with Wikipedia's goals of getting true and factual information to the reader. I'm not going to go back and forth with you over this. Regardless of the reason for the "crack about the check", your point would have held more weight if you would have simply posted the rounding figures in the first place and not been so flippant.

I have requested a more neutral editor to look at this and would appreciate it if you posted your requests for edits here as you obviously are not a neutral party and seem to have a biased opinion. Thank you for your time, however. Have a good weekend! Zulualpha (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

POV and Accuracy check.

Please see all the above sections. Inaccurate information has been pointed out several times to no avail. I even pointed out that a source was wrongly quoted in the article (a $450/$50 charge is actually $449.95/$49.95). That source is not about the amount charged by the company, but about the California lawsuit, but nevertheless, it was stated to me "If the extra ten cents bothers you, I will be glad to mail you a check." This bothers me more than I can say. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. No other encyclopedia would round figures they can source. Nor would they be so flippant about adding information that is sourced. YTB sold REZconnect. This is important. Again, it is unfortunate that this argument is coming about based on incorrect information in the YTB article, but it is horrible that it seems this user has been told SEVERAL times about incorrect information and he is so flippant about calling YTB a scam and writing off the idea of changing it.

I am requesting a check from an outside source. Here are my reasons:

The first section is incorrect in describing the companies. My edits CLEARLY stated the Company’s names and what they individually do, as well as the sale. Getting the names of the subsidiaries and what each company does correct is extremely important because incorrect information will only cause further confusion to the people who are considering becoming a part of YTB and those who are already a part of the Company. Further, allowing incorrect information about the company to remain on Wikipedia when you have been warned multiple times it is there hurts the credibility of this website as well.

Information about the settled California lawsuit does not belong in this first section as there is a designated section for lawsuits. This first area is for a brief overview of the company and its subsidiaries and almost half of the text is about the California lawsuit.

The verbiage used in the second section is incorrect, using words like “recruited”. Reps were registered and Booking Engines were sold, no one was recruited. The military recruits. Using the correct verbiage to describe what the company does is as important as having correct information about the companies on your page. If you were familiar with government laws regulating Multi Level Marketing (MLM) companies and Travel Agencies, you would know that. Also, there are fabrications that have not been proven in court in this section. Further, the link does not work to validate it. “The company's business model of selling travel-related websites to work-at-home travel sales agents has been the same since its inception. Growth was slow until 2004, when YTB's creators bought controlling interest in a related company, increased their marketing budget, and aggressively recruited new members with videos of successful salespeople—along with material incentives for their best performers.[10]" Finally, if this link did work, it would go to a newspaper article, not a valid piece of reference material. YTB has incorporated a franchise model in California and is changing the way they do business to pave the way for the future inception of a franchise model across the board.

The fact that YTB laid off employees is irrelevant; however, if this fact stays, the figure that it is less than 5% of the staff should be added. The part about “considering replacing” the business model with one based around a franchises" is completely irrevelent as well as those changes are already taking place. This information needs to be removed, and I did that.

The Awards section needs to be updated to show another award. I had edited it to show the award before, but it was removed. Here is the information: March 5, 2008, Apple Vacations' Business Development Director Sandy Meyer made a special stop at the YTB Edwardsville office to present YTB with the Platinum Apple Award. Apple Vacations was very pleased to announce YTB moved up to the Platinum Award after receiving the Gold Award in 2007. YTB Vice President of Marketing, YTB Travel Network, accepted the award and thanked Apple Vacations for their continued support of YTB.

The Lawsuits section NEEDS to be updated. Critics have no business here, only lawsuits. The California Attorney General and YTB have settled the lawsuit, so you may not continue to use the present tense of the word “allege”. And the agreement did not put an “end to the $450, $50 per month” Booking Engines. YTB is changing the WAY the Booking Engines are sold, not discontinuing the sale of the product, so this statement is completely incorrect. I understand that there are people who think this meant the end, but the incorporation of the franchise model in California shows one of the many ways YTB is actually working to comply with the CA Agreement. (I know this sounds too promotional-ish, but I'm not asking that this statment be put in the article, just that you understand my POV.) http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1737_ytbstipulatedjudgment.pdf

Further, the information about Rhode Island is mainly supplied by the sponsor of the MLM petition, "MLM Travel Agents Cheapen Industry". This makes the Rhode Island statement partially incorrect and that statement needs to be amended. To reiterate, YTB was NOT the only Travel Agent investigated in Rhode Island, EVERY Travel Agent in Rhode Island was investigated. There is a license required for a Travel Agent to operate in the state of Rhode Island.

Finally, your reliably sourced information (please follow the link and read the section on "News Organizations"). I actually went through these “reliably sourced” links and discovered that they are not that “reliably sourced” at all! If one of your moderators would take time to read the CA Agreement you would know that much of the stuff stated in this article is not allowable, needs to be compliant with FTC and other government rules, regulation, and laws governing MLMs and Travel Agencies (again, if one of your moderators would like to get up to date on those rules and regulations, they would easily see that most of the verbiage used is a huge no-no), and other edits should be corrected to include TRUE information about the company. However, I do understand that it is not the job of your moderators to become up to date on every rule, regulation, and law our great government imposes on every business and position within the USA – that is why you allow the “Average Joe” to edit on this site, and that is what I am trying to do here.

I personally think it is more important for example, to get the founder’s names correct than to state that Scott is Coach’s son. Obviously they are related. I also think that information about the companies should be a top priority to be correct. On the basis that Wikipedia has been warned several times that this article is filled with opinions and misinformation, how are we (as a society) supposed to trust this site to give the best and truest information? As follows a brief summary of the References.

REFERENCES

1. Is a press release from a year ago about a lawsuit that has been settled.

2. Is a news story, written by a California newspaper; this could be considered opinion, especially since this story does not have quotes from both sides.

3. Is an opinion filled news story that has no fact, and no links to support any type of figures. Also, the story is from 2007.

4. The statement from the DSA was released when California announced their lawsuit, which has since been settled.

5. Yet another news story.

6. News story.

7. Another news story.

8. Another news story.

9. SEC filing

10. BROKEN LINK

11. California lawsuit filing (The link for the settlement was not referenced on the page.)

12. BROKEN LINK

13. BROKEN LINK

14. Another news story.

15. BROKEN LINK

16. Not only is this another news story, there are more advertisements on this page than print.

17. Press Release.

18. News story.

19. News story.

20. Press Release.

21. News story.

22. News story.

23. News story.

24. BROKEN LINK.

25. If you read this News Story, it is actually about the investigation of ALL travel agents in Rhode Island, not just YTB. Further, the information is mainly supplied by the sponsor of the MLM petition, "MLM Travel Agents Cheapen Industry". This makes the Rhode Island statement partially incorrect and that statement needs to be amended.

To sum it up, this article seems to focus on the California Lawsuit, which has been settled, and uses newspaper articles for most of their references, many of which are broken links. These articles are completely based on the opinion of the writer and in ALMOST no way reflect fact. I can admit that there are a few items that are fact here, but not enough. I personally feel that articles on Wikipedia should be based on fact, and if the "critics" would like to speak about opinions or rumors, they can open a header about the opinions and rumors and let them fly there. The issue with this article is that it has been written by the “critics” and when a link or change is made to reflect correct information, the user gets blocked and “corrections” are made that are worse than the original article.

For facts: of the 25 reference links on the Wiki article, 19 were news stories, and 5 of those 19 were broken links. Only 6 links referenced press releases or actual filings by a trusted entity. I tried to link to reliable and trusted sources: Travel Agent news sources, the YTB company website (that is regulated and MUST contain TRUE content about the Company or the Company could get into trouble), and other press releases. Further, I tagged broken links.

If you have any questions, please let me know. I am trying to become an active member and really enjoy working on this site. But this mis-use of information is getting a little ridiculous. :(

Zulualpha (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Another request for an edit...

http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid197844.aspx

By following the link above, you will see that the class action lawsuit filed in the State of Illinois has been thrown out and dismissed. Please change the verbiage in the article to reflect this.

There is one person who is a resident of IL, but this cannot be refiled again without the court's approval, and the judge stated the prior case "establishes the law of the case, from which the court is unlikely to depart absent a showing of compelling reasons to do so."

Thank you! Zulualpha (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This was recently changed in the body of the text, and I added the change to the lede. ThemFromSpace 01:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got the two lawsuits confused. The California suit was filed by Jerry Brown and settled in May. The Illinois was a class action and was dismissed in July. Rees11 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Thanks for fixing that up for me. ThemFromSpace 00:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't fix it, just reverted. This article could still use some work if you feel so inclined. Thanks for helping. Rees11 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV suggestions

Despite the objections from Zulualpha, I don't see that this article is terribly POV. I did make one minor change, where it talked about the company expanding into a "rehabbed Kmart"; despite the fact that "rehab" isn't a verb that's a level of detail that seems designed to denegrate the company and doesn't add any real info to the article. It's like saying they moved into an "ugly purple building", just not necessary.

The main change I'd suggest, and I decided to not be bold because I see there was already a discussion about this, but I think that the lead goes into too much detail about the lawsuits. This is actually more of a style issue with me than an NPOV one. It lists who filed the lawsuits, the claims of the lawsuits, the result of the claims, and even an editorial about "possibly hastening a transition to a franchise system" which should be removed as unsourced speculation.

Other than that, it seems like a pretty balanced article. -- Atama^chat 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would go along with that. I do think there should be a sentence about the lawsuits in the lead, but we don't need all the detail that's there now. I haven't checked whether "possibly hastening" is in the source, but if it's not it should be removed. Maybe the lead should just say something like "the company has been the subject of several lawsuits and investigations." Rees11 (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. The accusations made against the company probably merit the mention of the lawsuit in the lead. Just because the lawsuit is over does not mean that things should necessarily be changed. I'd suggest that the tags be removed unless someone can come up with some specific points that they disagree with. Smartse (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for listening to me. I don't think the information in the article has a POV issue, but the references themselves are. Almost every newspaper link there goes to a story about YTB and the lawsuit. One is from a person who outwardly posts a daily anti-YTB blog and this article is the sole supporter of one accusation (the RI issue); during this time, every travel agent was looked at to see if they were following the state's statutes, not just YTB. This is what I meant by the article having a POV issue. If anyone would follow the links they would get the information along with an article about a lawsuit that is settled, but since the article was written a year or more ago, it isn't up to date and still sounds like YTB is being sued. It has been pointed out to me that this could lead people to have a negative opinion of the company without even doing proper research for themselves and this is a POV issue. I would be more than happy to provide articles/links that support the current information in the article but are more neutral. I could post links here over the next few days and see if somone could change them. Please let me know what you think. Zulualpha (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rees11, the 5/15/09 article says "[The Illinois lawsuit] follows a California settlement that could hasten YTB's shift toward a franchise-based model." To everyone, I have copies of most of the sources and will be happy to email them to you. Just email your request and I'll send whatever as attachments.--chaser (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

YourTravelBiz.com → YTB International — The legal business name is YTB International not YourTravelBiz.com which is the corporate website. The redirect should be reversed. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seems straightforward and not controversial. WP:BOLDly moved it. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New Links to replace current links

Please consider the following changes for the links in the body of the article:

Link about the DSA membership (Link 1) changed to this (current link is about the settled CA lawsuit). This link is about the induction of YTB to the DSA from the DSA site: DSA Page

Link 3 supports this statement: "The company has been the subject of several lawsuits and investigations in California, Illinois, and elsewhere alleging the company to be a pyramid scheme and deceptive marketing.", yet the link only states that there have been BBB complaints, a lawsuit in California, and a lawsuit in Illinois (both by the Attorney General). My suggestion is to either change this statement to reflect fact or take this statement out. I do not disagree that these could be mentioned in the introduction, but some type of statement also saying the only suit still active is the IL AG suit or something could be in here as well. (The company has been the subject of a lawsuit and investigation in California and two lawsuits/investigations in IL (one from the AG and a class action) alleging the company to be a pyramid scheme and deceptive marketing. Currently, the only the Illinois AG lawsuit is still pending.)

Link 4 is an allegation from the CA AG stating what the lawsuit was about. This link needs to be updated and support the statement about pricing for YTB. Here is a link that states the prices as well as new pricing for YTB, a new way to pay the initial fee announced over the 2009 National Convention. YTB Convention link 09

Also, please reenter that YTB is number 25 on Travel Weekly's 2009 Power List with over $424 million in travel sales. Link: Travel Weekly's 2009 Power List You may have to refresh the page to get it to show, Travel Weekly's pages don't always load correctly the first time if your cookies need to be emptied.

Thank you for looking at this request. I will visit the other links at a later date, eventually working my way through them all; this is all I have time to do today. I also know that a few small changes notated here versus a massive entry is more likely to get read. Zulualpha (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

YTB SOLD REZCONNECT

I propose a change to this: YTB International Inc (OTCBB: YTBLA), operates through two subsidiaries: YourTravelBiz.com, Inc. and YTB Travel Network. Recently, YTB sold REZconnect Technologies, Inc (insert link http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid197476.aspx?terms=*ytb*). YTB International is a member of the Direct Selling Association.Zulualpha (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

COI edits by YTB-owned IPs

I noticed that 12.23.111.178 blanked the less flattering sections of this article a while back. IP addresses from 12.23.111.176 to 12.23.111.191 are registered to "YTB INTERNATIONAL INC". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed on the COI noticeboard a while back. Some of us still have the article on watchlist. Rees11 (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1