Talk:ACN Inc./Archive 3

Archiving Again
Shortening the cables again. Mike (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive
ACN IS THE BEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD...AMIN MARCALLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.112.92 (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have archived the second set of old discussions, as they were getting rather long and so on. I hope we can all try to shape this article up in a much less contentious and bile-filled way, so we end up with an accurate, NPOV, and useful article again. Mike (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Fox news video also explains how the persons who have been writing this kind of criticism about ACN are generally clueless about the business world and that they do not know how to spell the word "representatives"."

This kind of thing is unnecessary. Keep it off the wiki page. --62.3.227.239 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Court Cases
I am not sure about whether the Pennsylvania court case is all that significant. So called "slamming" and "cramming" happens all the time with energy retailers. I know because I actually worked for one a while back. Most are caused by human error or other problems, such as software problems. If you were to write about such cases on wikipedia, then large portions of energy retailers wikis would be filled with such cases. Of course if ACN was particularly bad, then this would be noteworthy; but I do not believe this is the case. The other two cases are far more important, as they relate to the main criticism of ACN; that is, it has a pyramid scheme like structure. What is your opinion ERCheck?

Monty.the.cat (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely if ACN had enough complaints to warrant a court case then it would be notable? I do agree however that the court cases relating to allegations of pyramid schemes are considerably more notable, and that the details of these two court cases should be included. There was a pro-acn individiual editing here suggesting that it was unfair to include the details of the allegations because ACN won the cases...but I disagreed. --TheEditor23 (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with complaints is that one would be hard-pressed to find any sizable company, anywhere, that didn't have customer, supplier, or other kind of complaints on file somewhere. Some kinds of firms are especially well known for this, and probably leading the charge would be Used Car Dealerships and similar enterprises. Some of these firms are in court multiple times per year, to the extent that it is an expected part of their business model. So notability in this case is probably close to nill. Now, I am perhaps surprisingly in agreement with TheEditor22/23 in respect of the Australian case details being seen here, both for notability and for NPOV reasons. When a national court rules on a very important case (important at least to ACN), regardless of the outcome it has deep impact, so it is definitely notable. My NPOV reasoning has to do with the constant drumbeat of MLM-haters chanting "Py-ra-mid! Py-ra-mid! Py-ra-mid!" Even Monty.the.cat, who is definitely in TheEditor22/23's corner with respect to MLM, and ACN in particular, must modify his language to "pyramid scheme like" because the Aussie court unanimously determined that ACN's compensation plan was flat-out NOT a pyramid scheme. So, we can dispense with POV argumentation about pyramids in this article. The short answer is: it isn't. This gives us cause to give that particular issue a rest, and we can devote some time and attention to things of actual import, like making the article worthy of Wikipedia. Just in case anyone might not have noticed, TheEditor23, formerly known as TheEditor22, has been indefinitely suspended, which may be checked out here. I bring this up solely because if anyone responds to what he has posted thus far and gets no response from him, one shouldn't believe it's because he doesn't care or isn't interested. Mike (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Summary
OK, to business. In the current article (as of this writing), we find the following two sentences at the end: "There has been negative media attention surrounding ACN, with claims that the corporation exhibited a structure similar to that of a pyramid scheme. In 2004 this led to a court case in Australia." First of all, as far as the summary is concerned, these sentences are out of place. Secondly, although the second sentence appears to be related to the first ("...this led to..."), it is actually a non-sequitor. The specific media coverage the sentence alludes to is not referenced, but I think it may be alluding to the local Fox news channel "investigative" report that TheEditor22 mentioned earlier. This was a Los Angeles (channel 11) Fox loca affiliate report. Anyway, the channel 11 report aired in 2008, and the Australian case was decided in 2005. It would require a belief in time travel to the past to believe that the two are somehow causally connected, at least in the direction indicated. I don't think either sentence belongs in the summary, which seems adequate to its purpose without them already. We've also got enough material on the Aussie case in Court Cases, so I propose that the two sentences be deleted. Mike (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Mike on this issue. Unless someone can provide evidence that the court case was a direct result of negative Australian media, these two sentences should not be included in the article. In any case, there is no reason to put these sentences in the summary. The case is talked about later in the article, so I believe these two lines should be just removed.

Monty.the.cat (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence should be changed. I think though that the introduction to an article should briefly mention major aspects of the article that come. A lot of the intro does mention the company timeline for example, and the products and services it offers. It would be more well balanced to briefly include reference to any controversies the company has. --TheEditor22 (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The summary isn't really the place for controversy, unless that were a defining characteristic, which it isn't. If you examine the articles on any number of given companies, large and small, you will not generally find controversy in the summary.  Just to make sure, I checked a selection of articles on firms large and small.  Even the Amway article does not. Mike (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

First one I looked up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

Critisism is mentioned in the intro. I could find countless more. This is staying in the introduction. Also, the Amway article is not fair for comparison because it suffers from similar people to you, who are determined to minimalise any negativity in the article. I for one think Amyways criticism should be in the intro. If you want to reword it, then suggest something. But it is staying.--TheEditor22 (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * TheEditor22 - Have you ever heard of the word "consensus"? Well, maybe you have, but it seems you're unfamiliar with its meaning.  The proposal was put forward to eliminate the two sentences.  Another editor comes by and concurs.  You, just freed from being blocked for edit-warring, make the unilateral decision that it's your way or the highway.  Interesting. Mike (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice how you completetly ignored my destruction of your argument. I proved you wrong, so accept it.--TheEditor22 (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you do standup comedy in your spare time? I also wonder if you know what a straw-man argument is?  I said "...you will not generally find controversy in the summary."  I didn't say it never happened.  You really ought to concern yourself with disproving what I said rather than disproving what I didn't say.  The only thing you proved was that criticism appears in the summary of some articles on companies, something I already knew, and something that is obvious on its face.  Out of 2 million articles on Wikipedia and you found a few company articles that mentioned criticism in the summary.  Maybe I wasn't looking as hard as you were (probably because I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, but just to illustrate my point, Ford and Amway being enormously larger than ACN).  Now, the consensus as I see it is that those two sentences don't belong in the summary.  I have therefore removed them.  Mike (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

With a company like Microsoft being so large, you'd think that there wouldnt be room in the intro to include a brief mention of criticism. But they did. Yes ACN is a lot smaller, but the fact is criticism relative to the size of the company is a bigger feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditor22 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
In the next item up for examination, the Criticism section appears to have been favored by the visit of an anonymous pro-ACN editor who believes it necessary to inject a little humor into an otherwise dull, tedious, and poorly worded paragraph. Shame on him/her. I'm apparently the first to catch this, and there's been enough activity in the article that a simple revert wouldn't quite fix things up, so please examine the surgery I've performed, and then let's discuss this paragraph further. Mike (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I didnt find it humourous at all. It was clearly vandalism, from an editor who did not understand that on wikipedia if you think something is poorly worded dull or tedious then you edit it to improve it or discuss how to improve it. I agree however that it might need some rewording, purely to make more gramatical sense and to be more enycyclopedia. However the content and representation of the the source is accurate and should stay. I did include a sentence with the ACN lawyer's defense of the company, which I thought represented NPOV, but I think it's gone. Anyone know why? --TheEditor22 (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess your sense of humor is a little less liberal than mine. No matter.  You're right that it's grammatically challenged.  I have another problem with it, however.  Begging your pardon, but the article referenced in this paragraph is not what I would call balanced or unbiased.  For that matter, ACN is not the primary focus of the article, but MLM in general.  Nor does the author seem to have done much research.  He makes a big deal out of Excel, in fact the lion's share of the article discusses the history of an unnamed couple of guys who got involved with Excel for a short time before quitting.  And the article itself appeared quite some time after Excel terminated all its reps and started marketing its services more conventionally.  This speaks to the author's lack of care, and possibly his prejudices.   Why didn't he cite any pro-MLM sources?  Because that would have gone against his intent.  And it's an opinion piece.  Who is this guy anyway?  Does anyone care about what he thinks?  He's a glorified blogger.  I blog, but why can't my blog be considered a valid source for an ACN article?  Because I'm not notable.  Neither is he.  If 20-20 or 60 Minutes did an expose on ACN, there'd be no doubting the notability -- and these would at least be looking to both sides of the issue even if they came down on the side of frying ACN for supper, and would in either case rate an appearance in the article.  Mike (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And I was the one who removed your sentence with the ACN lawyer's defense of the company because what do you expect a shill for the company to say? Keep in mind that I have met this particular lawyer (Bob Stephan is actually a former state attorney-general, a 13-year judge, and former president of the US State Attorney General Association), and he is, in my opinion, a very ethical person.  He's also got a great sense of humor. Mike (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he came across as hilarious in the video. I think his view should be included in the article, and in fact, I am going to include it again. It represents NPOV. I referenced the Fox News article as fairly as possible. The New America Media is a reputable source, and so the article is staying. If you have something you want to change then say so right here, instead of coming up with criticisms of the way I wrote it. That seems to be all you can do when you're backed into a corner.--TheEditor22 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm really perplexed by this corner you seem to believe you have me backed into, 22. Where is it?  And I truly wonder if you can lose the confrontational language, or is this how you prefer to operate?  For example, you accuse me of coming up with criticisms of how you wrote the paragraph, when all I did was agree with what you yourself said about it.  Or did you  write "...it might need some rewording, purely to make more gramatical sense and to be more enycyclopedia" as a way of scoring a "gotchas" when someone agreed with you?  I'd like to discuss the article, not trade puerile personal insults.  Mike (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

--Insider201283 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)==Services==

I noticed that there are two sections of the article about the same thing, namely "Services / Market" and "Products and Services". One of these sections should be removed.

I am not sure what the significance is of this sentence: "ACN began providing dialup internet service in the US within its first five years in business." Also I believe reference to the "the new Iris 3000 Videophone" should be removed from the sentence: "In addition they provide Voice over IP and video conferenceing services, with their new Iris 3000 Videophone." Finally could someone fix the spelling of 'conferencing' so that the link to the 'video conference' article is maintained?

Monty.the.cat (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The provision of dialup internet service is kind of a historical timeline point -- and I don't like the sentence either. As far as the other thing you mention, in the first place ACN doesn't provide "video conferencing services", they provide point to point VoIP and video calling. The Iris 3000 is supposed to be capable of up to four simultaneous callers on one conversation, but that hasn't been implemented yet, and it may never be. So I don't think that the link to the "video conference" article is entirely appropriate, since ACN's videophone is not designed nor intended for commercial teleconferencing, which is what that article pertains to.

"...with their new Iris 3000..." definitely has the flavor of an advertisement. Look! It's New! and Improved! Yuck.

This part of the article definitely needs to be reworked. I'm a bit busy at the moment (trying to set up a wireless router for one of my adult sons), but I'll take a stab at it tomorrow.

Mike (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I consolidated the disjointed products/services sections into one, "Services", making the point that ACN differs from most MLM's in that it sells recurring services rather than consumable products, and made a segmented list of the current offering, segmented according to how the services are provided to the end user. This eliminates going into the history of some of them, and the market-speak that existed on a couple of others. Just the facts, organized into a logical format. Mike (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The first line was WP:OR and not so unique. PrePaid Legal offers services. Amway in various parts of the world offers everything from telco services to legal services to general insurance and financial services. Then there's the jewellery companies - not exactly "consumables". So while you might be correct that most offer consumables, you'd need something to back up that claim, and something to make it notable compared with other's as well. Smacks a little of marketing hype otherwise :)--Insider201283 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Marketing hype? I thought it was more along the lines of differentiation, but you may be right.  Mike (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ACN and Trump
I'd like to revisit this. There have been conversations, some getting rather heated, about the mentioning in this article of Donald Trump's endorsement of ACN, and his appearing in various ACN recruiting pieces, both printed and video. The consensus has been to "just say nothing" about it, which struck me as rather odd, and at least some of the reasoning has been that Trump's endorsement couldn't appear in the article because we don't know if, or how much, Trump was paid for the endorsement. But things have changed a bit. Trump invited ACN to appear on his Apprentice show this year, and to feature the Iris 3000 videophone on it. This actually happened, and I put a mention of this in the article some time after the show aired on March 22, 2009. Interestingly enough, this vanished from the article. So, we have the Celebrity Apprentice season 8 article, with a link to ACN in episode 4, but no corresponding link in the ACN article to The Apprentice. This must have fallen afoul of the rule against mentioning Donald Trump in the ACN article, I suppose. But I think this is notable enough to rise to the level of overcoming the Trump Rule. Any thoughts on this? And please, let us try to avoid anti-Trump rhetoric, as that's something that concerns the Donald Trump article, not ACN.

New American Media: Should you pay for a job?
Since my earlier writing on the subject it seems to have been ignored, let me revisit the NAM article as a source. As I indicated, earlier, it's fairly problematic including it as a source, given the publication's relative obscurity, the thrust of the article being more anti-MLM in general rather than ACN in particular, and some pretty clear evidence thaItalic textt the author didn't do his homework (chief evidence being making Excel a major part of the article when Excel quit MLM a year or two before the article was published). Other things that stand out:
 * "Few MLM companies are legitimate,. Most are just creepy pyramid schemes." - OK, this means that the author thinks that there is at least two MLM companies that are legitimate. If there are only only a few, it would be helpful if he named one or two of them and then compared and contrasted them with the ones he feels are not legitimate.  The use of the word "creepy" suggests that we're dealing more with a unprofessional than a legitimate writer, by the way.
 * The article writes of "Excel Telecommunications" entirely in the present tense, apparently without having gotten the news that it terminated all its representatives and stopped operating as an MLM two years before.
 * The article claims that "...hundreds of MLM companies operate in the United States, and it’s perfectly legal for them to earn money based solely on start-up fees." This is patently untrue, for the simple reason that it isn't "perfectly legal" for startup fees to be the sole source of representative compensation: this is the definition of a pyramid scheme, and pyramid schemes are illegal.  If the author doesn't know this, and didn't find it out in his research for the article, how much else is incorrect in the article and/or made up on the spot?
 * The article cites Prepaid Legal Services as a "most questionable MLM", and claims that it was "fighting for its life in a class action lawsuit" in 2002, something that was so non-notable that it didn't make it into the Wikipedia article on the company, and by the way the NAM author doesn't mention that PPL has frequently been listed by Forbes magazine annual list as one of the 200 best small companies in America. Why, in particular is PPL a questionable MLM? Who knows, as the author doesn't reveal this. If Forbes magazine, a highly reputable national business journal doesn't think the company is questionable, why should Tom Turpel?
 * In discussing ACN, the article claims that one of its subjects, Heywood, said that "I was able to sign a couple customers to my long distance, local and cellular programs...". Considering that ACN was not yet offering cellular services in 2006, when the NAM article appeared, one has to wonder if "Heywood" is a real person, or else the author of the article doesn't know how to fact check.

Based on the above, I seriously question the reliability of the NAM article as a source. See WP:RS for information concerning this policy, which is broadly summarized in this quote: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." The NAM article fails the WP:RS test miserably, in my opinion.

Mike (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is clearly unreliable. You may want to post it on WP:RSN for comment. I raised the generic question of unreliable "reliable sources" on the RS talk page - when a reliable source clearly is not - as it's something I've encountered often. The response was essentially to take it on a case by case basis, in other words, if there's disagreement it goes to WP:RSN and if necessary further.--Insider201283 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good fallback if we fail to reach consensus on this, which I suspect we will not. I will see what 22 has to say and possibly Tristan or ERCheck if either should decide to weigh in.  Mike (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This source is reliable. It's published in a reputable and impartial news source. It makes reference to ACN and they ask a former representive about his experiences with the company. Whatever grievances you have with other aspects of the article, I have only cited the experiences of this former representative.

For you to suggest that heywood doesn't exist is upsurd. There is no reason why it would be the case, and given it's publication in a reputable news source it's very likely to be true. They wouldnt publish it if it was likely to damage their reputation.

Also... how you can criticize the reliability of this news source and not that of the ACN Presskit news source I do not know. Seems very suspicious to me. Take a look at the new section i created below...--TheEditor22 (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ed22, I can understand your suspicion, but you are talking apples and oranges here. The NAM article is unreliable because it can easily be shown to be factually full of holes.  The problem with company press releases is not inherent unreliability (on a case-by-case basis they can be either reliable or not), but they are by definition not neutral.  This limits their usability here; they have to used with some care and caution, if at all.  In the present case, if an ACN press release says it now has a new videophone with the following features, I wouldn't have a problem using it as an ancillary source as long as I could at least verify independently that they do have a new videophone with those features.  If ACN says that their videophone is peachy keen, well, that's a value judgment or claim, and I'd want to hear it from someone else before I'd put it in the WP article.  I'll toss a hypothetical out for illustation: If Ford Motor Company issues a press release about a new car model and they write "All new for 2010, the revolutionary, gas-sipping, rapidly-moving Ford Zap!  Everyone should buy one!" what are you going to do?  Refuse to put it in the WP article because Car and Driver hasn't seen it yet and all there is so far is advertisements on TV and in magazines?  Refuse to use their press release as a source because it's obviously biased?  No, of course not, you'll put it in because it's notable, and it's also pretty unlikely that Ford is going to issue a press release about something that important and be lying through their teeth (you'll change the article later if it turns out they were only joking).  Until more sources come forth, you'd write something to the effect of "On X date Ford announced the Zap, a new model they hope to sell a lot of."  Note I'm being a little lighthearted here, but I hope you get my point.  Mike (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So much time has gone by. I hope all were having fun. Anyway, I raised several objections to the accuracy and objectivity of the NAM article on ACN way back in July, and nobody has responded in any substantive fashion to address those objections, so I must assume that there's no reason to continue to refer to the NAM article here. If there is further discussion to be had on this matter, it can be brought up here.Mike (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Fox News segment mentioned in this section also has its problems, chief among them being a claim that someone could be earning as much as $33,000 per month, "although the company advises no figures should be quoted" -- which seemed an odd thing to bring up, as if there was some concern by the writer of the paragraph that a company policy was being violated. The problem with the objection to the claim is that the figure quoted as being stated in the meeting covered is factual. This is the maximum possible monthly bonus available to someone in the Team Coordinator position, and the bonus figures are very prominently set forth in ACN-generated materials. It is also entirely possible for a new rep to reach that position in 90 days -- I say possible because it has been done; in fact, ACN offers a special bonus of $10k for reps who manage said feat. A quotation from the Fox piece mentioned in the section refers to "...a trail of people misled about money-making opportunities", which seems more like an opinion or a headline than anything factual. I am advocating dropping mention of the Fox piece, which is entirely local and provides little substantive value. Mike (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

ACN Presskit source - very POV
I am proposing that we remove references to www.acnpresskit.com. This is a news source operated by ACN, and clearly is biased towards the company and is NOT neutral point of view. If you view the website you can clearly see this by the way they describe ACN's product.

For example, they mention "the revolutionary ACN video phone". I assume this is their point of view that it's revolutionary? I don't think a reputable NPOV would describe it that way.

Again, they say "ACN has launched the new IRIS 3000 Videophone, marking the release of a revolutionary device that uses the latest in video technology available."

I think it is extremely debatable that this phone is revolutionary. The technology used is not new. There are other video phones that are able to compress the video much more efficiently - ie the ASUS skype videophone. Not to mention videophones have been around for decades. This "news source" website is obviously just a marketing tool, and such references have no place in an encyclopedia.--TheEditor22 (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A company is considered a reliable source for information about the company, but for the kind of reasons you cite any other information has to be used with care. For example, it would be OK to use it as a source to say they launched a videophone, but not OK to use it as a source to say it was "revolutionary". At present the source seems to used for nothing more than a few non-POV facts, such as their office location and when they launched a product. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is though, this is slightly contrary to the attitude that you have against the New America Media article. You are saying that because you question some aspects of the NAM article, the whole thing is unreliable. We both know that most of the ACN Presskit's reliablility is questionable, and so that under your view should make the reliablity of the "facts" questionable.

Considering this presskit website labels themselves as a "news source", I think it should be treated as such, and not as a factual resource for company information. The NAM news source however is completly unrelated to the company, and so far you have had little to say that could discredit what I have sourced from the article.--TheEditor22 (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, press releases are OK for simple non-controversial facts. If it became controversial (are you claiming ACN didn't launch a videophone or move office?) then better sources would need to be found. Controversial allegations of impropriety against a company fall under WP:BLP and as such require much stronger sources. As has been pointed out before, the NAM article is clearly unreliable, with much of it clearly false. Serious allegations require much stronger sources. Your second statement for example is a clear accusation the company is an illegal pyramid. A source that can't even get the relationship between agents and their companies right is clearly not a strong source. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see you've ignored my point again. I think an impartial news source is far more reliable than a new source run by ACN. You say it is clearly false, but that is your opinion and you've provided no evidence of this - certainly not on what i cited from the article. And by the way, I did provide a much stronger source to back it up...the fox news article! The fact is that the ACN phone is not revolutionary, and most of what is said in the ACN Press Kit is questionable. This makes the "facts" that are cited in this wiki article unreliable. The ACN press kit is a "news source" like I keep telling you, just like NAM is a news source. The difference is, NAM are concerned with publishing fact, whereas ACN are concerned only with making themselves look good. Could someone other than Insider or Mike please review this, and let me know what you think.--TheEditor22 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The ACN press kit is not a "news source", it's a self-published corporate source and should be used with care. You are absolutely correct that a 3rd party source would be better, however it's generally not a problem for non-controversial facts. Are you challenging it's use for the facts it support? The NAM article is being used to support controversial comments. By there nature, particularly under WP:BLP they require a higher standard of sourcing. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I said already that the NAM source backs up the Fox News article. In itself the NAM is reputable, but it confirms the even more reputable Fox News article. The presskit IS a news source. It says it is a news source on the website. It is not allowable as a source because it is a news source run by ACN.--TheEditor22 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here? Are you challenging the claims made using the ACN press site as references? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I am making a better case for challenging the reliability of these claims than you are for the claims in the NAM article. I have provided two sources for this, each complimenting the other. And so if you think that it's controversial information then hard cheese, because I have done the recommended and found two reliable sources. Period.

Now, the ACN press kit site advertises itself as a news source, and should be treated like any other news source. It is not NPOV, and regardless of the information cited from the article, we cannot be sure of its reliablity because of the blatent PRO ACN stance that this news source has.--TheEditor22 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you are doing is WP:POINT? You may want to read up on that. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I think the ACN Presskit reference should be removed. I think that the NAM source should stay. And if you want the reasons i suggest you read my previous point. It just so happens, however, that it illustrates your bias towards wanting no negativity in this article. Don't manipulate what I say.--TheEditor22 (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I want is fair and balanced, well sourced articles. The NAM article is little more than a silly hit piece, and you are trying to do the exact same thing with your use of it. I have plenty of negative things I could say about ACN, but I'm not going to put them in the article and dig around for any crappy source I can find to support them. Fact - ACN is a large successful company. Fact - it's attracted some controversy. Fact - it's attracted some powerful endorsements. It should all be mentioned. But the opinion of some guy interviewed by some paper by a journalist who couldn't even remotely get his facts straight? Should we go to the Chrysler article and report the opinions of some essentially anonymous guy who once worked for Chrysler? Not notable, and not balanced. It shouldn't be in the artice. As the guidelines say, if it's notable enough, then it would be covered by more sources. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I respect the points you make, however the NAM article becomes notable and credible because it backs up the Fox News report. Except..."ACN is a successful company". That is your opinion, by no means fact. "powerful endoresements?" Another opinion. I think most people would disagree. And i've read through what you've written in your attempt to discredit the NAM article, but it's completely falsified. The information is correct and if you think your linguistical twisting can discredit it then think again. I will repeat myself again because you keep ignoring this. The NAM article backs up the fox news article!! get it?--TheEditor22 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, talking of notability.... You were the one who wanted me to quote two random people ACN representatives (who werent even named) in the Fox News article. One of them couldnt even be quoted because he was incoherant, and the other woman was clearly talking rubbish and started talking about pies. And yet, you wanted me to quote these non-notable people? But hold the phone...you say I shouldnt use the named individual's documented experience in a reputable artictle? why you say? Because he's not notable? Very contrary to what you're telling me now!

I am not doing WP:POINT here, because, as stated, I think the NAM article is notable. I am however pointing out one of many inconsistancies that you, Insider, have in your approach to editing MLM articles.--TheEditor22 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My 2/100 of a $, using the ref from ACN to state they released a new phone model is fine, but saying in a wiki article that it is revolutionary using that ref reeks of advertising. Now if neutral third party reliable sources state it's revolutionary, that's different.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rlevse, the WP article doesn't say it's revolutionary. TheEditor22's argument is simply that ACN's press release isn't reliable enough to include as a source.  It seems an extreme position to me.  Mike (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * :Ed22, it's about trying to get WP:CONSENSUS - I'm not going to spend my hours debating you if you're willing to at least include a little WP:BALANCE. Opinions shouldn't generally be in an article at all. If FoxNews and CNN both interview people that say Red Bull tastes like crap, then we should put that in the article on Red Bull? Individuals opinions and claims are not notable. Aside from the fact the NAM article is clearly not reliable, an individuals opinions and claims are generally not notable unless THEY are notable with regard the topic of the article. It is not the place of WP to promote people's opinions. When the opinions are tauntamount to declaring an active company an illegal business (which is what the NAM sourced opinion does) - well clearly much stronger sources are needed. When the sources declaring this kind of opinion have also clearly been shown to be unreliable on other issues with regard the topic, then there's no question at all that it shouldn't be used. Whether a source is a good source or not partially depends not just on the source, but what it is you are wanting to use it for. --Insider201283 (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it...The NAM article BACKS UP the Fox News article. Certainly what I sources from the NAM article does. SO even if you think that the NAM article isn't reliable because I am citing a controversial claim from what you would consider an unreliable source, it doesn't matter because it's confirming a similar point made by the Fox News article.

And it's aside from the point really, because NAM is a respected publisher and there is nothing wrong with the article.

Also, i notice how you ignored something else so i'll quote it again for you: "You were the one who wanted me to quote two random people ACN representatives (who werent even named) in the Fox News article. One of them couldnt even be quoted because he was incoherant, and the other woman was clearly talking rubbish and started talking about pies.  And yet, you wanted me to quote these non-notable people?  But hold the phone...you say I shouldnt use the named individual's documented experience in a reputable artictle? why you say?  Because he's not notable? Very contrary to what you're telling me now!" --TheEditor22 (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC) No, I didn't "want you" to quote the others. I want you to quote nobody who is not notable. However, in the interest of achieving WP:CONSENSUS, if you were insistant I wasn't going to bother arguing the point if you at least attempted WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. Your claim re NAM that "there is nothing wrong with the article" suggests that perhaps you should do A LOT more research into the topic of the article before you consider yourself having the basic level of knowledge needed to edit it. Once the source is deemed unreliable, it doesn't matter if it back ups FOX or not. You appear to being backing up FOX too, that doesn't make you a reliable source. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You said you can't use source if it's deemed unreliable for controversial issues. I agree, it might be controversial, however it is clearly reliable because it agrees with the reliable Fox News article. Again, the New America Media is a reputable news source and so the article is reliable. This isnt just about consensus here on wikipedia, although even if it were, there havent been any other people contributing to the article to reach consensus. If you're not going to follow the wikipedia rules with regard to this article then I'm going to defend my inclusion of this source.--TheEditor22 (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Insider, you contradict yourself on so many levels it blows my mind.--TheEditor22 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Remind me .. what did FoxNews say exactly? Note: FoxNews, not some un-notable non-expert they may have shown on camera. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Try watching the video--TheEditor22 (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Services section
Hi mike. I noticed you edited the services section and mentioned the agreements that ACN has with other providers. This is a pretty meaningless statement in and of itself. Could you please provide the details on these agreements.--TheEditor22 (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What details would you be thinking of? Mike (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see where you're coming from. Yes, whereas it is clear from the order entry page that ACN is reselling these providers' plans, ACN might be reselling them through an intermediary and not directly through the providers themselves.  I agree, and have removed the language.  Good catch!  Mike (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mike for fixing up those sections.Monty.the.cat (talk)

Hi, thanks Mike. I had a feeling (although im not totally sure) that other providers were required by law to allow ACN to piggyback off their networks. Which, if true, makes me annoyed when ACN say that they partner with other firms. I mean, the way they word the sentence in their press releases makes it sound as though the other firms are happy to sell their services to ACN..

IE: "We also are teamed up with Verizon and AT&T"

Anyway, it's look good now so thanks --TheEditor22 (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The telecommunications deregulation movement which started in the US in the 80's required the Bell System to break up into regional entities (the entire system was a huge government-enforced monopoly -- a cash cow for Bell) for local service, and also required that long-distance be deregulated as well, meaning that the "Baby Bells" could not force consumers to use their long-distance lines, and had to allow for competition. This is one of the reasons why long-distance is relatively cheap these days.  It used to be that people had to be very careful about how long they spoke to someone outside their local area because Bell charged them lots of money for it.  The competition drove prices down enormously.  ACN was not in the first wave of that deregulatory process, but got in later and competed with many companies that are no longer in business.
 * As deregulation continued to advance, the Baby Bells were required to offer even their local service at wholesale rates to anyone who wanted to front for them, and ACN was late there as well, but did get in. This is not entirely to the complete disadvantage of the "incumbents", as they still make a profit from these arrangements (and don't have to worry about customer service for these other companies' customers).
 * But with the wireless, satellite TV, and home security services, none of these were ever legal monopolies, so deregulation doesn't apply to them. ACN's arrangements with these companies is completely voluntary. ACN stands in the same relation to these companies as do the third-party wireless stores and contractors that you see in the malls and other places.  Interestingly, to me at least, one of my upline Team Coordinators used to own about six Verizon Wireless stores and kiosks in the southern Idaho area, before he signed up with ACN.

Mike (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

company purposes
Perhaps one 'private' nondocumented purpose of the company has been to back/track Lance Armstrong (Mr. 'Brasforte') and others during scheduled surveys of EurAsian culture and markets. beadtot 64.136.26.230 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? Mike (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

MLM and Pyramids (again)
I reverted the entire change Guyinyoureye made:
 * "The income ACN generates is largely speculated to come from the $499 start up fee that is required to become a representative. This is a characteristic that pyramid schemes often exibit, where as the emphasis on the business model is recruiting new representatives instead of the telecommunication products the company sells. ACN potentially being a scam is a controversy that is almost always at the forefront of any online discussion or internet search. Phil Shuman of Fox News 11 has reported that ACN is a company that has left a trail of people claiming they were mislead about money making oppurtunities. Such sites like www.RipOffReport.com and www.complaints.com are littered with accusations that ACN lied to them. Robert Fitzpatrick author of False Profits says ACN induces people to invest money based on the idea they can recruit others."

...because it is full of opinion and unverifiable speculation. Just because a journalist claims "a trail of people claiming" this and that does not constitute verifiable evidence that there is such a trail. If I got bad grades in my college classes, I could report on a web page that my teachers were bad, and prejudiced against me, and this would not constitute verifiable evidence that they were bad or prejudiced. For all anyone knows, the real reason I got back grades might have been what I claim, or more likely I didn't turn in my homework, missed many assignments, and failed both the midterm and final, because I otherwise engaged. ACN may or may not be a dishonest company, but the evidence in the Fox 11 piece does not support either assertion. All it supports is that some people couldn't make money working at ACN, some people could, and the ones who didn't are complaining about it. No analysis as to why the disparate outcomes occurred, and no further investigative journalism than to pester a few working reps into exasperated outbursts, and committing trespass by secretly videotaping a meeting where it wasn't permitted by the organizer. Mike (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When we use sources that fit the standards for reliability, we don't usually second-guess what sources they used. Whether the news reporters engaged in trespass is not our concern.   Will Beback    talk    01:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted. By the same token, the news organization that paid $5,000 for the misappropriated iPhone did something it shouldn't have done, but this doesn't necessarily make their report on the device unreliable.  Your point is taken.  Mike (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to point out that making the argument that the $499 start up fee is the "speculated reason" for ACN income is just that, an unsupported speculation. Now, whether or not some of the income to reps comes from sign-up fees, according to the Australia court in the ACCC case, "pyramid" would apply if simply signing up reps resulted in a payout. An examination of the ACN compensation plan makes it clear that before the "customer acquisition bonuses" is paid out to the rep, that rep and any sponsored reps must acquire a certain minimum number of customers. And if one reads the Aussie court opinion, they explicitly cited this fact in their determination that the comp plan (and ACN) is not a pyramid. Now, I don't care if someone wants to call ACN a pyramid or not, according to the legal definition of a pyramid, it is not. Facts, not opinions, these are what should be driving articles in WP. Mike (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with the details of this subject, so you'll have to forgive some ignorant questions. Is the company's compensation plan published publicly? Is it the same in the U.S. (where the Fox report was aired) and in Australia?   Will Beback    talk    01:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that ACN's comp plan is not available publicly, in the sense that you can find an official ACN web page describing it that is available to anyone who wants to surf there. I have a friend who is an ACN rep (I used to be but am no longer), and she can supply with all the printed or PDF documents available to her.  But I can't link to it here, because you have to be signed in as a rep.  As far as the ACN plan in other countries is concerned, I understand that it is not identical, but is very similar.  Mike (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been around long enough that you should know we can't use an unverifiable source. As for the Australian court case, obviously that's applicable to Australia, but it isn't necessarily applicable to any other jurisdiction. So neither of these points seems relevant to the Fox News report.   Will Beback    talk    04:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. Please notice that I was making a statement here on the Talk page that I couldn't source, not in the article.  For information purposes in fixing up this article (which Guyinyoureye has just reverted back to his preferred version for the third time.  And he's not here discussing it, so I guess we have a classic edit war going on, and the three-revert rule now applies).  Australian law does not necessarily apply to the US, but the accepted definition of a pyramid is pretty universal, and Aussie law and court opinion tracks that definition very closely.  A pyramid is illegal in almost all jurisdictions worldwide, and since ACN has been working in the public eye for 17 years with pretty much the same compensation plan in now 20 countries, I would assert that that is prima facie evidence that it is not a pyramid, despite whatever personal definitions there might be out there.  Mike (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've placed a 3RR warning on his oage. As for the Australia vs US issue, we can't extrapolate beyond what the sources say. If the court in Australia says it isn't a pyramid there, then that's what we say here. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback    talk    04:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting the warning on there. I've been trying to figure it all out again and so far the confusion was winning.
 * OK, I'll grant for a moment that the ACCC court case does not establish that ACN is not a pyramid in the US. But with respect to the US or anywhere else, we have a problem of proving a negative before we can say anything further.  The argument I was making above, that is that no court of any competent jurisdiction anywhere in the world where ACN operates or has operated has found it to be so, because only in Australia to the best of my knowledge has the question even come up.  BUT, one cannot cite a negative!  Thus we are left in the same position as the man who is asked: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  And how is this to be applied here?  Were I to write in the article, "ACN is not a pyramid scheme" how on earth would I verify it or source it?  There is no way.  So I can't say it, then, but it's a demonstrable fact, nevertheless.  Ugh.  What a can of worms.  Mike (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm limited in what I can do now, but Ithink the problem can be solved by making sure we're using prope sources properly.    Will Beback    talk    05:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh. I thought I might point out just for the fun of it that because their judicial systems originate from a commmon source, a lot of Commonwealth countries (such as Australia, UK, Canada, etc) and the US use each other's court precedents in certain cases, and as it was at one time a hobby of mine to read court decisions and so on (yes, I know, get a life!), I've actually seen US courts, including the US Supreme Court, cite UK decisions as part of their arguments pro and con in certain rare cases.  Oddest thing in the world, believe me.  Mike (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we talk, Guyinyoureye?
Dude, I'm trying to politely tell you that your edits appear to me to violate certain Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV, possibly WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY, but you don't seem to be interested in any kind of discussion of the matter. Clearly you know how to edit, so you have to have seen my invitations to talk in the edit summaries. How about chiming in with some rational discussion? Hope to hear from you soon. Mike (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you're editing again without coming to the table for a discussion. I guess I will have to try talking to the wall.  Sigh Mike (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well hello guys. Finally found you way down here. Its nice to see there is an avenue to discuss the contents of wikipedia instead of just a free for all. Sorry about my triple violation. Hopefully I will be forgiven and not banned. Few problems I have with this article. 1. It paints ACN way too positively, like it's the all-american successfull business with typical corporate growing pains. 2. Out of the 30 something websites and links referring to the company, only three have any negative information, we all know ACN is not adored this much. 3. The lone section that gives this article any chance at being balanced is of course "Criticism". Which begins with a fraction of a sentence regarding one of the many controversies surronding the company and is then followed up with 4 seperate points disputing this criticism and ends quoting an ACN chairman to prove these points, taking one of the only negative sources of external information (3/31) listed and ultimatley using it to turn the section on itself and promote the company at the same time. A lot of the changes I made in the criticism section was direct information from the other source sited in that section. Is their something wrong with that source? It seemed ok to quote Mr. ACN Chairman from. Another thing I'm trying to wrap my head around: ACN obvioulsy has a lot of controversey that surrounds it. Many people feel scammed by the company. You can't even do a simple google search without the word scam coming up 3 times in the suggestion box. I know that ACN being a scam is not fact. But it is popular speculation. Can information be provided as speculation? Stating that it is just, speculation and not fact? So how do we convey this image the company has and still follow wikipedia policy? Bottom line is this article does not reflect a 100% accurate nature of ACN. I have taken some of my previous edits out for more subtle changes to make the criticism section more balanced. Please let me know what you think.

guyinyoureye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyinyoureye (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we can only use assertions found in reliable sources. That excludes forums and sites like Ripoffreport.com. It includes newspaper, magazines, books, and other reputable media. Fox News should qualify, and we can report what they say Ripoffreport says.   Will Beback    talk    04:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Will. I have attempted to balance the criticism section using info from other resources that were already provided besides the fox news. I hope this is acceptable.

Futhermore Mike, I am not concerned withyour teachers or the bad grades you earned in college. Now if you managed to obtain a journalism degree, researched their teaching methods, interviewed multiple classmates backing up your claim and then broadcast the footage primetime on a major news network, I may believe you, but until then it does not constitute verifiable evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyinyoureye (talk • contribs) 04:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How kind of you not to care about my education problems (which were fictionalized, dinja notice). But I wrote what I wrote about the hearsay publicized in the Fox 11 News segment because that's exactly what the reporter didn't do, i.e. verify claims. It was claimed that "They are only concerned about recruiting."  OK, even if this were true, it's still just hearsay and unverifiable.  Is there anyone who has done any actual unbiased research on this company?  I can't find any, unfortunately.  So we're left with having to sort out the accusations and claims of impropriety or unworkability made by people who believe it didn't work for them, and anti-MLM hobbyists, with the claims made by those who have done well with ACN, and believe it is a legitimate company with a workable marketing method.  The Anti-ACN types who have been editing this article generally prefer not to allow anything positive to be said about it, regardless of verifiability or notability, but are insistent about including negative things, no matter that they might be unverifiable or non-notable -- and much of the material in the Fox News 11 piece is both.Mike (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attempt to dial the negative bias back a few clicks, though.Mike (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there a particular reason you changed the opening sentence to remove a reference to non-telecommunications services? ACN does offer  satellite TV (DirecTV and Dish Network), home security (ADT), and energy (in Canada), which are not telecommunications.
 * Guyinyoureye, you wrote above that the article seemed entirely too pro-ACN, but there may be a perception issue here, because it seems to me that the article up to the Criticism section is more-or-less a factual report of products and services, without a particular lean one way or the other. The Criticism section, on the other hand, currently dwells on a rather exceptional journalistic "hit" piece by Fox News in Los Angeles that seems to have been created as a sensational expose′ rather than serious journalism, and that seems to me at least to be highly biased.
 * I appreciate that there are some people think ACN is a scam. Google results don't impress me much, however, because if you Google Mother Teresa you will find that there's some people who think she was evil.  Who do you believe?  Maybe MT was truly evil, but Googling won't prove it. Same with ACN and scam claims -- if you go past the first few pages when Googling ACN you will find loads of pages claiming that ACN is the best thing since sliced bread.  If someone were to try to pony up some of those sources as fuel for this article, you'd balk at including them, but then so would I, too.  So can we just stick to unbiased and verifiable sources?  Mike (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes we can. Which is why I removed the sentence referring to the internet search and the $499 main source of income speculation. I cannot provide a source to back it up. But just like Will Beback says "When we use sources that fit the standards for reliability, we don't usually second-guess what sources they used. Whether the news reporters engaged in trespass is not our concern." We are talking about a Fox News Channel. All the junior college analogies in the world aren't going to change that. Besides, the section is using the word "reported". And I did not remove any information regarding non-telecommunications. You may have been guarding this page a little too long Mike. I only added to that sentence the home based business aspect of the company. Which is very important to both the company and this article. Have a good one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyinyoureye (talk • contribs) 03:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I may have been guarding this page a little too long, or I may be the only one guarding it. Both, probably.  Actually, up until recently I hadn't checked up on it for a few months.  I do have a life, after all.  Your addition regarding the home-based business oppty was nicely subtle and well thought-out. Mike (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)