Talk:Amway/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Peanut butter recall

Seriously Rhode Island Red - are you freaking insane? Nearly 4000 products were recalled in early 2009, from hundreds, perhaps thousands of brands, because of a potential salmonella outbreak at the Peanut Corporation of America.[1]. How on earth does this not qualify as WP:NOTNEWS? You might also want to reviw WP:NNEWS. --Icerat (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bypassing editor's sarcastic and insenstive comment about mental health, the source for the description of the company's product recall/salmonella warning was a company press release from Amway published by a reliable secondary source (the FDA). It's at least as newsworthy (and better sourced) as a lot of the other content in the Nutrilite section (and indeed the entire article), and far more so than the fluffy (and primary-sourced) 'Nestle' award, which doesn't even refer to Nutrilite products. The section is filled with puffery. It would be remiss to not ensure a balanced POV. A salmonella recall is significant, especially for a much ballyhooed product like Nutrilite. If editor is worried about newsworthiness, the first concern should be with removal of the Nestle award, which is clearly not newsworthy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not argung it's not an RS source, it is. Doesn't mean it belongs in the article. (a)What "Nestle" award are you talking about? (b) How is being 3 among nearly 4000 products recalled, because of a possible issue at a supplier, newsworthy? --Icerat (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I now see that what you are referring to as the "Nestle" award is the John M. Kinney award handed out by Nutrition journal, for a paper co-written by scientists from Nutrilite and an Amway sister company, Interleukin Genetics. You're seriously equating this to a voluntary food recall affecting thousands of products after reports of possible problems at a supplier? Really? I thought you were a scientist? Ahhh ... I think I understand ... an MLM company getting scientific awards must cause some cognitive dissonance when defending (as you did on the USANA article) claims by competitors that MLM companies don't can't do research. This should give you some food for thought then. --Icerat (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Editor ignores that Salmonella contaminated peanut-product recalls are big news and not something that is taken lightl by companies, health agencies, or the media; when it happens, it is newsworthy.[2][3] The source cited (FDA/Amway)[4] mentions nothing about 4000 similarly affected products, and the press release predates the source cited in this edit,[5] which has now been reverted on the basis that it is brazen WP:SYNTH. As for the award from the Nestlé Nutrition Institute, it only mentions Nutrilite in the author affiliation line in the title, the source contains no other information on anything to do with Nutrilite other than that. That one-word non-news story isn't anywhere near as relevant to Nutrilite as actual senetences from an RS describing a Nutrilite product recall due to suspected Salmonella contamination. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do you object to making it clear this voluntary recall, because of the possibility, not suspicion, of salmonella outbreak, was part of an extremely large recall? Doesn't that verifiable fact give a more accurate picture of the nature of the event? --Icerat (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The current text in the article states “In January 2009, Amway announced a voluntary recall of Nutrilite XS Energy Bars after learning that they had possibly been manufactured with Salmonella-contaminated ingredients from Peanut Corporation of America”. Hence, the text is already very clear in stating both that the recall was “voluntary” and that Salmonella contamination was “possible”. Obviously, therefore, it is deceptive to question why I “object” to adding these two details when in fact I included them when I first inserted the text in the article.[6] What Icerat tried to do in response is to add (in the middle of the sentence) his own “context” saying essentially that “the recall was unimportant to Amway because it happened with lots of products”. However, no source ever said anything remotely like that -- so it's not only SYNTH, it's also WP:OR. Lowering the bar for inclusion of SYNTH material such as this would open the door to adding things like “…the American Peanut company, Amway’s Nutrilite ingredient manufacturer, was also found to have serious problems with metal fragment, rodent dropping, and pesticide contamination and as a result, the company was forced out of business following investigations by the FDA and FBI”. This happens to be true and well documented by RS, but no source ever said it in reference to Amway. Icerat’s proposal is SYNTH, and Icerat knows that it’s SYNTH, but instead of facing that fact, the editor is calling for a change to WP’s SYNTH policy.[7] How utterly laughable! Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The FDA clearly states this effected hundreds of companies and thousands of products, and includes Nutrilite in this list[8]. To state "no source ever said it in reference to Amway" is simply false. --Icerat (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The text that was improperly synthesized and introduced by Icerat was: “…as part of one of the largest food recalls in US history, affecting hundreds of companies and thousands of products”.[9] Those words were not stated by any secondary reliable source in reference to Amway; they certainly aren’t stated in the link[10] that was alleged to contain such a quote. The text is merely Icerat’s synthesis of a primary source. The synthesized text was introduced into the middle of a sentence from a reliable secondary source[11] that did describe the recall and did mention Amway (but nothing resembling the text Icerat synthesized); thus, creating a false attribution. The simple reality is that no single source every directly wrote anything along the line of “Amway issued a recall…as part of the largest food recalls in US history, affecting hundreds of companies and thousands of products”.
It seems that Icerat’s MO is to begin with WP:DONTLIKE and then wikilawyer while searching for any vague pretense to support that POV. First, Icerat called the recall “insane” and “non-news”,[12]. Then it was a vague claim that it was a “wikicruft”. [13] This was followed by a misrepresentation that the text about the recall was based on a primary source, when in fact it was a secondary source (i.e., the FDA).[14] And now it’s an attempt to defend SYNTH of a primary source and misattribution. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh good grief. The FDA republishing an Amway press release does not suddenly make it a secondary source. You quoted stuff out of Butterfield without even reading the book (I notice you didn't answer that question) and now your quoting stuff out of a single web page and not bothering to actually read it. Please, try to control your emotional response to these topics, slow down, and think about what you're doing, writing and saying. --Icerat (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Off topic and incorrect -- Butterfield isn’t cited in reference to the Nutrilite recall. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I notice (a) you haven't responded the fact that you're trying to claim a republished press release is a secondary source and (b) you haven't acknowledged having read Butterfield. I'll take that as an admission you haven't. --Icerat (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) The press release (from Amway, the primary source) was published by a secondary source (the FDA); (b) the Butterfield book is irrelevant to this thread (and of course I read it or I wouldn't have cited it). Icerat should refrain from asking any further questions unrelated to the subject of this thread. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously claiming that a republished press release makes it a secondary source? --Icerat (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Editor is being purposely obtuse and should just read comments as they are written. I was very clear...the press release was generated by Amway (the primary source); the press release was published by a secondary source (the FDA). It's no more complicated than that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The FDA is not "the source", they are in this instance the publisher. The source is the press release. --Icerat (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It's evident that there are no productive comments forthcoming. On to bigger and better things. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Quixtar Accreditation

Noticed a few problems with the following text newly added today:[15]

In 2006, Amway North America (then Quixtar) instituted an "accreditation program" for the independent companies producing materials and hosting seminars for Amway independent business owners. As part of the guidelines, excessive references to religion or indications that particular beliefs are required to succeed in Amway were banned.[62]

Namely, the source document[16] doesn't say that excessive references to religion are banned (it refers to "appropriate" and "acceptable"/"unacceptable", but even in those few instances it is vague). The document, however, indicates that in fact religious communications in official events are not banned at all, but considered quite acceptable up to a point (and again the threshold is vague and the consequences of violating it unspecified, but that's tangential). If this document were to be referenced at all, it would have to be presented in a much more balanced manner. But the more important issue is that the program was allegedly instituted in 2006 (no evidence has been presented to back that up incidentally), and yet the only source for this document (a primary source) is an archived version from a now defunct website. Setting aside the authenticity of the document, the accreditation program seems to no longer exist, assuming it ever did. The domain name (quixtaraccreditation.com) in the URL of the archived version of this document is defunct and registered to an unnamed expired account.[17] So there are multiple issues here: non-NPOV, unreliable source, and irrelevancy. There is no point referring to policy that no no longer exists (and may never have) and especially not in such a way as to try to counter information provided by other reliable secondary sources attesting to the promotion of religion within the organization. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Verification for Text Attributed to Butterfield Needed

The following text was introduced by Icerat[18] today -- "In his book, Butterfield states that he did not become aware that the tapes he was purchasing from Yager were not Amway Corporation tapes until months after he left the business..." This does not seem to be stated even loosely anywhere in Butterfield's book. I fear it might have been poorly paraphrased and SYTNH. The editor that added the text will hopefully be willing to provide a direct quote from the source text (along woth the page number and a link where it can be found) so that the paraphrased text can be verified for accuracy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe I found the relevant text on page 101. It has nothing to do with what Henein stated about Amway and doesn't justify the SYNTH, but it would be worthwhile to develop a new section on Amway motivational materials (i.e. essentially what listed now under Amway Global [19]) and possibly include it there (refactored so that it's germaine and encyclopedic). More details on Yager would be worthwhile too, since he led one of the largest distributor groups in the Amway organization and sat on the company's 11-member Distributor Association Advisory Board. In fact, there is a lot of interesting material in Butterfield's book that can be added to the article (for example Chapter 12 on the cult angle). Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yager I think is notable enough for his own article, with extensive coverage in Charlotte newspapers with the primary focus on him, not Amway, as well as the 60 minutes interviews and numerous mentions in various books. A whole section needs to be done on the various independent Amway organizations and support companies. News media sources seem to barely know they exist, some of the book sources are better, I have to reread them. I note that you have removed numerous bits of *sourced* information from this article while I've been away, including the Yager 60 minutes quotes and corrections that Amway made about Mother Jones misreporting. That is unacceptable POV editing. --Icerat (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead Links and Unverifiable Content

I went through the article in quite a bit of detail today, doing some general cleanup, checking links, and verifying text for accuracy. I found quite a bit of content that was unverifiable or did not support statements in the article. In cases of dead link, I added tags and kept the original text in a few cases; in other cases where the URL was defunct and/or did not link to an RS, I deleted the content and the citation. As an example, some of the claims about awards given to Amway products were unverifiable and, hence, should not be included in the article until such time that reliable verifiable sources can be found to support the claims. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Progress

Please see the discussion about how to proceed with renaming and structuring related Amway articles, More on Merges/Changes [20] and let's come up with action steps. I've been away for a while and see that not much has been resolved since I last checked in. Thanks, Rhode Island Red, for cleaning up some dead links. Octopet (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I've looked at all the Amway-related articles and it's going to be a bit of challenge blending it all together. I think the first place to start would be crafting a coherent history that outlines the different entities and their founding dates (i.e., Alticor, Quixtar, Amway Global, Amway Australia). I'd be happy if someone else tackled that component. I noticed some sections that are full of insider jargon about the distributor network structure -- that should go. After that, it will be matter of merging details on controversies etc (I can take that part on). Overall, there is a lot of redundancy among the articles. I checked the current Amway article for WP:LENGTH and we're OK so far but might be pushing towards the high end of the range after the merger is complete, so some of the less notable/fluffy content could/should be dropped. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Been away and a bit too busy to contribute this week, but as per earlier discussion the merger is not sensible. Right now this article is for example completely out of whack given that it's mostly about Amway North America, which is only about 10% of Amway, and has almost nothing on Amway China, which is I think more than half of Amway. --Icerat (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'to-do' list

I consider this list to be a clear breach of WP:NPOV - we should not be giving editors instructions on how they should present Amway, particularly ones that are clearly intended to present it in a more positive light. As WP:TODO indicates, a to-do list is not a place to express a point of view. I am however unclear as to what the policy is, and have asked for guidance on the matter at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#'To-do list' at Talk:Amway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to your concerns? The list is pretty much just of stuff missing. Some of it would likely not "present Amway in a more positive light".--Icerat (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I will wait to see what response I get at Editor assistance/Requests before responding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit of an outdated list anyway. Moving for example towards separate articles on the independently notable markets. I'd still appreciate your view on which parts you think "express a point of view". --Icerat (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
To do lists are supposed to be based on a consensus reached by multiple editors. I don't see that that is the case with the current to-do list. It seems to me rather a compilation of one editor's opinions as to what the article should contain. I for one don't agree and it appears that neither do other editors. The process should begin with acheiving consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact your making up your own ideas about to do lists, discuss it or modify it instead of just deleting it. Neither of you have bothered mentioning any actual concerns?--Icerat (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I searched the history to find the disputed To Do list. I'm interested to hear what AndytheGrump learns about creating consensus on To Do lists. In the meantime, what CAN we all agree needs to be done? In the interest of moving ahead, can we agree on a structure and then fill in the details? (the devil is in the details...)

Suggested template for business articles (thank you Icerat): [21] 

   Lead
   History
   Corporate Structure
   ownership,subsidiares, divisions, parent companies, key people
   Products, Services & Brands
   brand categories, R&D, rankings, competitors
   Business Operations
   locations, corporate culture, business model, sales figures
   Sales and Marketing
   advertising, sponsorships, endorsements
   Awards & Recognition
   Corporate Social Responsibility
   philanthropy, environment

As for some items from the disputed To Do list: 'Include info on average incomes'. That seems pertinent and objective if supported by verifiable sources. Possibly should come under Sales and Marketing. 'Subsection on major Amway "support" groups'. Currently the article doesn't clearly explain the role of independent distributor lines of sponsorship and their relationship to the corporation. The criticisms blur the lines between criticism of the company vs. criticism of specific distributors. I believe this article is about the company, not the distributors.

WP:STRUCTURE Structuring a NPOV article, which recommends including controversies in the content rather than creating separate sections [22] Octopet (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don’t understand what’s being proposed here. Is the idea to rearrange existing information or use only content that fits into these predefined buckets. The content should dictate the structure, not vice versa. If someone wants to add/propose relevant reliably sourced information, then they are free to do so. If someone wants to revise the titles and sort existing material so that it flows more logically, then they can do that too. Why create arbitrary buckets and then try to jam material into them? Amway is an odd duck subject in that there are sociological, political, legal, and religious aspects that are integral to the company’s story. I don't see any of that reflected in the proposed structure, and that strikes me a a bit POV-pushy/whitewashy. Ultimately, I think that debating to-do lists is putting the cart before the horse. I’m more interested in the "doing" than the "to-doing". Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. To present this as just another 'business article' would be to ignore the evidence from WP:RS that Amway isn't seen as a typical business. To ignore this would be a breach of WP:NPOV. Articles should reflect sources, not pre-defined models. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
(1)content guidelines, even draft guidelines, not policy (2) there are plenty of sources for all of the "to do" list (3) "culture" is included in the structure (4) Andy, I suspect you're not all that familiar with all of the sources. I've not finished but I've been collecting news media references to Amway, just for May 2011 and excluding references to Amway Arena, Amway Center, and Amway Grand Plaza hotel. Review them. You'll find that "criticism and controversy" is extremely minor and the company IS treated pretty much like any other business. --Icerat (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about "criticism and controversy"; I referred to "sociological, political, legal, and religious aspects". Those latter factors are highly significant and have received considerable attention from reliable published sources. The comment above tends to confirm my suspicions that the bucket strategy being proposed by Icerat is aimed at purging content that could be deemed unflattering. That won't fly. Once again, there's no reason to be bound a priori by a rigid structural framework. In fact, the debate seems like a pointless diversion of resources at this point. The focus should be on content, not on jamming square pegs into round holes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
What are you waffling on about? Yes, sociological, political, legal, and religious aspects" have received RS coverage and nobody is talking about removing it are they? Those issues fit under "corporate culture". There has been no "purging" suggested at all, let alone being "bound a priori by a rigid structural framework" - well, no more than wikipidea already requires. The only thing I would say is that while they have indeed received coverage, it's not very much coverage relative to all the stuff that doesn't talk about those things. That doesn't mean they don't deserve mentioning, they do, but WP:UNDUE requires issues to be covered in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. At present that is not the case but I think that can be addressed best by tighter writing and covering all the stuff that's not covered and should be, rather than purging anything in particular.--Icerat (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yawn. Sounds like another stalled discussion. If “tighter” writing is what’s needed, then we don’t need to waste anymore time discussing this arbitrary proposed structural framework. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Ummm ... it was you who begin the discussion by deleting the "to do list" tag and Andy that claimed it was an NPOV violation (which was dismissed on the Editor Assistance noticeboard[Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#.27To-do_list.27_at_Talk:Amway]) and then you who went on with a rant about stuff being removed that nobody was proposing removing. Glad we can close the discussion. I'll readd the tag.--Icerat (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Subverting the consensus building process by restoring this contentious to-do list[23] in the midst of a disagreement is just foolish and needlessly provocative. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red, there is no consensus building. You do not partake in consensus building. You almost got a permanent ban once before because of it, and have also previously bee warned for frivolous edit warring over talk page tags. You may want to start actually talking. It's a friggin to do list. Talk about the damn list if you have a problem. What else can be done? What doesn't need to be done? (Active Banana's "criticism" section addition right now for example! I think that's well covered ...). Contribute to developing consensus instead of constantly edit warring. --Icerat (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the todo list. Todo list items should be considered suggestions for additional content more than suggestions about article structure. Presumably the items were added by editors who saw a deficiency in coverage; I don't imagine they particularly care where exactly every piece of data goes. --Danger (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive contributions and new eye on the article and issues. --Icerat (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that these categories were reached by any forum of consensus. They appear to be the unilateral opinion of Icerat. That's the crux of the issue. If the categories were generated through consensus, I wouldn't be removing the list. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. There is no consensus regarding this list. And Danger, rather than 'presuming' things, have you thought of looking to see who created the list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh good grief. It's a talk page for crying out loud. It's some suggestions! Don't like it then change it instead of just editwarring over it. Since it seems so damn important to you, I've removed it. --Icerat (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The above 'suggested template' could serve as a neutral framework for restructuring the article, not to dictate the content. Currently the article is dis-organized and reads like a tug of war between differing POV. The article is outdated regarding corporate names and international markets. Related articles are redundant; a structure is needed to reflect Amway, and Amway China, Amway Australia, et cetera. Is there consensus on that point? Why not get the big picture first and then we can discuss the details. Amway IS a unique and complex business (which is why this article is so stimulating to work on) and there isn't an encyclopedic model to follow, that I'm aware of. Hence, the business article template suggestion.Octopet (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The approach I would suggest is to concentrate first on clarifying the different company subsidiaries and thier histories (brief), while integrating relevant content from the various Amway spinoff articles. The categorization scheme is of far less concern to me than the content itself. If the content changes dramatically, then their might be good reason to use new catgeory headings/titles/subtitles, but it doesn't really seem necessary at this point. Still, I'm not averse to the idea of changing some of the titles now if there are approrpiate suggestions. As it stands now, I don't see that the content necessarily fits well into the proposed scheme. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay I'll take this as some degree of consensus! I'm interested in the article structure, and then CEing to improve clarity in wording. I'll leave content to others. I'm going to ask Insider201283 to help with the structure since it seems he/she has a grasp on the international subsidiaries.Octopet (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Partial list of subsidiaries on my talk - User:Icerat/List_of_Amway_subsidiaries. This one is sourced from the Xardel book, there's been many new markets opened since then, such as Amway China, Russia, and India, now some of Amway's biggest markets. Front page of Amway Wiki has a list, useful as a starting point, but not as an RS source. The most difficult issue is determining which ones have enough coverage to be independently notable. I'm working backwards from the present collating sources, also on my talk - User:Icerat/Amway_-_references. The sources and what they cover can also give us a better idea of what would be appropriate WP:BALANCE. --Icerat (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Starting point: I've added the list of subsidiaries and wikilinked to Amway Australia. (I haven't taken the time yet to see how many other Amway articles there are on wiki that can be linked.) My intention is to consolidate the material and eliminate redundancy. Comments?Octopet (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
A 30-line entry listing subsidiaries (a not terribly signficiant detail and mentioned by only one offline source) strikes me as extreme overkill, not to mention that the source has no link or bibliographic details and is 18 years old (1993). Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps it should be grouped by Amway's global markets, with short descriptions and wikilinks to the major markets such as SE Asia.Octopet (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

How to write a good article

Rhode Island Red, according to your profile you have a background as an academic, as do I. As you know doubt know, the first step in writing a paper on a topic (even a hard science one) is to do a literature review, see what's out there, and categorise it appropriately. You'd then develop a structure for your paper based on that literature review. The process that is happening here, and indeed throughout wikipedia, is virtually the antithesis of this, with very very few people taking any effort to undertake a lit review of any sort, let alone a comprehensive one, and learn about the topic so they can see what is and isn't important and structure an article appropriately. The structure that was posted above is part of a draft that I've been working on at the companies project and is based on a review of what "company articles" in traditional media cover, as well as reviewing several dozen articles here on wikipedia to see what has emerged out of consensus. While every company is unique it can be used as a basis, to get an idea, of what areas should be covered and hopefully promote some sort of balanced coverage and prevent edit-warring. This is particular important given very few people have a broad understanding of the articles they edit. Instead what tends to happen is people see stuff they do or don't like, then try to defend or change it based on that POV, and a literature review involves finding materials to support the edit, rather than the other way around. This is particularly noticeable in contentious areas, not just network marketing.

In the area of Amway over the last 10 years, since it became a hobby to study, I've read more than 90% of what is out there. I've read most books on the subject (both positive and negative, both self-published and not), dozens of them. I've read most academic papers on the subject, dozens of them. I've read every significant lawsuit, dozens of them, and hundreds of pages. I've read pretty much every blog and website, both pro and con, and I've read or watched pretty much every bit of media coverage I can get my hands on, and read more everyday. I've spoken with and corresponded and met critics and supporters, current and former staff and distributors, wild-eyed nutcase "believers" and wild-eyed nutcase "haters". I've been threatened and harassed and had my family harassed. I've even done a little quite harassing myself :) And there's one thing I can say with zero doubt (and that's something a scientist almost never says) that the vast vast vast majority of wikipedia standard reliable source materials on Amway do not focus on "the controversy", and those that do mention it often give it very little coverage. Yes, particularly back in the 80s, there were articles like those written by Mother Jones and others, but they are drowned by the literature that doesn't. Amongst "experts" this is an extremely well respected company. If you were to sum up the total RS literature on Amway and write article sections according to the weight of coverage of different areas, a thousand word article would struggle to get a single sentence in on "controversy". Whether you want to believe that or not, it is simply the truth.

I've collated just May 2011 news media coverage on Amway on my talk page (keeping press release stuff separate and excluding Amway Arena, Amway Center, Amway Grand stuff), and not yet finished the non-english stuff, and you'll find very, very, very little of it is controversial. Most of it doesn't even mention any "controversy". Yet this current article has at least a third devoted to controversial topics that the vast majority of sources simply don't reflect. If you disagree then frankly I'd like to see your lit review. The reality is though, that there's a significant body of people, including among wikipedia editors, who have a view of Amway that is completely and utterly different to what is reflected in the RS literature. This isn't unexpected or unusual or strange, it's really no different to reason why large bodies of people reject evolution, or climate change science. That doesn't make it right.

Now that's not to say controversial issues, even onces of relatively little coverage, shouldn't be covered. In many cases, including Amway, their importance in the history and development of the topic, not to mention public reception, outweigh the coverage it actually receives in reliable sources. They're important and need to be discussed. The the BERR vs Amway UK court case from a couple of years ago. There's at most maybe half a dozen reliable source references to the case, all at about the time of the case (and most of them with significant factual error alas). That's out of literally tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of media reports about Amway over the last 52 years and 80+ countries. But it was important, and it's had significant ramifications on the Amway business. Unfortunately no reliable sources I'm aware of have discussed that. There's a new book due out later this year that might, and I'm seriously considering publishing a book myself which would cover it.

On the other hand too much emphasis on controversial (though important) topics can very, very easily lead the unknowledgeable reader (which with regard Amway is virtually everyone) receiving an entirely unbalanced view of a topic. Sometimes the only way to address that and achieve WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV may be to include topics that otherwise may not be of particular importance, nor even necessarily have received significant independent coverage, such as celebrity endorsements or product awards and such. (Note this doesn't mean they don't still need to be RS/V sourced!). On the other side, some of the more trivial "critical" stuff really shouldn't be covered at all. An academic paper, or an encyclopedic article, isn't expected to cover everything, it's supposed to cover the important things, and give a true reflection of the topic. Truly - the only way to learn what's important is to really make an effort to go out and do a proper review of the literature. And I mean a proper review of reliable sources, not just reading gossip on websites. --Icerat (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If Icerat insists on soapboxing and essay writing he should do it soemwhere else. I stopped reading the tome above before the end of the first paragaph. It's just not sufficiently relevant. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
So I guess that means you have no intention of doing a literature review and learning about the topic on which you're devoting so much time? --Icerat (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Red, you may wish to consider whether it is constructive to accuse other editors of failing to follow policy in their posts, especially when you have admittedly not read those posts. Icerat, I understand that you're frustrated, but being more concise and "cool" would be helpful, I think. Let's focus on one thing at a time. There's no rush. --Danger (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I'll go find some minor article, 4RR it myself against a sockpuppet, then report myself and ask to get banned for a week ... --Icerat (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
As for no rush, 50000 people a month read this article. Balance and accuracy matters. Just this week I encountered a news article that verbatim plagiarized misleading material out of this article, post RIR's recent sourced material deletion marathon. That of course means this incorrect information now has an ostensibly reliable source for future wikieditors. --Icerat (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Of course balance and accuracy matter. However, rushing when there's conflict and bad feelings is a good recipe for wiki-deadlock, wherein an article doesn't become anymore accurate or balanced, but a lot of Wikimedia server space is devoted to silly arguing. And thankfully, material plagiarized from Wikipedia doesn't meet sourcing standards. Danger (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
While technically true, it's in practice nearly impossible to prove the plagiarizing after the WP article has been corrected. But you're right about wiki-deadlock. In 5 years (with 1 year break) it's just frustrating that virtually every edit not critical of MLM companies virtually has to go to arbitration to get accepted by "critics", whereas editors with a positive perspective are constantly bending over backward to try and reach some kind of consensus. Reminds me of Republicans and Democrats! Kind of ironic that amway supporters are playing the role of democrats :) --Icerat (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Issues

Section: Controversy Subsection: Amway India (Andhra Pradesh and Kerala)

"On 1 November 2011, major distributors in Kerala decided to leave Amway and join Monavie.[96]"

If the article is about Amway and the section is about "Controversy" how does Monavie figure in? Is this an attempt to promote Monavie which is launching in India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.139.47 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Complete POV Article

You pathetic Wiki Marxists, there's more about Amway's rightwing contributions than the business itself. Baised freaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.129.170 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To Do List

Here's a list of things that need doing on this article -

  • Describe the business model more fully, with sources of course!.
  • Add info on major Amway "support" groups
  • Create articles on independently notable Amway subsidiaries- eg Amway China, Amway Japan, Amway South Korea, Amway North America, #5?
  • Include some copyright free images for the article
  • Clean up "politics & culture" section, include any notable issues inline at relevant section.
  • Add historical corporate sales data
  • Distribute "controversy" content into relevant sections for better flow of writing and neutrality
  • Add info on Amway incentive trips, which appears to receive a lot of coverage

--Icerat (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with distributing the controversy material outside the controversy section. I think it leads to choppy reading and makes the whole article sound like a debate. Just as if I'm looking for information on "philanthropy", if I'm looking for information on "controversies" I don't want to have to read every paragraph to find it all. Rklawton (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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[24]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.[25] 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)

the ban actually preceded the riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.241.246 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2014‎

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russianarmy13 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

External link

I question whether

should be listed as an external link. According to the text, this is a self-published "report" by Blakey, who admits to be being an expert hired by a party in opposition to Amway in a court case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reported to WP:ELN#External link in Amway, which may be a better locus for discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2014 (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)

- I believe those numbers are completely irrelevant do to the fact that most people who get in don't know what they are doing and are not committed to making it work. The statistics would be useful if the fact of the matter concluded that people had the proper knowledge and were 100% committed, hardworking people. For example how many people say they will stick to a diet or join a gym and quit after a month or two when it gets hard? No one seems to take that into consideration when looking at the statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.4.226 (talk • contribs) 03:54, March 28, 2014‎

That would be completely irrelevant to the article, to the subject, and to the statistics—even if it were conceivably verifiable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

political bias espoused in wiki

it is clear that this whole article is politically biased. this bias is made clear in the choice of provocative and charged words, references, and terms used. for example, there is no neutral or favorable reference anywhere in the wiki about the corporation's, or its distributors' involvements and contributions in politics, economics, faith/religion, business, etc. all references are patently negative...though just not so very gratuitously that it is obvious to those not either moderate or conservative. its references to being "right-wing" instead of pro-American, pro-Constitution, or anti-marxist/socialist clearly bears this out. also, its references to being "anti-gay rights" instead of being pro-family, pro-christian, and pro-morals also exposes the agenda further. the reference to "dominionism" is unfounded...and the personal life of any person is just that...personal. RESPECT THAT, and don't try to use it as some sort of weapon or device. again, AGENDA. come on...clean this up. let's not see this wiki become a agendist sham like MSNBC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.241.246 (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2014‎

The article tried to reflect what independent, reliable sources have to say about the company. The Dominionist line is well supported by sources. The article barely even mentions gay rights, and not in the way you suggest. The article also barely uses the term 'right-wing', in both cases referring to organizations other than Amway. If you have other specific suggestions about how to edit the article, this would be a good place to make them. If you just want a place to vent, go somewhere else. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Very biased article

This article reads almost like an advertisement. It seems to claim that Amway is a legitimate company. The opening paragraph should state that is is a pyramid scheme (regardless of what the USA might claim) and focus more on criticisms of the company. Maybe Wikipedia is afraid to tell the truth because of fear of lawsuits (Scientology?) which would be yet another reason for Wikimedia moving its offices and servers outside the USA and to a country which upholds the law and allows free speech.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 16:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. The opening paragraph should at the very least mention accusations of being a pyramid scheme. 216.49.150.199 (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I second that as well. I and many, many people have family members who have been ripped off for hundreds if not thousands of dollars. I read this article a few years back, and it was not so glowing in its assumption that this is a legitimate business. Wiki editors should be aware that certain individuals have a special interest in making sure that the facts about this enterprise do not come under public scrutiny. It should be locked and revised with a neutral eye towards the truth. 184.7.175.199 (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific in you suggestions? Wikipedia works on reliable sources, not personal opinion, so if you know of any news articles or such that discuss these issues, that would be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

agreed

I third that amway is a pyramid scheme. "Amway has been taken to court for being an illegal pyramid and the courts have ruled that since Amway does not charge people either for joining Amway or for the privilege of recruiting others as distributors, it is not an illegal pyramid. Illegal pyramids and chain letters have no product. Amway has lots of household products: from laundry detergent to vitamins, from cosmetics to water filters. Amway is a legal pyramid scheme."

http://skepdic.com/amway.html

they have billions of dollars, they bribe the local news to cover art prize, i posted more than 3 messages about "shell shock / bash bug / bash door vulnerability" to local news, and nothing but the devos darling, art prize. they have enough money to bribe judges, and juries in their favor. they're tied to blackwater, big oil, and the republican party. many buildings in grand rapids are named "devos," or "van andel."

they're deep into the local churches, and colleges. they have a reputation of being anti lbgt, anti birth control, anti abortion, and anti womens rights.

http://griid.org/2013/02/18/foundation-profile-the-richard-helen-devos-foundation/
http://www.accessbusinessgroup.com/Pages/Home.aspx
http://www.alticor.com/Default.aspx
https://twitter.com/AmwayUS (once you go diamond, i mean are editors so blind they can't see this is a semi legitimate business?)
https://www.facebook.com/AmwayUS (again once you go diamond)
https://www.facebook.com/weramway (this looks like an unofficial diamond)

at the very least some sour notes about the owners, & business practices should be mentioned. (im not posting about amway ties to sweatshops because i do not have ample evidence of this.) or just google "amway pyramid" 75.129.13.155 (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the Robert T. Carroll thing more closely. The GRIID report also looks like it might be usable (their website doesn't explain very much about who they are, or what their editorial policy is, but it seems like it might still be acceptable). The other sources listed are not usable. They are WP:PRIMARY, and they don't actually support the specific claims you are making without injecting personal interpretation. For that reason, the claims you are making with them are original research. Wikipedia has specific policies about reliable sources, and content must be written in a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles should reflect interpretations made by sources, but should not be used as a platform for Wikipedia:Advocacy. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources modified on Amway

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Amway. I managed to add archive links to 5 sources, out of the total 5 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Amway India

This subsection should be condensed. Notreallydavid (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, probably should be expanded and broken out in to it's own article. --Icerat (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

FTC in lead

I see this talk page hasn't been used recently. In any case, I object to the (present) FTC finding that Amway is not a pyramid scheme being in the lead, because some other countries' judicial or administrative systems have found that Amway to be a pyramid scheme.

In fact, the article on the tax court case could be seen as supporting the statement that many IBOs believe Amway to be a pyramid scheme. That should be in the body, if adequately sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Agreed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I regret to say it, but I do not agree. Contrary to what you believe, the fact is that in no country Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme. In the US it was found NOT to be one. When you wrote about other countries, I believe you were talking about India, where few activists raised charges against Amway being a pyramid scheme based on outdated 38 years old Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which had been created 20 years before direct selling companies entered the market. However, the state High Court issued an injunction against the CID and stated the Act did not prima facie apply;[1] So to imply Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme in India is not only inaccurate, it is completely wrong. Amway India is still running. If you know about any other country where the court said Amway was a pyramid scheme, please be specific (the court decision would be appreciated).--Historik75 (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Also the claim that many IBOs believe Amway to be a pyramid scheme is completely unsubstantiated. What is "many"? Who decides what that means? Do you claim that a large portion (more than 1.5 million) of 3+ million IBOs believe this? Do you have any supporting evidence? Thanks. --Historik75 (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Changes to the lead have been reverted[26] as they were not NPOV and there was no consensus for the edits. In the 1979 FTC ruling Amway was found "guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims". In India, the CEO and two others were arrested and charged with running a pyrmaid scheme. In the class action case, Amway was again accused of running a pyramid and paid out a $56 million settlement. Also, it's inappropriate to use the weasel word "potential" in the line "Amway has been subject to investigation as a potential pyramid scheme". Amway was investigated as "a pyramid scheme", not as a "potential pyramid scheme". The word "investigation" already implies the "potential" aspect. You wouldn't say someone was charged with potential murder; you would simply say they were charged with murder. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Saying Amway was investigated as a pyramid scheme is misleading because without further explanation (court decision) it also can mean that it is really a pyramid scheme. So I will only repeat my question - do you have any court decision which explicitely says that Amway is a pyramid scheme? No. You can't have it for a simple reason - it does not exist. Presumption of innocence tells us that you are innocent until proven guilty. The version as it is now is everything but certainly not NPOV. Only the critical point of view is presented while the facts are hidden and the text is potentially misleading the readers. I wonder why you keep deleting the simple information (backed up with source) that Amway was not found to be a pyramid scheme in the US. Can you tell me the reason? Why hide this simple fact? Why do you consider making this fact public not to be NPOV? If you want to have the information about the investigation in the lead, then the FTC case also belongs here. Or, we can delete both information from the lead and keep it in the Pyramid scheme accusations section. I think that would be sufficient. But keeping one information without the other is certainly not NPOV.
Regarding price fixing and making exaggerated income claims: technically you are right - Amway was found to be guilty - but in the context of our discussion it makes no sense - it does not make Amway a pyramid scheme.
Regarding India: the simple fact that the CEO in India was arrested (and then granted a bail) does not make Amway a pyramid scheme. The court decision would do, but it does not exist (there is, however, a court decision that made it clear that the Act does not prima facie apply). Until the court decides, don't you think that in order to keep the article NPOV we should only present balanced information (i.e. accusations and decisions that were made regarding these accusations) instead of publishing only accusations? I am adding a reference to FTC case again and I am asking you not to delete it until you come with a court decision that would justify a claim that Amway is a pyramid scheme. If you will be able to do that, I will revert it back myself and I will not interfere anymore. I have a great respect regarding Wikipedia and I want the article to be as accurate as it could be. I am not deleting negative information but I certainly want the positive information to be presented as well. Isn't this considered NPOV by Wikipedia rules?
Last but not least, not being a native speaker, I cannot tell for sure but I really see difference between saying "someone was charged with murder" and "it was investigated as a pyramid scheme". To charge someone with something doesn't mean he did that but being "investigated as" means to me that it is a pyramid scheme and it is investigated as one. Is it just my feeling or is there really this way of explanation?--Historik75 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is straying off the rails. Please focus on specific text proposals rather than theoretical arguments. As for your last question in reference to the issue of using the word "potential", I can, as a native speaker, assure you that adding the word "potential" is unnecessary (as I explained above), which is why it was removed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Before we continue the discussion, would you please answer my questions first? Not sure which part of my arguments you consider to be theoretical. The fact is that there is no court decision which would say that Amway is a pyramid scheme. You didn't present one evidence to support the opposite. Therefore, I do not understand why are you removing the reference to the FTC case. Anyway, here is one proposal: at the end of the paragraph, there should be the following text: "The Federal Trade Commission found that Amway does not qualify as a pyramid scheme.[2]" Do you consider this not to be NPOV?--Historik75 (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Amway back to business in state". The Times of India. September 30, 2006. Retrieved July 9, 2011.
  2. ^ In the Matter of Amway Corporation, Inc., et al. (93 F.T.C. 618), from FTC website. Accessed 2016-03-08.
I am only interested in discussing specific text proposals (as per WP:TPG), not general Q&A. Now you are simply restating the text you originally proposed, to which I already responded. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I may be wrong but my questions were very specific, not general. Do you have any court decision which says that Amway is a pyramid scheme? Yes or no? If not, why hide the fact that FTC ruled Amway was not a pyramid scheme when you state Amway was investigated as one? NPOV is certainly not the reason to hide this simple and verifiable fact - in fact, it is the reason why it should be published. Are you denying FTC ruled that Amway was not a pyramid scheme? Yes or no? Two simple questions and I would like to hear two simple answers. Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear editors, I don't agree with Rhode Island Red - the statement is not adequately sourced. From five sources [8][9][10][11][12] two do not work and the first one isn't relevant - FTC didn't investigated Amway as pyramid scheme. In the Complaints section there is no mention of the phrase pyramid scheme. United States Federal Trade Commission only concerned the business practices of Amway and then ruled that Amway was not an illegal pyramid scheme in result. The sentence: "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme." is misleading readers and users.--Plantium (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
RIR, Amway has never been found to be a pyramid scheme, anywhere. Yes, it has been investigated as one - and when hearings have occurred it has been cleared every single time. The only way to have that text even remotely "neutral" is to point out it's been cleared every single time. --Icerat (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
By "every single time" you mean once? In 1979? When they weren't actually cleared per se but rather were censured, and than later violated the terms of that censure? Please read the initial post in this thread as it summed up the issue from the onset. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry but this is a total misrepresentation of what FTC case was really all about. The initial post that started this debate claimed something it could not prove or back up with a single evidence. I pointed out the flaws of this argument and asked you to back it up with the source which you totally ignored. Not only you didn't provide a single argument to support AR and your theory, you even deleted the evidence that speaks against it. I am sorry, but I cannot see how this could be considered NPOV.--Historik75 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
RIR, the original post said something that was completely false, other jursidictions have not found Amway to be a pyramid scheme. The closest - often mistated - was the case in one state of India, Andra Pradesh, where the judges said if the allegations are correct then Amway is in violation of Indian laws. That case never went further. In no country has Amway been found to be a pyramid scheme. By contrast it was explictly cleared of the charge in the US, UK and implictly cleared in various other countries, including China, Canada, and Beligum. --Icerat (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It's also rather troubling to see that 3 Amway WP:SPA accounts are suddenly jumping on the bandwagon. Proceed with caution. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
May I ask what are you trying to say?--Historik75 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Was it not clear when I posted the link to WP:SPA? Perhaps try WP:SOCK and WP:SLEEPER next. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Still do not understand. I only use one account here on Wikipedia and this fact is easily verifiable by administrators. And I only edit the topic(s) I consider myself to be educated in. Moreover, I am not a native speaker, so editing the articles in English language is very time consuming for me. Therefore, I only edited this single article here. Does this make me somehow a non-reliable person? I hope that the validity of arguments is of the primary importance, not the number of articles I have edited during my short time here on English Wikipedia. By the way: would you be so kind and answer my question below (16:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC))? Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Yet you don't find it "troubling" that two editors (yourself and Arthur) with a well-know bias against MLM are editing here? I've made it well known my area of interest and expertise is direct selling and network marketing. I don't apologise in the least for contributing to articles where I actually know something about the field. --Icerat (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a personal bias against anything, WP:SLEEPER. Stick to the content issues please and don't make personal attacks like that again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Let's calm down. Let's say that you are not biased. Can you explain how could you agree with AR's claim without even asking him to back his claim with a reliable source? The claim that Amway has been found to be a pyramid scheme in other (than US) countries was made by AR without a single reference and your answer was: "Good point. Agreed." Based on what? Do you have any evidence that it actually happened? Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what personal attack did I make? Do you disagree that you are "anti-MLM"?? I didn't realise that was something you disagreed with. My apologies if you considered being against MLM an insult. --Icerat (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
You are trying to weasel your way out of a content dispute by taking stupid potshots at my neutrality as an editor (i.e., falsely alleging that I have a well know bias of any kind). It is a personal attack, a distraction from the editorial issues at hand, and extremely unappreciated. Now instead of heeding my warning, you are doubling down on the attack and edit warring. I suggest you stop immediately. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Everybody has biases, Red, including me. Nothing to be ashamed of, just don't let it overly influence your editing. I must say though, I'm a little confused at how I'm trying to "weasle" my way out of a content dispute and simultaneously edit warring! You (and GF) are the ones that's have been deleting tags pointing out the dispute and removing sourced content consistent with the rest of the article, not me. --Icerat (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I regret to admit it but after this lengthy conversation I have come to a conclusion that no consensus regarding the inclusion or omission of the FTC case in the lead can be reached. Therefore, I would like to inform you that I have requested a dispute resolution process. I hope that the validity of arguments based on reliable sources will eventually win so that we can have an unbiased article both with cons and pros and vice versa. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amway/Archive_3&oldid=1027324735"