Talk:Amway North America/Archive 2

message: Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.
:* Vote to include...useful stats on here including IBO earnings.  Gallwapa 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Online Journalism Review 

message: Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.
*In inspecting the history, I find that no one except for Illusion408 voted to "include" this link. Hiding behind a confusing removal of other users' comments under the guise of "see history for detail" seems extremely misleading and disruptive. I will again be removing the link. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Uh, there were 2 of us who voted after like 2 months ...and we both said include.  I didn't know how to archive talk... so I did my best...*blush*...  Gallwapa 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ThisBizNow.com - Take 2

message: I think we should not include any of the blogs. It sets a bad precendent and is generally not accepted on wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Weblogs, one positive, one negative, and one employee to be fair for all. --65.40.167.66 14:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with fairness.  Blogs are unreliable sources and should not be used.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  I see the bot has already removed them. I'm not sure you want to get into a revert war with a house keeping computer. David D. (Talk) 14:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This was actually removed...I still vote to keep it, it is a useful resource and has broke many stories, including the Quixtar Googlebombing attempt (which was later picked up by the news organizations listed below...).  I feel its a better source than Amquix.info, infact, and If I had to choose, I'd take this one.  Gallwapa 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I removed again, mainly because it sets a bad precedent. It is generally accepted that wikipedia articles do not link to blogs, no matter how good. Once you add one, every Tom, Dick and Harry want to make a case for their own "excellent, objective" blog. This then leads to the link farm mentality that was so obvious on this page. David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Good info here, but it is now a dead site.  Vote to remove.  Much of the useful information is on the "QuixtarBlog".  Gallwapa 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The blogs

message: Copy of comments prior to archiving. In summary, no consensus was reached but this link has remained in the article.
:*This was actually removed...I still vote to keep it, it is a useful resource and has broke many stories, including the Quixtar Googlebombing attempt (which was later picked up by the news organizations listed below...).  I feel its a better source than Amquix.info, infact, and If I had to choose, I'd take this one.  Gallwapa 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I removed again, mainly because it sets a bad precedent. It is generally accepted that wikipedia articles do not link to blogs, no matter how good. Once you add one, every Tom, Dick and Harry want to make a case for their own "excellent, objective" blog. This then leads to the link farm mentality that was so obvious on this page. David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Webraw Quixtar Blog

message: Copy of comments prior to archiving. In summary, consensus was to INCLUDE this link.
:*Good info here, but it is now a dead site.  Vote to remove.  Much of the useful information is on the "QuixtarBlog".  Gallwapa 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MLMlaw blog]

message: Yet another blog that an anon IP is trying to add to this article. I have not even read the content.  A quick looks shows many advertisements on the page (commercial links- are click throughs generating revenue for this user?).  As I have said above, regardless of the quality of information available, wikipedia is not in the business of promoting blogs.  If someone really wants to find out all the different opinions on Quixtar, after reading this article, they can easily use google to quickly find many different blogs and other resources on the web. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quixtar Topic at MLM Blog]

message: Do people like Paul Harvey really support Quixtar or are they paid to endorse quixtar?  Sure he advertises their products on his show, but i don't see how this is the same as supporting the product. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Although there is a reliable quote from Asafa Powell, for what it's worth, where he says that Quixtar products improved his performance and helped him get the 100m world record. Of course, it is a no brainer he would say this if they pay him to endorse the products. David D. (Talk) 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Asafa Powell was introduced to Nutrilite by his brother, whose wife's parents were Quixtar IBOs. It wasn't until sometime after the world record that Quixtar/Nutrilite even discovered he was using their products and they suggested a partnership. There's a promotional video on youtube --Insider201283 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Who made the video? Is it used for advertising purposes? It it a reliable source? Do the supporters have a vested interest or are they neutral? Is anyone paid to appear on the advertisment? Is the government spokesperson speaking for himself or for the government? And so on. David D. (Talk) 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually watch the video David? To query whether John Engler giving John Engler's opinion on something is a "reliable source" on John Engler's opinion is farcical. Nowhere is it claimed that a "government spokesperson" is speaking for the government or that the government endorses Quixtar, either in the text I added or in the video. However, having the publishers and CEOs of magazines and companies endorse something is also self-evidently giving the opinions of those companies - that is their job. The names and positions of each person is listed. The video was not publicly released at the time and is not an "advertisement" per se. To the best of my knowledge nobody was paid, but if you're going to reject sources because of the *potential* for bias because they *might* have been paid and not giving their real opinion - in other words, accusing them all of lying - well frankly virtually every source becomes untenable. Newspapers, medical journals, magazines, whatever, they all take paid advertising. The video is conclusive support that these respected individuals, who are not Quixtar IBOs and do not work for Quixtar, support Quixtar. --Insider201283 19:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did watch the video.  Whether my opinon is farcical or not this is still a promotional video.  You deny that? I am not accusing anyone of lying, i am saying i want to see a secondary source that does not come from the company, at least. As i watch source come and go on this article the common theme is that they are almost all from the company directly.  We already have plenty of their own stuff on this page. Again, wikipedia is not here for Quixtar to show case its product. David D. (Talk) 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So let's be clear here - you are stating that a person stating their opinion is not a valid source for that person's opinion and requires a secondary source? --Insider201283 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have to agree with Insider201283, David. A video of a person giving their endorsement is pretty much the strongest possible "primary source" you can get that they endorse it, I can't see how it can be disputed??? --LordTedric 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporters

message: Uh?  I guess the concept of the discussion-for-links got forgotten?... Gallwapa 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, i did read the discussion but there seemed to be too few contributors to make sense.  My feelings are blogs are not useful and too many links to Quixtar controlled sites are not useful. I tried to cut the links down with an objective criteria in mind (reduce the link farm look and retain reliable sources).  A compromise might be to quote the sites as sources but that gets back to the problem of what is a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're referring to my comment above I said "My feelings are blogs are not useful", in other words no blogs. Who said anything about "a select few to decide which blogs"? Blogs are unreliable sources and should never be used, let alone five or six blogs. David D. (Talk) 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links, Round 3...

message: Can anyone expand the details of the connection between Quixtar and "The Team"?  I don't understand it well enough to explain it.  I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to this article and this discussion.  It helped me understand this thing when a friend tried to get me to sign up for "The Team" without telling me of the connection to Amway.
Barwick 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Team / Thanks

message: I asked another admin on IRC about those links and decided to reduce the blocklist to only the blogspot and the www.thisbiznow.com ones. Thanks.Voice-of-All 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it should not go off any more since I just removed 2 other links that I forgot about (though there are still 2 spam links).Voice-of-All 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOT 

message: I just added back Powell since it can be sourced.  Having said that, it is from http://www.prnewswire.com/ (but published on Forbes.com) which seems to be an advertising agency?  I'm not sure this is a reliable source and the article in Forbes (from PR Newswire), reads like promotional material.  I would be happy to delete the Powell stuff unless we can find an independant source for this information. David D. (Talk) 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: spokespersons

message: wishes to use the word unscrupulous to describe an investigative journalism report. An example of the rationale is here as quote: "undercover" implies it was done with respect for rights of innocent people (like an undercover cop). If I tricked your kids into letting me into your house to watch your family, is that "undercover"? End Quote. I stand by my comment that the use of the word is Berwick own POV opinion of the investigation. Undercover seems to be descriptive of what happened. Unscrupulous paints a picture. here are the two definitions of undercover:
::#Performed or occurring in secret: an undercover investigation.
::#Engaged or employed in spying or secret investigation: undercover FBI agents.
Neither definition of undercover "implies it was done with respect for rights of innocent people".  Undercover means it was secret.  This could be either bad or good. Uncrupulous can only mean bad, consequently the use of the word undercover is significantly less POV than unscrupulous. What do others think?  David D. (Talk) 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way if you have a quote about it being unscrupulous then that might be able to be used in the article. Your own opinion counts for nothing. Read WP:OR for more on this issue. David D. (Talk) 19:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unscrupulous vs undercover

message: WP:RS is not the correct standard to apply to external links in an article, as WP:RS is meant to apply to sources cited in the body of the article. I propose that links that were erroneously removed under "Failure to pass WP:RS" be restored. DonIncognito 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish, but how is it possible that this topic requires so many extermal links? A why would wikipedia discourage unreliable sources but then have external links to everyone's favourite blog, POV web page and self published books at the bottom?  David D. (Talk) 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe Don Incognito is incorrect re WP:EL and WP:RS. Under Links to be Avoided WP:EL explictly states "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources." and links to WP:RS. Thus WP:RS is to be taken in to account when considering external links. --Insider201283 03:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links redux

message: I am not going to revert it yet but bring it to the talk page. I still stand by my comment that this is original research.  The formula currently used in the article is A) NBC criticise Quixtar (cite 1) B) NBC criticised about truck incident (cite 2) leading to C) NBC of Quixtar not reliable.  This is a good example of original research.  To avoid this unencyclopedic editorialising it needs to be structured as followed;  A) NBC criticise Quixtar (cite 1) B) NBC criticised about Quixtar article (cite 3).  As i see it cite 2 has no business in this article.  Cite 3 is required and it should be from a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 18:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the truck incident has to do with this.  I understand Dateline rigged up a truck to make it look more sensational, but to link that to Quixtar there has to be some proof from a reliable source that they rigged up the hidden video that we saw to make their show look more sensational.  Does anyone dispute the hidden video?  Has anyone gotten proof from a reliable source that the hidden video was rigged and planned by Dateline?  Now I don't think Dateline's depiction of Quixtar is 100% accurate, but it certainly addresses some issues within the business.  The problem is those issues are more with the Motivational Organizations and not Quixtar the corporation.  But, for some reason many are hinged on this truck incident that happened more then 10 years before the Quixtar episode even aired and there is no proof even hinting that Dateline did the same thing to Quixtar. Independent patriot 04:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GMC truck incident

message: I removed this information posted by  from the article since it seems more like talk page commentary. David D. (Talk) 09:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 70.186.203.234, don't be ridiculous. The only way to make money in Quixtar is by selling stuff at wholesale or retail. If you think you get rich by buying stuff then you need to have the business model explained a little better. --Insider201283 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary by anon IP

message: Insider, you were the one who wanted the rewrite of the sections.  It seems though what you want is a section that reads how only you want it to read.  The litigation does not say anything about the FTC saying IBOs were making exaggerated claims which was a find in that litigation.  Also removing the text about the tools from the Dateline segment wrong.  They were clearly discussing tools and income and it should be included since that is where the major controversy is.  I made sure to include that Quixtar requires signatures of forms for this stuff to be disclosed.  Having a rewrite done to make sure an article is fair and covers all bases does not mean it needs to read how you like it.  Independent patriot 20:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about verifiability and facts. What you just added, while much better worded, has ZERO sourcing. I suggested you rewrite the section with sourcing and you did no such thing. What you added is currently POV stuff and as such is unacceptable. Get some WP:RS acceptable sources and we'll talk about it. I'm sure there is some out there. Until then you can't just add your opinion. --Insider201283 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, though no longer important, FTC correspondence, as a government agency, are public domain, and Wikipedia guidelines also state that it is not the job of normal users to police copyright. --Insider201283 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded what had been up there for quite sometime and was never deleted for lack of sources.  None of what I wrote is my POV.  If you don't like it reworded then put up what was there before, and was accepted.  This page does not conform to what you like to be written.  What I rewrote states the argument of each side and I think gives equal billing to the facts.  Show me what I wrote that is not a fact.  Independent patriot 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia standard is verifiability not fact. Without sources it can't be verified. The dateline show actually mentions what you're talking about, so all you really needed to do was reword to that affect. I've done it for you. Happy now? :-) --Insider201283 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So one can only wonder if you are really all about just getting the correct information out there you didn't rewrite it that way the first time and instead you just deleted it.  If you can't put your bias aside perhaps you should not edit. Independent patriot 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the information is particularly relevant or well sourced. In my view the Dateline episode is fatally biased and poorly sourced, but I frankly aren't going to bother challenging it. I'm certainly not going to go to the trouble of tracking sources and rewriting the section. Some minor changes to be made re your latest edits, but we're apparently getting somewhere. --Insider201283 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: PS I legitimately missed the part in the dateline transcript about declining to be interviewed and tools income "unavailable". That's because I searched for "unavailable", which you had put in quotes. The actual term used was "not available". --Insider201283 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same can be said for much of what Quixtar and the motivational organization put out.  I also can't help but wonder just how familiar you are with the Dateline episode since you missed a well-known fact that the people they were talking about declined to address the allegations of Dateline's investigation.  Independent patriot 23:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly enough I don't spend my weekends watching it, no. --Insider201283 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Amway Sued as Pyramid Scheme Fraud
As this lawsuit is a new event,  I do not see this listed in the article.
In a crucial development that could rock the entire multi-level marketing business, a class action lawsuit has been filed this month against Quixtar (Amway) charging that the company is running an illegal pyramid scheme. (filed in US District court in the northern district of California on January 10, 2007, case number 3:07-cv-00201-EMC.) http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/PSAMain/news/AmwayPyramidSuit.pdf
The charges against Amway/Quixtar go to the very heart of the company's business practices and most other multi-level marketing (MLM) schemes', that there is no retail "direct selling" opportunity, only an endless chain recruitment program.
The charges are being brought by one of America's most prestigious law firms, Boies, Schiller and Flexner. 
The suit is based on the very same charges that the Federal Trade Commission has brought against Equinox, SkyBiz and other MLMs that regulators shut down. The suit charges that the Quixtar program – based upon selling products to recruits "for personal use", then authorizing them to recruit others to do the same while requiring or incentivizing them to maintain quota levels of monthly purchases, and then rewarding them in a multi-level compensation system – is a fraud. The suit also attacks Quixtar's infamous "tools" business as a second pyramid scheme perpetrated on new recruits. The "tools" scheme was exposed in a 2004 special report on NBC Dateline.
http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/PSAMain/news/AmwaySuedasPyramidScheme.html
This lawsuit challenges the non-pyramid scheme arguments in the "Business model" subsection and gives further info for the subsection "Business Support Materials & Controversy". I would appreciate it if another neutral editor would add the appropriate links to this lawsuit.
Crocoite 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page used to have a "litigation" section. What happened to it? It seems like a good place for things like the 1986 FTC fine and this new suit in California. Steve8675309 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  January, 2007 Lawsuit 

message: There is a book "Amway Motivational Organizations: Behind the Smoke and Mirrors" http://www.amazon.com/Amway-Motivational-Organizations-Behind-Mirrors/dp/0967107024 that is missing from the Quixtar article. I would appreciate it if another neutral editor would add the appropriate links to this book. Crocoite 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's in the book list on the amway article --Insider201283 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoke and Mirrors 

message: This is apprarently a blog by employees. It carries a disclaimer that says:
*The authors of these blogs are Quixtar employees. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily reviewed in advance by anyone but the individual author. These opinions do not necessarily reflect the view of Quixtar or any other person or company.
If it did represent the official views of the company it would be appropriate to include. But an employee blog is no more relevant than a critic's blog, or any other blog. Per WP:EL, I don't see any reason to include it. -Will Beback · † · 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  opportunityzone blogs are now the subject of media articles, which means they are notable, there's a link in the media area. --Insider201283 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  opportunityzone.com