Talk:Amway/Archive 2

Editor
Eric ... you are making wholesale changes to this article with extremely POV and unbalanced editing and little or no sourcing of your claims. Please cease or discuss the changes you wish to make here first. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eric Arthur B has continued with his edits, including posting defamatory and personal information. Request on his user page to move to talk here have been ignored. I've submitted a request to Oversight and will continue to revert. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * His posting of your personal information was a mistake (although you have confirmed some of that information elsewhere on the net). But you reported it to Oversight, yet you yourself hinted at his identity in your edit summaries, on talk page and elsewhere? --Knverma (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't actually mean that in the edit summaries, that was a mistake. What did I do in talk? Didn't even know what you were talking about until I checked. It's not only the personal info that is a mistake, he's posting stuff that is outright false not only about me but also about Amway on this and other articles. His edits here violate NPOV and OR amongst others, as you noted on his talk. Other sites is a separate issue and I was writing an article about him before he started this Wiki attack. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Outing a Wikipedia editor on an external website also seems problematic. For example Outing states:
 * ...Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely. --Knverma (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Knverma, first of all I was not aware of those particular wiki rules, I will look at my post and consider changes. Secondly, nobody here would even know about it if you weren't talking about it, and I would note there were no personal attacks in the off-wiki article. See his posts with regards me on this article and on his talk pages to see what might constitute personal attacks! The poster in question is a well known anti-amway poster and author on numerous forums, which he does so using his own name. It is not a secret. Indeed his failure to disclose may be considered a major wiki blunder in itself. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This an absolute lie. The person to whom 'Insider' refers has not taken part directly in debates in 'numerous Internet Forums' concerning 'Amway' using his own name or any other identity. That said, he has posted an extended article using his own name, explaining the global deception that lurks behind 'Amway's' commercial façade, entitled, 'Freedom is Slavery' (which is widely available on the Net). He has also posted various comments (using his own name) after articles published on 'Timesonline' concerning 'Amway's' legal problems in the UK. At that time, an individual signing himself, David From London, posted a false and defamatory comment: 'For those of you who don't know, - - is an Anti-Amway obsessive.....'It is very probable that the author of this intentionally damaging statement was 'Insider'. The person in question is, in fact, the author of 'The Universal Identifying Chracteristics of a Cult'. Insider described him on two of his 14 Websites as being 'a well-known member of the anti-Amway cult.' The person in question is also associated with Dr. Edward Lottick (the former Chairman of the Cult Awareness Network) who has written the foreword to another (yet to be published) book by the same author, 'Amway The American Dream made Nightmare'. Unfortunately, for Wikipedia, you cannot have a neutral point of view when it comes to any form of deception. It's either a deception or its not. Casual observers, looking at a deception with misplaced objectivity, risk becoming part of it themselves. 'Insider' is using a covert hypnotic technique, Neuro-Linguistic Programing, to control our perceptions of 'Amway'. The popular phrase, 'American way', from which the neologism 'Amway' has been corrupted is itself an example of this devious technique. All persons challenging the authenticity of the 'Amway' myth (although they are pro-truth), are systematically categorized as 'Anti-Amway' which immediately colours the attitude of a casual observer. On a subconscious level, to many people (particularly in the USA) someone who is 'Anti-Amway', must be 'Anti-American'. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "debates". I meant the word "forums" in a more generic sense, perhaps a poor choice of words. Needless to say "the person in question" has posted in many places, including the recent virtual spamming of the "Freedom is slavery" article. BTW, for quite sensible reasons Wikipedia guidelines do not consider self-published works, either on the internet or in the form of books, as "reliable sources". --Insider201283 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2008(UTC)

'''Insider operates 14 websites:

http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com

http://www.amwaywatch.com

http://mlmliberal.blogspot.com

http://amwaynorthamerica.blogspot.com

http://quixtarbusinessreview.blogspot.com

http://quixtarblogspot.com

http://amwaylatinblogspot.com

http://amwaywiki.com

http://amwayaustralia.blogspot.com

http://www.amwaytalk.com

http://amwayeurope.blogspot.com

http://www.amwaywatch.com

http://amquixvideo.blogspot.com

http://ibofightback.vox.com

http://ibofightback.livejournal.com

These all pretend to be independent of 'Amway', but their content speaks for itself. One of them, even mimics Wikipedia (needless to say, it cannot actually be edited by its readers).

'Insider' also maintains 79 videos on Youtube.com'''

The person whom 'Insider' is trying to damage, maintains no Website. His article 'Freedom is Slavery' was very kindly posted for him on a website warning people about frauds. It has merely been mirrored by various blogs. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear oh dear. Thanks for the free publicity. A few folk seem more than a little obsessed by me of late. Most of those sites are not active sites, some of them exist purely because I created an account to reply to someone else. Contrary to your false claim, Amway Wiki is quite definitely editable by it's readers.--Insider201283 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Insider is now convinced that people are obsessed with him. Sadly, whilst he remains under the influence of the Utopian 'Amway' myth, 'Insider' is an irrelevance as an individual. Like a machine, he spews forth a never-ending supply of reality-denying answers. 'Insider' is, however, highly interesting as a cultic case study. We must thank 'Insider' again for his flawless demonstration of the totalitarian mind set. All free thinking individuals challenging the authenticity of the Utopian 'Amway' myth are systematically categorized, denegrated and excluded from the authentic Wikepedia by 'Insider'- the self-appointed guardian of the supreme truth. Imagine what its like trying to post information on his very own counterfeit version of Wikipedia. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines
I've blanked out collapsed a thread that had little to do with this article and mostly concerned the editors. Wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox. I recognize that some editors here may have had previous interactions off-site. Please do not bring those conflicts here. Here, we are all Wikipedia editors and must put the aims of this project foremost. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Anything else is disruption. Everyone here should review and follow the policies and guidelines linked in the talk page header at the top of this page. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, nope, had no interaction with the guy before wikipedia, though obviously I was aware "of" him. But I fully agree with the blanking. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Amway sources
Web sites affiliated with an organization can be used as sources for what the organization claims to do, but they should be clearly marked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Amway advert tag
I placed the tag because I found that there is excessive promotional financial information about the company, which almost makes it look like a financial statement. This is in view of the fact that the annual multi billion sales amply demonstrate the success of the company.

There is also excessive promotional information in the products' details. Especially, when some of the products have their own web pages, with links at the bottom of the article. On the other hand, I commend [for what it's worth, :-)], the rest of the article is well written and objectively balanced.Ineuw (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand the concerns of "excessive promotional financial info". Sales data is obviously crucial information for an article about a company. Check out the full WP infobox template for companies and you'll see that significant amounts of info is covered, particularly for public companies (of which Amway isn't). Looking around at other companies articles they have similar financial data. Only one I think could be considered "promotional" per se is the Nutrilite sales stuff, but it's notable in it's own right, being global #1. I applied a similar standard to the "products" area, only giving a few sentences on brands that are notable in their own right, as is obviously the case with Artistry and Nutrilite that have their own articles. This is I believe the WP guidelines on how to handle that - a few summary sentences and a link to the main articles. Brands that are not notable have simply been listed in the text. I certainly encourage any improvements though, so if you have some specific ideas, go for it!. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any further comments on this? I notice on Ineuw's talk page he's had some comments from others about over-zealous tagging. If there's nothing further to add I'll remove the tag.--Insider201283 (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

UK BERR
In the DTI/BERR action in the UK, petitions were made against BWW, N21 and Amway. The first two were dismissed before it ever went to court. The third was dismissed by the court. A problem from a wikipedia perspective is that I can't find an RS either for the fact petitions were made against BWW and N21 nor the fact they were dismissed. As such it appears they should be removed from the section entirely, particularly given they're "accusations" against current organizations. However I'm hesitant to do so, especially since I know both the petitions and the dismissals have occurred. Any thoughts?--Insider201283 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * bump--Insider201283 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More importantly - do these documents exist. If "yes" then is there a RS that says so.  If not, then they should be flagged with cite tags and then (in a little while - the world isn't going to end if they stay up for a couple of weeks) removed.  Shot info (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from court documents, which as you're aware should not be used (as per Will Bebecks' comments elsewhere), AFAIK there are no RS. Also, as you are also aware, if they're allegations about a current organization then the info SHOULD NOT be left up without sourcing. I'd also note the cite tags HAVE been there for 2 weeks (give or take some hours). So I say what I've said to you before - how about you be constructive and look for some sources? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like how you enjoy putting words in other editor's mouths...but never mind, you ask a question of editors - and other editors answer. Why is it that you aren't being constructive and looking for suitable sources?  I'm telling you that if there are no sources - delete.  And as you are also aware it's not going to end the world if info stays uncited on WP for a short period of time.  Unlike you, other editors don't seem to spend their time in only a select few articles.  Shot info (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realised my original request for citations was done incorrectly (I put cite in tags instead of facts), so the correct tags have not been in place for 2 weeks, my apologies. I did fix it later. Secondly, if you read the OP you'll see that I HAVE looked for other RSs. I'm curious though, exactly how long do you think Wikipedia policies to delete stuff immediately should be ignored? Clearly for you "immediately" means not for at least 2 weeks, could you give me some specific time frames for "immediately" that you'd be happy with? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IAR, WP:DICK Shot info (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Was that you talking to yourself, or do you have a point? Even better, been useful and found any references yet? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it that you ask a question, then when there is a reply you ask another question unrelated to the previous one. What I recommend you do is read up on policy, it's application to improving articles and why wikilawyering is bad for the project.  Then (re)read my comments and then perhaps you will understand what other editors are saying.  Shot info (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief, get a mirror man. Take some therapy, get a little self-insight, learn how to stop projecting. Do something useful. In the meantime, speaking of being useful - found any sources yet? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious though, exactly how long do you think Wikipedia policies to delete stuff immediately'' should be ignored? Clearly for you "immediately" means not for at least 2 weeks, could you give me some specific time frames for "immediately" that you'd be happy with?'' does this question ring any bells with you? Shot info (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since your so good at linking to Wiki opinion pieces, I'd appreciate the link to the one where "immediately" is considered to be 2 weeks. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did - you just don't wish to look at them. Shot info (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. You have no idea what I'm even referring to do you? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well with your hyperactive editing style, the logical answer is - no. How about you give editing for clarity a go? Shot info (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Contentious unsourced, potentially libellous material should, as User:Jimbo Wales put it, "be removed, aggressively". I doubt there's any consensus that means 2 weeks+, but feel free to prove me wrong. --Insider201283 (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See the links I provided to you above (and once again your hyperactive editing style sees another tangent come and go). Shot info (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No tangent come and go, and no editing has been done. I can't find anything in the links provided that modify Wikipedia core policy. IAR is closest, but it's for improving wikipedia. Having unsourced libellous information clearly does not meit IAR. Do you disagree? Could you provide me with a quote from the links you referenced to support your view? --Insider201283 (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please supply the policy that uses the term "immediately" per your comment above. Shot info (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A citation in Grand Rapids Press:. --Knverma (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh joy! A cite that's factually incorrect right from the first sentence! Neither N21 nor BWW or "distributors" either in the UK or anywher else. What's more the case had nothing to do with "tools", the judge even explictly said so. Sigh ... journalism is in such a sorry state :( That copy is not RS either - Rick Ross admitted in a discussion on Talk for his article that he "edits articles for clarity" when he's reposting them. So we have no idea what he's changed without the original, make a SPS even more unreliable. Still, if we can find a copy the original should be RS that N21 and BWW were involved in the case. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cite where Rick Ross admitted this, as I've just completed going thru the archives at Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) (presumably the same Rick Ross) and cannot find any comment that says "edits articles for clarity". Shot info (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't find it either, but be assured he did say it. Might have been on the Cults article or WP:RS/N. Why not ask him? --Insider201283 (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asking you since you have brought it up. This isn't exactly the first time that your memory has proven you incorrect. What I suggest is that you refrain from making this statement until you can actually prove that he did say what you says he did.  Ta Shot info (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

caic.org.au, factnet.org, rickross.com
All three of these websites are self-published POV websites. They have no place as sources in the body of a wikipedia article and should be removed. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a few more days for comment, then modify this section. --Insider201283 (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They may be self-published, but it's irrelevant if a source is "POV" in the context of how it is used in WP. As discussed below, if you wish to have other's looking at these websites I recommend that you have a look at RS/N. Shot info (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Mind
Hassan's Freedom of Mind site is an acknowledged self-published source but has earlier been argued as allowed because he's an acknowledged "cult expert". I notice however that for Self-Published Sources (WP:SPS) the standard is higher - "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article. This particular case is a good case study of why the policy is this way. Reading Hassan's "analysis" it's clear he's actually done very little research into Amway and how it operates and has based his conclusions on a self-selected group, virtually all of whom represent a subsample of the Amway population. Poor research leads to poor conclusions, peer-review makes for more reliable sources and hence self-published sources are frowned upon. It's clear that Hassans is not "an established expert" on Amway (the topic of the article), with no WP:RS publications relating to it, so I propose this opinion be deleted. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I'd add that the cult "claim" remains as it has a WP:RS source in the Butterfield book, however it should be balanced with the Dr Shad Helmstetter opinion deleted earlier. Unlike Hassan, Helmstetter is an "established expert on the topic of the article", having published two books on Amway. The earlier text that was deleted (I've edited slightly) was -

"Author and behavioural scientist Shad Helmstetter spent five years in the 1990s researching Amway and published two books on the company. In his book American Victory: The Real Story of Today's Amway, Helmstetter stated 'Working in the field of human behavior, I've studied the cults for many years. The Amway business is the opposite of cult psychology.' With regard to other allegations of Amway being a cult, he replied in an interview 'The old myth that Amway is a cult is supported only by people who are either misinformed or uninformed. I would like to examine their research.'[2]."

The text was challenged on the basis that Helmstetter was not an acknowledged expert on cults. As made clear above, the standard for opinions is whether they're ackowledged experts on the topic of the article. Clearly he is. The book reference is inherently WP:RS and WP:V and the interview published on his site passes the WP:SPS standard of him being an acknowledged expert on Amway. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume that this is what you're referring to:
 * Several groups associated with the anti-cult movement have expressed concern that tactics of some of the organizations that support Amway IBOs may constitute cult-like activity. Steven Hassan's Freedom of Mind Center lists the practices of some of these groups as potentially abusive according to his controversial "BITE" Model of mind control.[81]
 * Hassan is an recognized expert on cults. He's apparently been cited in the context of Amway and cults. The topic of the section is Amway as a cult. Is there someone who is more expert on that topic?   Will Beback    talk    02:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * welll his alleged recognition as an "expert" is controversial in itself, which contributes further to the dangers of using a SPS for a controversial issue, especially in only a peripherally relevant section and article. Still, it doesn't matter, the policy clearly states for a SPS source he needs to be an acknowledged expert on the topic of the article, not "section". He does not fit the criteria. For an expert on "the topic of the section" I'd argue there aren't any. Apart from a WSJ book review of Butterfield's book nobody has been cited in WP:RS in this area that I can find. There is at least one WP:RS source that treats the ACM accusations against groups like Amway and Mary Kay quite disdainfully (Agents of Discord) and as evidence of the excess of the self-proclaimed experts like Hassan. Helmstetter, who has both a PhD in Psychology and multiple published works on Amway would probably come closest.
 * In the context of Reliable Sources, Hassan is reliable enough to make comments in his field of expertise. If that happens to cross over into this article, then it's relevant as long as it's sourced and meets WEIGHT requirements.  Shot info (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if it's reliably sourced. In this case it's not, it's a SPS, which has higher standards for inclusion. This article is not about cults, it's about Amway, and there's no evidence he has any expertise in that field. His "opinion" is a synthesis of knowledge, of one area is lacking then the opinion can be flawed - that's why oversight and review is required of sources. For those knowledgeable Amway it's clear in this instance his opinion is based on flawed knowledge, as one would expect from flawed (or non-existent) sampling. As it stands, WP:RS clearly states he needs to be an expert on the topic of the article. He is not, and this isn't the place to discuss changing a core Wikipedia policy. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it says the subject at hand. in WP:RS...perhaps you're thinking of WP:V?  Also, if there is a problem with a particular source, let's flick it over to RS/N.  FWIW - there appears to be 2 editors who think he is an RS for the subject of cults and whether or not "Amway" has application to this field - and one against (I think it's one against, it's quite hard to work out what Insider is actually saying above).  This isn't really a consensus but does suggest a trend and could be expanded in RS/N (although Insider's prediliction to flood fora with long posts tends to create TLDR attitudes).  On an aside, here in WP, it's appropripriate to put things about a subject, in the subjects article.  Hence a commentry about whether or not "Amway is a cult" (just using it as an simplified exampel) should be in this article.  Not in cults per se.  But this is just normal editing here in WP.  Shot info (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're correct, my error. I cited it properly at the top of this section. WP:SPS - it clearly states "topic of the article", which makes perfect sense. A non-SPS of Hassan claiming Amway was a cult might pass muster as a source. The fact his expertise is contentious in itself and little else in the way of RS for the same "exceptional claim" would make it debatable but it's certainly not up for a discussion like the current one. A SPS where he's not even remotely considered an authority on the article simply doesn't pass muster, especially on a contentious issue. As Helmstetter, who IS an RS on Amway, said "I'd like to see their research!". Of course, you CAN see Hassan's "research" and it simply doesn't pass muster, he's done no research at all into Amway thus is in no position to authoritively comment on it. His "analysis" is little more than a rehash of other peoples claims shoe-horned into his non-discriminatory BITE model, something he's been heavily criticised for doing in academic circles. As a former academic and research psychologist/sociologist myself I frankly think his whole approach is scientifically very very weak. Again though, the source clealy violates WP:SPS, so what's the issue?--Insider201283 (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I find your wikilawyering to be rather weak and unconvincing. But rather than responding (and pointing out your arguements....again) let's flick it over to RS/N? Shot info (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the section entitled "Other Issues" is biased against the company and needs to be balanced out. I agree with Insider that Helmstetter is an expert on Amway and his commments should be allowed. Visioneer72.235.11.75 (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Visioneer, do you have an account, if so can you log into it please? Shot info (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest I dropped a line over at WP:RS/N with regards to the above (see ) and so far it would appear that one commentator has expressed concern that the SPS is applicable. As such, I'm going to (unless there is more input over there) agree with their decision and recommend that Hassan's analysis is probably not applicable for an RS per SPS. Comments? Shot info (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * RS has been recently clarified to be even more obvious on the status of this type of source - "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". If there's no further objections I'll remove the Hassan part, leave the Butterfield claim, and re-add the Helmstetter response. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chapel & Croft Publishing
I suggest we get some more information about Chapel & Croft Publishing. Google suggests that it has only published books by Shad Helmstetter and by someone named Elise Thomas Helmstetter. In that case these books should be considered self-published. Also here is old discussion on Helmstetter. --Knverma (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't find anything much about Chapel & Croft on google, it could have been self-published or vanity, but that would be unusual given there's hardcover and "trade paperback" versions, as well as translations by other publishers . The C&C Helmstetter books are also cited in at least 100 other books ( and peer-reviewed published papers ( - looks very interesting, I'll have to get a copy). I wouldn't be surprised if it was a speciality division of a larger company and didn't stick around long, with only the Helmstetter books getting much publicity for modern internet searches. The fact it was also Chapel & Croft Publishing, Inc. (not an LLC or some other form) implies it wasn't just a vanity press, as does it's numerous citations. I'll see what else I can dig up. My copy of the book is on loan at the moment and I'm heading abroad in a few days, so I won't be able to check it for more info for a month or so. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of your above claims might be true. I'll point out however that the 100+ search results from google scholar are about Helmstetter's books from various publishers, not just C&C. However I agree that the "american victory ..." book has been cited in at least a couple of places. The Bhattacharya-Mehta paper also got me interested. Helmstetter is cited to show that there are critics of MLM and also books "singing praises":
 * "This apparent contradiction of minimal pay and such huge involvement has had observers searching for a rational explanation. Critics of NMOs feel this contradiction can be explained by means of mind control. They call these organizations “quasi-religion” and some even go to the extremity of calling them “cults.” For example, one can find myriad sites on the world wide web “exposing” the improprieties of NMOs. However, there are others who swear by these organizations. They claim that NMO experience not only brings material success but also enriches the quality of a participants life. Many books have been authored singing praises of NMOs (see for example Helmsetter, 1997) and numerous web-sites advocate the cause of NMOs in cyberspace. NMO fixation is not restricted to Internet junkies and even the popular press and major broadcasting corporations indulge in it from time to time."
 * In short, the book probably passes the criteria of some independent citations, though this leaves wide open the possibility of us citing all other publications which pass this criteria. I am not sure what WP policies would suggest here. --Knverma (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The citations of C&C Publishing books was more to do with whether it should be considered a credible publisher or not, not whether any particular book should be considered credible. Same I guess goes for Helmstetter citations, of which there are many. One could argue that if his 2 Amway books are self-published then he's not really an "expert" so the SPS standard to allow it would be disallowed. On the other hand if it's cited elsewhere, plus has been translated and published by other publishers, then it's no longer just self-published anyway, so even if it was originally (which is unclear) the argument becomes moot. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a sneaky suspicion that Helmstetter is self published (purely based on the fact that it cannot be proven otherwise per comments above), and also I'm unconvinced from Insider's previous discussions that he is "an expert of Amway". However, are there any third party references that show that Helmstetter's opinion is notable?  After all, it isn't as if Shad Helmstetter is in himself notable (per the redlink).  Shot info (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of cultism
The Helmstetter discussion prompted me to search for other reliable sources on the topic. I propose the following items for inclusion.
 * Phil Kerns quit Amway to write a damaging expose called Fake it till you make it: Inside Amway in 1982. This was one of the earliest allegations of cultism in Amway distributor groups. Forbes credited this book with prompting the Phil Donahue Show and 60 Minutes to run uncomplimentary pieces on Amway, and with Amway's sales dropping 30%  In 1985, Forbes quoted an Amway official about Amway trying to clean up its distributor force to downplay evangelism and cultism and emphasizing real sales training
 * Bhattacharya and Mehta offer an economic model to explain the cultism controversies, suggesting that the "apparent contradiction between minimal pay and such huge involvement" of distributors of companies like Amway, can be attributed to the social satisfaction generated by the distributors' involvement.
 * According to David G. Bromley, "among the characteristically sectarian features of Amway as a quasi-religious corporate are (1) a transformative idelogy and supporting rituals, (2) an organizational style festuring charismatic leadership, conversion experiences as the basis for volitional membership, tightly-knit community and distancing from conventional society, minimal bureaucracy and egalitarial relationships among participants; and (3) a persistent tension with the institutions of larger society.".
 * Louise Samways in her book Dangerous persuaders talks of techniques similar to many cults used by Amway distributors to attract recruits and then to keep them involved and committed. . --Knverma (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Phil Kerns book was self-published. It had little to do with a sales drop, as is evident to anyone who knows Amway history of the early 80s and the other stuff going on. It's on the internet for free, which is why it now gets quoted. Same old same old - his experience was with the same one group that's quoted in this stuff every single time. BTW, I'm not trying to get the "cult" claims removed from this article, just some balance. Unfortunately since so few folk do real research these days and have a clue about how Amway operates - heck Forbes last week posted Rich DeVos on their billionaires list, but used a photo of Dick DeVos (Rich Jr) and claimed the fortune was made from going door-to-door and pyramid selling. 0 from 3 Forbes - it means lazy journalists and researchers just google and repeat the same old rubbish. The "dangerous persuaders" book is yet another example. Virtually every single one of these things refer to just one group within Amway, a minority of Amway, and keep claiming it's Amway, rather than this group, and making no comment at all on the majority of Amway that doesn't operate the same way. Folk like Xardel, Helmstetter, and Robinson seem to be the only ones who've actually gone and done independent, broad range research rather than just rehashing things like the Kerns book. Anyway, rant off. The cult accusations need to be covered, but are minor, dated, and overgeneralized (the Kerns book is a quarter a century old). I was considering the second Helmstetter quote could go actually, as his position was already covered from the book quote, and a sentence or two from each side covers it. Possibly also the "official" Amway response on this stuff from their website. Could you please send me a copy of the Bhattacharyaa and Mehta paper? insider@mlmfacts.net --Insider201283 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the pertinent section as it currently stands in terms of # of words - is appropriate (that is 2 to 3 paragraphs). It probably doesn't need to be expanded significantly however the "best" and most "relevant" RS' should be used.  Incidently (for Insider's info) we here in Wikipedia don't need to be "correct" as that is original research we only need to have in the article what the world is telling us.  And if the world is wrong, then the would needs to generate more RS' such that we can get them into the article.  Shot info (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know it doesn't have to be correct, that's why I said it was a rant :). I'm hopeful though that editors are at least interested in having truthful and accuate information, even if Wikipedia "itself" is not. Re the references Knervma gave above, at least 2 of them (Bromley and Bhattacharya & Mehta) reference the cult claims, but the thrust of their work is actually to dispute them as inaccurate. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be your original research. Bhattacharya & Mehta are not psychologists or sociologists. They didn't say anything definitive about cult allegations, just gave an explanation from an economists perspective (balancing of financial output and social output) of the behavior which other people consider cultist. Bromley uses the terms "sectarian" and "quasi-religious" rather than "cult". But on page 152 we read "...some critics have gone so far as to label Amway a "cult" that practices mind control and have drawn explicit comparisons to Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. <> These concerns about manipulativeness are not without foundation of course....". I don't see the thrust being to dispute cult claims. He goes on to say that despite these cult accusations, the public definition of Amway has not become comparable to groups like Unification Church because of reaons like political and business connections, celebrities, etc. "These types of legitimization serve to insulate Amway from attacks that more marginally positioned groups experience although in popular culture Amway recruiters appear to be regarded with the same aversion as Hare Krishna's fundraisers and Jehovah's Witnesses proselytizers."--Knverma (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bhattacharya & Mehta clearly state that there's is an alternative to cult "brainwashing" theories. I haven't read Bromley's book for years, but if I recall correctly he, like most formally trained academics in the field, is quite firmly against "cult" characterisations like that folk like Hassan have popularised (eg mind control, brain washing etc), and not just for what he calls "quasi-religious corporatiosn" like Amway but also for "New Religious Movements". Eventually the issue likely comes down to what is meant by "cult", whether it's used as a pejorative with "mind control" claims or more like fandom (for example the cult of Obama or Apple) or somewhere on the wide spectrum in between. This problem of definition is what makes it "dangerous" to use such characterizations in a wikipedia article. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for section rewrite:
 * Amway distributor groups have often been accused of using cult-like tactics to attract new distributors and to keep them involved and committed . Allegations include resemblance to a  Big Brother organization with paranoid attitude to insiders critical of the organization, seminars and rallies resembling religious revivalist meetings, and enormous involvement of distributors despite minimal incomes. An examination of the 1979-1980 tax records in the state of Wisconsin showed that the Direct Distributors, comprising less than 1% of all distributors, reported a net loss of $918 on average.
 * Sociologist David G. Bromley calls Amway a quasi-religious corporation having sectarian characteristics and preaching a Gospel of Prosperity . Bhattacharya and Mehta propose an alternative  economic explanation to the cultism controversies, saying that the distributors' enormous involvement inspite of minimal pay is due to the social satisfaction compensating for less economic satisfaction.
 * Amway states that meetings with enthusiasm, excitement and energy are a proven way to motivate sales people.

The cult-wikilink explains the ambiguities of the term. Further the actual characteristics have been listed from the sources to avoid misunderstanding. Amway's response has been included. Helmstetter's book has been excluded due to WP:UNDUE, and further it is struggling to meet WP criteria for sources worth including. --Knverma (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that if we are going to address Amway as being a cult, we need to focus significantly less on the economic/money generating issues, and actually describe how they behave as a cult. To say that they are a cult because they behave like an Evangelical/Christian Revivalist organization, may be valid, but we need to show how that is cult-like-- because I am sure that there are lots of evangelicals out there who would take offense to being called a cult based on how they practice their beliefs. If we want to take the money approach, then show how they brainwash people into believing outlandish tales and promises of great income and all they have to do is believe that it can happen for them and bring people into the cult. If we really want to go the money route on this one, then we absolutely have to elaborate more on the issue. I think the latest statistic shows that the average active distributor makes something like $150/yr. If we want to truthfully present that information, we really need to start describing how they define information like that. To say that they brainwash people with outlandish dreams of making millions of Dollars is not enough, because if you are out there talking about filling people's heads with outlandish ideas with no tangible proof, religion takes the cake on this one folks. And also, we need to stop digging up these income statements from the 80s. --13:14, 12 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337TruthSeeker (talk • contribs)

Merger proposal 1
Given Quixtar has announced they are rebranding and merging back into Amway over the next year, I suggest we merge these two articles and take the opportunity to do a thorough NPOV rewrite. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is probably better to wait until the process is further along before doing the merge. It may even be worthwile to simply rename the article to something like "Amway North America". But at the moment all I can find on the Quistar website about it, tucked away, is: "By 2009, following unprecedented improvements to all aspects of the business opportunity, the rebranding of this business to better align with the global Amway® brand will be complete." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the members area on Quixtar, and published on other sites as well, is specifics such as "Phase 2: September 2008 Amway Global™ will be elevated to the lead brand in our communications, and Amway’s 50th anniversary will be acknowledged. Phase 3: May 2009 The transition to our new business opportunity brand will be completed." So in about 10 weeks the lead brand for North America will be Amway Global. 10 weeks is too soon to start working on the merger?--Insider201283 (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since readers like me don't have access to the members only area we can't use that as a source for this article, obviously, though it can inform our editing decisions. If Quixtar is going to be renamed "Amway Global" while retaining the existing structure then we can simply rename the article to "Amway Global". Is "Amway" also being renamed "Amway Global" so that there is only one sales subsidiary of Alticor?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd assume that this has been covered in the business press and local Michigan media. Let's find what they say and follow their lead. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can read a bit about it here, I'll see what I can find in the press. AFAIk Amway will not be getting renamed Amway Global, however I'm told the "global" will eventually be dropped for North America. I guess it's possible the reverse will happen, but either way it will be the same name. If we're going to fully follow the corporate structure, I believe virtually every market is a separate subsidiary of Alticor. I for one am not interested in a separate article for each separate Amway subsidiary, even though they'd arguably all be individually notable if for nothing more than being the or one of the largest direct selling companies in each of those markets. Separate (but brief) sections on different markets within one Amway article would I think be more appropriate. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IHT article here --Insider201283 (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest merge. In the past we had already discussed several reasons for merging. Now we have one more reason. --Knverma (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the past I opposed the merger. As different companies, with different names, slightly different approaches, and Quixtar as a size to be notable by itself, separate articles made sense. Other markets are now closer to the Quixtar approach, and Quixtar is coming under the same corporate name, so merger seems sensible. Either that or separate articles for each subsidiary--Insider201283 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also suggest a merge, as long as when you search for "Quixtar" it is redirected to the new article. Invmog (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Merge. They are essentially the same company. 71.106.213.155 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree a merge is appropriate, and I suggest the timing should correspond to the switch from the quixtar.com domain to amwayglobal.com domain. According to an announcement on Quixtar's web site, this is to take place during September 2008. btphelps (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "switch" isn't a complete switch until May 2009. As of Sept. 2008 both domain names work, and will remain to work until the completion of the merger.Infero Veritas (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, I support a merger of the articles with the thought process of having "quixtar" redirect to the merged article, and the idea of having sections on the different markets might be a good idea as the north american market runs very different from all the others, as well as there being a wide variety of ways people do business within the north american market.Infero Veritas (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If Amway operations in North America are distinct there may be some cvalue in having them covered in a separate article. The merger of Quixtar and Amway articles will result in a long article that should probably be split in some fashion. There may also be benefit to keeping the Quixtar article as a record of the former company. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "distinctness" (pardon my invention of words) comes in every different teaching/training system that accesses the Quixtar/Amway Global business opportunity. So a split based on that would be tough to do, and would bring in a whole bunch of differing opinions. I do agree to the possibility that the combined article might in fact be very lengthy, however I also feel that there is alot of info that can/needs to be re-organized, minimized, or just plain removed. There's alot of repeating and rephrasing in the current article that could be adjusted. It may be beneficial to keep the Quixtar page (though edited as well) as a reference to the soon to be former company. Infero Veritas (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Old news is old. Someone should merge the articles now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.129.114 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Credible sources
As a side note...and I know I'm asking for a miracle here *crosses fingers*. Is it possible to agree on what is and isn't a credible source? Possibly make a list of such places. And I'm talking about like chamber of commerce's, bbb's, etc. Not joebobsopiniononamway.com. If that makes sense? (I won't be responding to this until tomorrow in case anyone cares)Infero Veritas (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on what the material is and how it's proposed to be used. Off hand, I would be skeptical of CoC material because they are known for being promoters of business, not of reliable information. But if a CoC source is used to show membership of Amway in the CoC, then that's not a problem. Can you give more specifics? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that the credibility of our own government is always in question, so I agree with you as far as the extent of the CoC goes. I'm not sure what you mean by "give more specifics", so I'll go under the assumption that you want to know what types of sources I was thinking of. I'm mainly looking at places that can, for the most part, be trusted. For example: The Better Business Bureau, United States Chamber of Commerce, Statements put out by the Government of Canada (and other countries), Local and National Awards and Recognitions by independent researchers/companies. Those sorts of things. All to often (And not just with Amway Global) I see references to websites that are run by some idiot who had a bad day once. I only say "idiot" because anybody that claims they "lost" money in Amway or Quixtar doesn't have the common sense to read the rules and regulations regarding both companies which clearly state that startup costs, business support materials, and products used for inventory/samples are all fully refundable. Anyways, before I go on any more tangents. If you could be more specific on what I'm supposed to be specific on I'll get right on answering it, unless of course I already have answered it. Infero Veritas (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The US Chamber of Commerce isn't affiliated in any way with the government... .froth. (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Credibility of sources is critical to an open forum. If individuals want to go out on the web and fill their minds with uneducated opinions go ahead, but this is not the place.  Integrity is more important than opinion. tlb  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

Balance
In an earlier discussion, now archived I believe, there was some discussion about the lack of "balance" provided in this article, with quite a focus on lawsuits and controversy and very little "positive". It was suggested that rather than minimise the controversy, a section should be done on awards, accolades, recognitions etc. I've been putting together a list of awards and recognitions on Amway Wiki. So far I've found more than a hundred just from the last 8 years or so. Throw in the positive reviews of Amway in books by recognized authors and business authorities (as opposed to the self-published works of most critics) and you'll understand my concerns about a lack of "balance" in this article. Any rewrite undertaken while merging in Quixtar needs to take this in to account --Insider201283 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

-Parts of this article read like corporate literature and press releases. If you are concerned about balance, a rewrite of these section might be a concern.--Drvanthorp (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which parts specifically concern you? --Insider201283 (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the above I've added product info including information on third party awards for balance. I've tried to be as neutral as possible in wording and include sources. Some additional citations and cleanup of a few links is still needed. For "critics" who think it may be "pro" unbalanced, note that an awful lot of awards and recognitions have not been included and apart from Consumer Reports on SA8 pricing (included) I've so far been unable to find any WP:RS criticism of Amway products.--Insider201283 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. I edited the first line to simply say it's a pyramid scheme. --Ms dos mode (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong assertions like that need strong sources. I've reverted your edit. If you're serious about it you might start a new thread at the bottom of the page and we can review the sources. Also, please don't post in the middle of someone else's posting.   Will Beback    talk    20:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the addition of product info (provided that it's not from Amway-related sources, and the fact that it's not from Amway-related sources can be verified; under the circumstances, with marketing methods suspect....), but I do object to the removal of MLM from the lead. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Very few of the sources were "Amway-related" sources, and I noted in the summary it needed some cleaning up to originals (2) I didn't remove MLM from the lead, I adjusted it to be more accurate. MLM is not a business type it's a marketing plan. Given a one sentence rewrite and some cleaner sources was all you objected to, on what basis do you delete entire sections? That is completely uncalled for. I've no idea what you mean by "with marketing methods suspect"? --Insider201283 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Arthur I've added 3 references with regards Amway being a direct selling company. One academic, one media, and one Amway. There are independent sources all throughout the edits, you might want to check that before you wholesale delete again. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Specific problems:
 * Amway sources are not acceptable at any time unless either audited (SEC filings) or to support claims the company makes, carefully stated as claims. We quite properly cannot include anti-Amway and anti-MLM sources unless from industry experts, even if they are the best available sources for accurate statements as to the company, so WP:UNDUE means we cannot use Amway statements which are disputed by those sources, even if otherwise allowable under WP:SELF, unless reported by an independent reliable source.  (At least one of your new "non-Amway" sources is an Amway press release at reuters.)
 * "Childhood friends", aside from being unencyclopedic, suggests you're quoting the source (a probably copyright violation), rather than writing text.
 * I don't see the product line detail as being encyclopedic, although those are not policy violations, even from Amway sources.
 * I'd say your edits are over 40% unacceptable, and an additional 30% not helpful, even by the minimal standards I'm trying to apply to the article. (You also appear to have reverted some benign edits in restoring your preferred version of the article.)
 * I won't revert again, but I may remove all Amway sources except related to claims (product info counting as claims). — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Guidelines suggest that most of your additions to #See Also are inappropriate, as they appear with appropriate emphasis in the text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize about "childhood friends" comment; you increased the prominence (it was previously in the middle of the paragraph), but the phrasing is no worse after your edit than before. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Not allowing private companies as sources for their sales data opens a whole kettle of fish that affects all of wikipedia. I suggest that debate be taken to a more general area. AFAIK self-published sources are acceptable sources for information about the subject itself. The great majority of article sources in the new section are independent, not Amway.
 * 2) Each product highlighted is notable in itself, as evidenced by the independent sources and awards. The company makes nearly 500 products under dozens of brands, I've quite obviously narrowed down to those that are independently notable.
 * 3) I checked the "in between" edits, they all seemed to have been already reverted, I'll check again
 * 4) the see also changes were simply to already existing articles. Do you have a link to appropriate guidelines for that area?

--Insider201283 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Few companies have as much criticism as Amway; as we cannot include much of that criticism, due to questions about the reliablility of the sources, we shouldn't include information about the company, otherwise usable under WP:SELF, which is disputed by material we cannot use. I still think that this means Amway's unaudited statements cannot be used except toward claims (including product descriptions), in fairness.
 * 2) Accepted, for the most part.
 * 3) The only thing I'm sure got lost is the Amway UK external link, and some other changes to #See Also. I'm actually not sure it should be there, but I doubt you intended to deleted it.
 * 4)WP:SEEALSO.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, with respect I think your opinion is somewhat unfair due to primarily being influenced by the Internet, where for a number of reasons there has been a lack of balance with regards Amway. Outside a small number of internet sites that get referenced ad nauseum, there is remarkably little criticism for a company of it's size. For a bit of background of how the internet bias came about may I recommend you read again Amway and the Internet, A History - Part I, The Internet War Against Amway - Part I and Part II., articles I think I've pointed you to before. It's interesting to note that in the last couple of years the FTC proposed a new business opportunity rule and after investigation decided to explictly exclude MLM companies from the new rule. One reason the FTC gave for excluding MLM was because there was so few complaints generated. Similarly, the BBB gets hardly any complaints about Amway or Quixtar in the US. Just this year, after a court case initiated in the UK at the urging of some of these voracious Amway internet critics, in it's judgement clearing Amway the court noted there had been NO complaints against Amway registered. A few years back in Australia, a parliamentarian enquired of the consumer affairs minister about Amway. The minister investigated and reported there's very few complaints. Yet on the other hand there are independent books by folk like Dominique Xardell, Charles Paul Conn, Shad Helmstetter, and James W Robinson. Awards from the UN and UNICEF. Corporate leaders doing videos in support of Amway. etc etc etc. When you consider this in conjunction with the fact that less than a third of writers to Scott Larsen's amquix site have had any direct experience with Amway, yet another third have decided not to pursue it because of what he has written (much of which is wrong), I think you have to accept there's something odd going on here, and that perhaps a look at the first two pages of google isn't really giving a balanced impression of the real position of Amway. The problem of course is that most folk stop there and if they happen to comment online about Amway will link to sites from those first couple of pages, further reinforcing the cycle. Re the UK link I'll check again, but in previous discussions some years back links to any of the separate affiliate sites were shot down. There'll be something like 60 of them, so a fair enough position to take.--Insider201283 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC) --Insider201283 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also add in respect to your first point that I'm not aware of anyone amongst the standard amway critic cadre who challenges Amway's sales data reports and I've never seen it questioned by the media or organisations like Forbes and Deloitte who collate this kind of stuff (see sources in first section) Note that several Amway affiliates have been or are public companies (something on my to do list of additions to the article) and produce audited financials. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those statements are untrue, but not relevant to editing the article, so I don't feel a need to go into detail. For example, I still find "The Internet War Against Amway" unconvincing.
 * Also, I ask you to look carefully at the "average profit/earnings" statement, and make sure it's properly sourced, and not too misleading. Prepaid Legal's "average earnings" and retention rate statements turned out to be outright false.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) which parts are untrue? I can provide sources for pretty much everything I said - though rereading I miswrote one statement, Amway UK had received no complaints, which is a slightly different beast to what I wrote. I'm also curious to know which parts you find "unconvincing". Pretty much the thesis is that Amway elected to prevent IBOs posting positive on the internet (here's a business week article on that and that IBOs have less time to do so anyway, which I think is pretty self-evident.
 * (2) I think a separate section on the business model (including the relationship with IBO training organisations) together with earnings statements would make sense if there's no objection and I can find adequate sources. Given Amway's position both size wise and historically in the direct sales/mlm industry an explanation of the model would seem sensible and almost necessary for understanding of other parts. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find a source for "One reason the FTC gave for excluding MLM was because there was so few complaints generated. " mlmlegal.com (which seems to me have a slight bias in favor of MLM) suggests that the reason is the thousands of submissions by MLM companies and distributors, rather than any shortage of complaints.
 * A section on the business model may be interesting, if adequately sourced.
 * As for "average" earnings statements, in the late 20th century there were a number of State Attorneys General who, when (quite possibly illegally) summarizing state tax returns, found the "average" distributor had a net loss. This is not necessary in conflict with the Amway's stated income statements, but deserves equal recognition, as it may indicate a different set of costs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me if I read this correctly, but you seem to be implying you stated something I said isn't true simply because you couldn't find the source??? Apart from being highly insulting that doesn't exactly gel with WP:AG. In any case, the link I had to it was for an FTC press release that's no longer on their site. :( The official report however states - the National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (‘‘NACAA’’), after canvassing its members nationwide, stated that they ‘reported there was no appreciable number of complaints filed against direct sellers that are member companies of the Direct Selling Association.’. Note that this is members of the DSA. I suspect that you, like many folk, equate MLM with any company that calls itself MLM, when in fact it's a pyramid scheme or scam pretending to be a legitimate MLM. I actually suspect there may even be more scams calling themselves MLM than actual legitimate MLMs.
 * With regards "earnings", wording is important - they're income disclosure statements, or statements about how much was earned in bonuses. That not only doesn't include profit for personal sales, it also doesn't include expenses. Generic "earnings" could be interpreted as "profit" which can absolutely be misleading. What can also be misleading is reading things like the 1979 Wisconsin study (it was 1 attorney general, not several), and for several reasons. First and foremost is that it reported on direct distributors, but it didn't report on qualified direct distributors. At that time you "earned" the title simply be reaching a certain volume level once, for one month. Later this was extended to three months, now it's 6 months. One month of qualification you could have done through a big push selling cookware, and the next month, indeed for the rest of the year, your income could be zero. Unfortunately this type of "push" approach without any stability behind it wasn't uncommon back then, some groups even advised doing it! Now, combine that with the fact that a sensible business owner tries to maximise declared expenses to the greatest extent possible and you have a predictable result. I, and most business owners, spend a deal of time every year with my businesses (I have more than one) trying to get the net income as close to zero as possible. I'm trying to do that. Not by decreasing income, but by declaring as many legitimate business expenses as possible. Home based businesses have quite a few! Now, it's worth noting that the IRS has numerous times come down on MLMers, including Amway reps, for claiming heaps of expenses and declaring a loss when they weren't actually "running a business". So, you have folk who are legitimately trying to minimise their declared income after expenses and folk who aren't running a business, and thus have very low incomes, also declaring these expenses and even declaring losses while actually doing quite nicely. What would you expect the end result to be? If nothing else, you can be sure that a generic "average" has practically no worth statistically. In any case, the study allegedly found the average net income for 139 "directs" in 1979 in Wisconsin was a loss of $918 and adjusted gross income $14349. So as you can see, bucket loads of business expenses have been deducted. Given the huge changes in the business model since 1979 including a dramatic decrease in expenses thanks to direct fulfillment and significant increases in both bonuses and qualification standards, a 30 year old analysis of dubious statistical worth (in my opinion average should rarely if ever be used for income, which is pretty much never normally distributed) really doesn't have much relevance in this article. As someone who built a business of a similar size to those Wisconsin distributors, except in the 90s not the 70s, I can assure you the expenses are nowhere near that! In any case, even if we wanted to include it (and apart from noting the age and relevance I have no real objection), the only source I know of for the Wisconsin statistics is a self-published book, Fake it till you make it. I think perhaps the best thing is to ensure than any mention of incomes includes a disclaimer that they don't account for expenses. Amway usually does this on the earnings disclosure statements. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no source of confusion here. Amway's statistics are on bonuses paid and the Wisconsin study is on net incomes as reported in tax records in 1982 in Wisconsin for the top 1% distributors. Plus we have a reliable source for the latter . --Knverma (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't measure the top 1% - it measured folk who were "directs". They could have reached direct volume once, and then been in the bottom 1% at the time of the survey. It's also data from 1979, so 30 years old. The business has changed dramatically since then, as outline above. The ex-cult source isn't RS either. The original article might be. I don't know if you saw it, but Rick Ross for example admitted in the talk on his WP article that he edits the newspaper articles he posts on his site to improve "clarity". Those edits of course reflect his POV. So dangerous to rely on those secondhand non-RS copies. Anyway, I'd argue the relevance on a 30 yr old study in one state of one country that Amway operates, about a class of "achiever" that doesn't even exist any more and a business model that has changed significantly (especially in the area of expense handling) --Insider201283 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Insider, this is the second time that you have stated that Rick Ross has made this claim, as per my edit here I was unable to find it. Could you please provide the diff?  Shot info (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We can stick to the wording used in the article ("direct distributiors constituting 1% of all distributors"). Also I am not suggesting to link to ex-cult.org. Wikipedia articles are interested in history also. This is a notable court case since it has been mentioned at least in the Time Out article as well as on 60 minutes. As a result of this court case, Amway was also obliged to disclose details of average gross incomes in America. --Knverma (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's incorrect. AFAIK, the income disclosures came out of the FTC case. We don't even know what the result of the Wisconsin case was. If we going to start getting in to "history" then this is going to be one very, very long article. Two brief mentions does not notability make, in my view. It would have at the time, but 30 years later, I don't think so. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The FTC judgement just required above-average income claims to be accompanied by average figures etc. You should provide some justification if you are disputing a statement from the Time Out article. BTW I saw this case is also mentioned in Bromley's chapter "quasi religious corporations..." cited above. I haven't checked where else it is mentioned. --Knverma (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Media Articles
What's the purpose of this section? There are literally thousands of news articles on Amway --Insider201283 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there appears to be no objection I'll remove this section --Insider201283 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

DMOZ
We've discussed this before and DMOZ links are inherently biased in this area, with a generic refusal to list pro-Amway websites. You helped get The Truth About Amway listed last year but there's still been zero response to listing Amway Wiki or Amway Watch, which are not even opinion sites, simply collating facts and news. Submissions of other pro-Amway blogs like the corps Opportunity Zone (nominated for a PR award) and other individual IBO blogs have also been ignored even after years. As such I have concerns about listing them here.--Insider201283 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current listing of Amway and distributor links violates WP:EL. At least one of them is primarily a personal web site of a distributor, perhaps allowable at DMOZ, but not here.  As for DMOZ, "the great crash" may have lost some of the previous suggestions.  If you (through a proxy, if you don't want editors there to be able to trace your IP), want to suggest those sites again, I'll look into verifying their relevance.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I think EL on this article should be limited to the main "official" sites. Once you open it up to other "opinion" or self-published sites, either pro or con, it becames a cat fight with potentially dozens or more sites to argue over. Given that fact, and WP:EL and above I don't think linking to DMOZ at all is a good idea. Re missing listings, I'll resubmit, thanks --Insider201283 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That amway wiki is terrible, it's like it was drawn up yesterday by a 5 year old. Too much gramma flaws and links to important topics (such as 'how it works') result in blank or non-existing pages. It's got potential to be a non-biased place for collating information, but... not right now. (Xu Davella (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Like that doesn't happen on Wikipedia? :) So get in there and edit it, it's a wiki, that's the point. Mind you, you gotta love someone who critices others grammar with a spelling error. ;-) The only way it becomesa great resource is if people make it so. Right now it's best asset is archiving of Amway's mags from around the world and collating lists of achievers and sales data, other stuff, like "how it works", need a lot of work! --Insider201283 (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2
The Quixtar name has been retired. Bank of America, which issues credit cards for Amway, recently reissued new cards for cardholders with the Amway Global name, replacing the Quixtar cards. The Quixtar article should be merged into Amway, since Quixtar will be retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcgarry05 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Quixtar article could remain just as a historical footnote, and cover only the years 1999 to 2007, but could be better handled just as a one paragraph summary in this article. The fact that there are ordering details that are slightly different with the now named Amway Global group is not very material. The main point is that Amway really is the primary topic - if someone in Iowa is looking for information about Amway, they are going to get this article, as they should. The fact that Amway has a very slightly different name in different parts of the world is not very important, and does not warrant separate articles. 199.125.109.138 (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than the name, has anything else changed? If I understand correctly, Quixtar created an online ordering system different than the old Amway ordering system. Is that wrong? If all that has chnaged is the name, then let's just change the name of the article.   Will Beback    talk    05:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There were a few other differences, but that was probably the core one. What has changed since then was that all the rest of Amway around the world changed to be similar to Quixtar. Each market has its differences but there is no longer any significant difference between "the quixtar model" and the rest of the Amway world. --Insider201283 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case it should definitely be merged. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened with this proposal? I just noticed that there are separate articles for Amway, Amway Gloabl, and Alticor. These should all be merged. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Legal Cases
I'm wondering about the notability and coverage of legal cases. If someone, in this case Amway, is accused of something but subsequently cleared of the charges, does it justify more than a sentence or two unless the case is notable in it's own right (such as FTC v Amway?). In this case I'm thinking about the BERR case. It's notable enough to be mentioned, but does it warrant more than a couple of sentences? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the abstract, I agree with you. However, I haven't looked at the BERR case recently; at least one of the legal cases led to an injunction or settlement agreement, which is not being "cleared of the charges".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no injunction or settlement with regards BERR and Amway. The judge did accept some undertakings by Amway, mainly that it was maintaining it's changes, but these were not required for the dismissal. This was unclear in the original judgment - I misread it myself, believing they were anb essential part of the dismissal agreement - however the appeal judges confirmed in their judgement that they were not a requirement for dismissal. In other words, Amway was "cleared". --Insider201283 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Charges being dropped after Amway agreed to close some operations sounds like a settlement to me, even if not binding. Also, if the government could refile the charges, it's not correct to say that Amway was "cleared", although charges filed and dropped would not be notable unless there was some effect on the company — which, there apparently was, in the case, whether or not it's a "settlement".  Perhaps you need to add a statement that the appealate court found that it wasn't a settlement, which actually seems notable in itself.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you think charges were dropped? The case went to judgement, it was dismissed - ie, Amway was cleared. BERR appealed, they lost - ie Amway "cleared" again. Amway agreed to some undertakings in the original case, but as clarified by the appeals judges those undertakings were not a requirement for the dismissal - BERR had tried to use them as a basis for the appeal so the topic was explicitly addressed. The "charges dropped" issue in the article relates to the BSM companies. There's no RS sources at all about those cases (bar I think one brief mention in an early newspaper article), either about them being lodged or dropped/dismissed. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Charges dropped" is what the article said a few minutes ago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your mistaken, checking the page from a couple of days ago it's much the same as now, just moved location. "Charges dropped" is then, as now, only mentioned in reference to BWW and N21. IIRC the only change I made to the text in that section is to add the accusations of it being a "lottery", ie falling under the pyramid scheme statutes. In any case, not important to the discussion, the fact is the charges against Amway were not dropped, they were dismissed by two courts. How to handle the BWW and N21 accusations I'm not sure. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're correct, sorry. The case against the IBOs might be notable, but it's close.  The fact is that some IBOs think and/or claim they're representing Amway, even though it's not accurate, might make the case against those IBOs reflect on Amway.  Relevance to Amway seems to me to be close.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're now in agreement as to the facts and relevant Wikipedia policies, and agree it's a close issue as to whether the section had sufficient relevance to Amway (or Amway UK) to have the detail added. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, contrary to the only (supposedly) RS article on the cases, neither BWW nor N21 are IBOs at all, they're entirely separate companies that do not promote Amway products nor earn income from distributing Amway products. They are owned by Amway IBOs, however at least one of those doesn't even have an Amway business in the UK where this all occurred either. In any case, that's neither here nor there except to point out the unreliability of the single source we have about those "petitions" and that even though essentially true (personal sources) there's nothing to back it up for WP purposes. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Any objections to archiving some of the older inactive talk? --Insider201283 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC) moved some. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede
I'm reverting (again) the additions to the lede on "controversies". It (a) gives undue weight to some very old controversies and (b) is wrong - Amway was not found guilty of criminal tax evasion nor of copyright versions. In the Canadian case they pleaded guilty to settle the case, and in the second Amway settled a case that was against distributors, not Amway. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary IMO. The lede looks sanitized and unbalanced to me. I just did some searching on Google and found quite a bit of critical commentary in reliable secondary sources. This article states that Amway pled guilty to the Canadian government's fraud charges. This source includes some excerpts of sources that covered the details. I would argue that some of the controversies have been covered in far greater detail by secondary sources than details about the product line. The lede is not approrpiately wigthed if it omits criticism and secondary commentary. Other issues in this regard that should be researched for possible inclusion/elaboration in the article (not ncessarily in the lede per se) include the very large political donations to the Republican party, the appointment of Amway's Timothy Muris to the head of the FTC, widespread cult and pyramid scheme allegations, the decline of buisness in the US and rise of sales overseas, the banning of Amway's direct sales method in China (after Amway had invested $100 million in that country), the Procter & Gamble legal case and penalty, Google bombing, and criticism by author Eric Scheibeler (Merchants of Deception; publ 2009). The article currently relies far too much on company sources and deals with a lot of information that does not seem to be anywhere near as notable as what's been written in the press. The additions by Piano non Troppo are perfectly reasonable. Kindly do not delete them again. If you disagree with the changes, continue to discuss here and seek outside opinion if necessary, but deleting the content and revert warring is not the answer .Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The additions by Piano non Troppo are WRONG - they do not even reflect the article, as I started. Are you seriously arguing that false claims against an active company should be included in the lede when they're not even what is stated in the article? The reality is very very little of what you cite above is from WP:RS sources and there is an enormous amount of third party WP:RS commentary on Amway. If "balance" was to be done based on coverage by WP:RS sources, the "controversy" section would be significantly less than 1% of the article. Excluding "Orlando", and thus most talk of the Orlando Magic), google news reports over 2000 news articles referring to Amway in the last year alone., almost none of which falls under the heading "controversy". And you want to highlight some 20+ yr old issues in the lede, and have phrase them in such a way that they're not even true? Please note that according to WP:BLP allegations against living people and active companies are supposed to be deleted *immediately*, not left while it's argued in talk. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. "Active companies" seems not to be supported by WP:BLP, and the lede sentence seems to me to be an accurate summary of the text.  WP:UNDUE may be arguable, but not any other aspect of WP:BLP.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * However, it would need to be Wiki-rewritten, as the use of fake external links to point to sections of the article is misleading. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagged as, as all the controversies are now removed from the lede. WP:BLP allows removal of sourced information if the balancing information, although obviously true, doesn't have an adequate source, or cannot be phrased in a neutral manner.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Arthur, how can saying a company was found guilty of something, when they were not, be considered "accurate"? Also, note footnote 7 of WP:BLP. The application of WP:BLP to active companies has been a topic of much discussion, but cleary it is good practice to exercise caution with criticism and controversy. The problem with Amway "controversy", at least regard the lede, is that where there's been controversy it's not generated much in the way of WP:RS coverage, so highlighting anything in particular would be WP:UNDUE. As noted above, WP:RS coverage overwhelmingly tends to be neutral or positive, so at present even the mainbody itself is arguably unbalanced. Indeed in discussions some time back it was agreed the article needs to be expanded with more on Amway's many awards and recognitions to balance things out. That task has never been undertaken apart from a few mentions in the product section --Insider201283 (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is substantial criticism/controversy about Amway in this article. Therefore, it would seem to be appropriate for the lede to summarize or at least mention some of it. There is also a lot of criticism/controversy in the Amway Global] article (why these are separate articles is a mystery to me). The fact that a case is 20 years does not lessen its relevance. It still remains a notable part of Amway's history that they were deeemed in court to have defrauded the Canadian government (see how it is featured prominently upfront in this 2008 SF Chronicle article, fo example). In terms of significance and notability, I would place details like this considerably ahead of mundane details like Readers Digest saying that Amway's floor cleaner is an A-1 product. The Canada fraud story was covered in major newspapers throughout N. America; things like the Readers Digest stuff seems to get mentioned only in Amway promotional materials and not much else. As an aside, the other story that I found interesting is that most of Amway's revenue now comes from China, and China forced the company to drop its MLM model and open up conventional retail stores (for the first time in Amway's history). I find it skewed that the lede mentions Forbes ranking of the company, overlooking that Forbes also wrote articles describing how Amway made false accusations about satanism against Procter & Gamble (and lost a court battle over the controversy) and another about how the Amway tools business has been likened to a pyramid scheme. What secondary source gave the Forbes ranking (mentioned in the lead) preeminence over the other Forbes stories (not mentioned)? None I would imagine; just an arbitrary editorial decision it would seem. There is clearly lots of criticism that hasn't been included in the article but probably should be. Nonetheless, as far as the lede goes, Piano non troppo's additions seemed reasonable; maybe even overly conservative. Arthur's solution to tag it for now seems like a reasonable option too. BTW WP:BLP is a policy that applies only to biographies. Footnote 7, referred to above, is not policy  (it's not even a WP guideline) and it has pretty much nothing to do with what we're taking about here. Jimbo was talking about "wildly inapprpriate speculation", not the type of well-referenced secondary source material we are discussing in this case. What Piano non troppo included in the lede cannot even remotely be considered wildly inappropriate speculation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) The lede written by Piano non troppo was NOT "well sourced", it was flat out wrong. Amway was NOT found guilty in either case, as was claimed. In the first case they pleaded guilty as part of a settlement, in the second case it was settled out of court and it wasn't even Amway that the case was about - it was some Amway distributors breaking copyright (2) The MLM model has NOT been completely disgarded in China and replaced by a retail model as you claim. You'll note in the Forbes article it talks about 200,000 active direct sellers who "learn about Amway from friends, families, co-workers". Sound fmailiar? The entire direct sales model was suspended for some time and then modified to fit Chinese government requirements. Today it effectively works the same way as elsewhere except things are handled a little different with various levels explicitly having to either incorporate and/or be considered employees for the purpose of payments. More info on this needs to be added to the Amway China section of the article, which has not been changed since before that (and many other) articles were published (3) Amway did NOT make false accusations against P&G. P&G made that claim and it was thrown out of court, with Amway dismissed from the case. They weren't even party to the final judgement let alone "lost" the case. This is covered in the article (4) Amway does not have "a tools business". That Forbes article is about a group kicked out of Amway for breaking rules and unethical behaviour and a "tools" company they had, it is not about Amway, though Amway obviously is mentioned. That's 4 out of 4 you're wrong about. As for Forbes rankings etc, this is simply straight uncontroversial data about the company, primary sources are generally fine for that kind of thing, even so it's in the Amway China Redux article you yourself linked to. With regard to "controversy" in the lede, as I've already pointed out, "controversy" is actually an extremely minimal part of the WP:RS coverage of the company. It's just the focus of the internet chattering classes. It certainly should be covered in the article, but highlight specific items in the lede is problematic as it gives them undue weight. As already mentioned, if you look at the entire WP:RS body of work on Amway, extremely little of it is about controversy. Heck, I was just recently reading a psychology book and Amway was mentioned three times, not once in a controversial manner, talking about successful sales techniques. About the only "controversy" that is mentioned with any sort of regularity is the FTC pyramid claims that were dismissed. The canadian tax case may be worth a mention too, but correctly, not incorrectly as was done. I'll give it a go. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi all. Be clear — I didn't add a single fact that wasn't in the article at the time.
 * I went through the simple process of paging through the article, counting the number of pages in the Controversy section, and comparing to the text in the article as a whole. I didn't check the references, I assumed that what was written was correct. But I didn't add facts that weren't already in the article. I added a sentence of 29 words to the end of the lede, making it roughly 1/6th of the lede. But I would be satisfied with a shorter sentence: "Amway has been found guilty of criminal charges."
 * That's, of course, if not counting the material where the FTC ordered Amway to cease price fixing and misrepresentation In_re_Amway_Corp.. That material is (conveniently) linked to another article entirely (where I just noticed it.)
 * The reason to make mention in the lede is, for example, that studies have shown that a majority of readers do not "page down" on any given Web page. The chances that a reader will page down several pages is increasingly small. (And it took me several minutes to even suspect the significance of In_re_Amway_Corp..) So excluding all controversy from the lede means that -- in practice -- a large majority of readers will not read it, or even be aware of the Controversy section. That is WP:UNDUE. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, you misread the main body of the article. Amway was not "found guilty" in either of the cases you cited, and the article does not say they were. This does however indicate it needs rewriting to be clearer! In_re_Amway_Corp is the most significant "controversy" as it lead to the clear legitimisation of the network marketing model in the US and is cited as such often. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having pled guilty and being "found guilty" have different meanings in common English and in legal terms; in legal terms having pled guilty is the legal equivalent of being found guilty. It is inappropriate to fail to have the controversy in the lede, but the exact phrasing needs to be worked out.
 * And you've both misrepresented In re Amway Corp.. The "network marketing model" was not "legitimized"; the judge found that what Amway was doing was not an illegal pyramid scheme, but was an illegal price fixing scheme and misrepresented distributors' profits.  The judge and the FTC did not find that what Amway was doing was network marketing; in fact, the findings don't seem to include the term "network marketing".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Arthur do I really have to provide the multitude of source stating that "network marketing" and "multilevel marketing" are synonymous? I can provide many sources stating the case helped establish multilevel marketing as legitimate - Here's one -
 * In In re Amway Corp.,(19) another landmark decision from the 1970's, the FTC distinguished an illegal pyramid from a legitimate multilevel marketing program.
 * I have plenty more. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll grant that one. She's probably misinterpreting the decision, but it is a reliable source, so it's allowable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if you feel that network marketing and multilevel marketing are synonymous, could you help merge the Wikipedia articles. I've been working on that, on and off, and have been as yet unsuccessful.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's on my to do list too, along with merging Amway and Amway Global. First I have to finish the infinite self-cloning project ... :/. NWM and MLM are not 100% synonymous, but enough so that IMO they don't deserve separate articles. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My purpose is WP:UNDUE. I'm not trying to make any claim that the article didn't already make. However, for those of you who have limited legal background, settling for $9 million "without admitting guilt" hardly means there is no crime. It means things such as: the crime as charged could not be proved, but another crime probably could be proved OR it means that Amway thought they were going to loose, and wanted to save face by plea-bargaining (I was in a company that did this) or ... there are other possibilities. That's somewhat a matter of interpretation, granted. But this statement from In_re_Amway_Corp. describes a crime, "ordered Amway to cease price fixing". So does this quote from the Amway article "Amway pleaded guilty to criminal tax evasion and customs fraud in Canada". I'm not talking about ambiguous cases, or cases where they were held innocent. Nor am I talking about situations where Amway lawyers have managed to indefinitely delay legal action against them. I'm talking about crime as ruled by the courts. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there can be lots of reasons for settling for $9mil other than "guilt". In this particular case there was guilt, but not by Amway. There were some Amway independent agents that had done the wrong thing, Amway figured it was better to get the case over with than deal with adverse publicity it may bring. A similiar situation happened with the Canadian Tax Fraud case. Whether Amway had actually done the wrong thing is still a matter for debate. Indeed, what Amway got found guilty of doing is now acceptable and normal in cross-border trade, and had actually been recommended to them by Canadian tax authorities at the time. As noted in the body of the article Amway decided to plead guilty and get the case over with. One gets the sense from autobiographies the founders regret the decision to do that. So, I think they're certainly notable cases for the article, but highlighting them in the lede gives them undue weight. If you were to list lost court cases for companies in the lede then it would get ridiculously large for many companies! Amway has very few such cases, and highlighting them in the lede when similar is not done for other companies gives them undue weight. There is no mention of the more than 100 cases Wal-mart has lost in the lede of the main article on that company, and little mention in the "criticism of walmart" article either. Again, if one analyses coverage of Amway in WP:RS media and allocated "lede space" based on that, you'd be lucky to get a few words. Probably the exception to that would be the FTC case, which is cited in virtually all serious discussion of the direct selling and MLM industry (and not the relatively trivial "price fixing" aspects). So, focusing on any particular court case in the lede for the sake of "balance" is clearly not - it's unbalanced. The FTC case and the legitimising of the NWM model deserves a mention as it's specifically notable even outside the world of Amway per se. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's no particular burden to add a short sentence in the lede noting that a substantial part of the Wikipedia article deals with crimes for which Amway has been held guilty: price fixing, criminal tax evasion, customs fraud. For readers who don't choose to page down a number times and invest several minutes reading, that will satisfy WP:UNDUE. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * the customs and tax issues where the same case. Again I question the current notability, and balance, of highlighting a situation where a major multinational company got involved in a customs dispute that first arose more than 40 years ago and was settled more than 20 years ago. It quite clearly deserves coverage in the main text of the article, but highlighting such a dispute in the lede is in my opinion highly unbalanced, especially given the age of the dispute, it's highly technical nature and the fact the guilty plea was part of a settlement agreement. This is particular case given the fact that Canadian laws have now changed such that the problem of setting the "transfer price" for a company such as Amway no longer exists, and as such that the original actions Amway took that led to the case are now normal, legal, business practice. As you yourself state, most people do NOT read past the lede. Even the text in the main body of the article does not do justice to the complexity of the dispute, a one or two sentence summary such as you desire can only lead a casual reader to an unbalanced view of the case. I'd note that the only reason you originally added this to the lede here was because of a dispute you were having on the MonaVie article were you were trying to also highlight critical information in the lede. An editor pointed out that this article did not highlight disputes in lede, so you edited this article to do so before returning to the MonaVie article. With respect, this smacks a little of POV editing against multilevel marketing companies. If you can come up with some NPOV, balanced phrasing of the cases which reflects there true current notability I'm more than open to being convinced --Insider201283 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's clear that some critical statement should be in the lede. This may not be the best one to work with, but there are enough critical statements (some previously excised from the body of the article without good reason) that some notes should be in the lede.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Canadian fraud case may have happened while ago, but it is still given considerable notoriety by at least some secondary sources, like this one, published in 2008, for example, which comments on the scandal in the second paragraph of the article::
 * “The company also paid $20 million in fines in a Canadian criminal fraud case in 1983.”
 * Things like this are simply part of the company’s history, for better or worse. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little surprised that the Dateline NBC invetigation isn't covered in more detail in the article. It's certainly notable and significant. I also found these sources to be interesting -- Orlando Weekly and Robert Fitzpatrick. Have they been discussed before? Also, a couple of books written by notable critics of Amway -- "Merchants of Deception" by Eric Schiebler[ http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Deception-Conspiracy-Motivational-Organizations/dp/1439247153/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258610296&sr=8-1 ] and "Amway Motivational Organizations: Behind the Smoke and Mirrors" by Ruth Carter.[ http://www.amazon.com/Amway-Motivational-Organizations-Behind-Mirrors/dp/0967107024/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258610296&sr=8-2 ] Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All but the Orlando article have been considered, they're all self-published. There's thousands of newspaper articles that haven't been considered, probably tens of thousands. How about [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/24/amway-at-50-owners-are-independents/?page=2]Amway Global at 50: owners are independents[/url] for example. Or the many *not* self-published books and documentary listed at the end of the article. There is no argument at all that the Canadian case is notable. The question for debate is whether it's notable and current enough 30 years later to put in the lede. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at the Washington Times article and found it to be a typical human interest story focusing on individual people rather then on how well people in general do. Contrast the Washington Post article with Amway.com from no less than Forbes:  "Before you're tempted by Quixtar's sales pitches or fancy Web pages, remember that most reps in such organizations spend more time recruiting than selling. And many lose money. "I spent between $3,000 and $5,000 on the business and had four people down line (under) me, but overall I still lost money," says Don DeLeon, a 23-year-old former IBO from Waipahu, Hawaii.  Take a lesson from DeLeon, who gave up being an IBO to go back to school. By joining organizations like Quixtar, you're more likely to fill your shelves with bottles of shampoo than to fill your bank account with cash."--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does it not state that the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme in the lead paragraph of this article? Would that not be as WillBeBack likes to state below "a well-sourced article with the neutral point of view" There seems to be articles on the web that talk about Amway and its Pyramid structure.

Look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie it is a part of the lead paragraph of this companies wikipedia article here stating that the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme.

Im not asking for a change to this article of Amway. However The business plan is pyramid in structure why does it not say the "business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme" in the lead paragraph if it is acceptable in other articles. Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article itself seems to refute that its subject is a pyramid scheme. How would you add that to the lede while keeping the article consistent? --Bsherr (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bsherr I am not asking for it to be added to the lede of this article. DavidR2010 (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Amway is just another pyrascheme
Hello. I am Mr. IHateAmway. Amway employess usually lose $$$ until they make their motivational tape. Whoever's at the bottom in Amway, why not work a normal job? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, we're here to write a well-sourced article with the neutral point of view and not to discuss the company itself. If you have concrete suggestions for improving the article using information from reliable sources then that's fine. Otherwise there are forums and blogs that'd be better places for general discussions.   Will Beback    talk    20:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have such references and have added them to the article. The online version of Carroll's The Skeptic's Dictionary flat out states "Amway is a legal pyramid scheme." and the printed version by Wiley publishing says MLMs in general are legalized pyramid schemes.  This more general statement about MLMs being legalized pyramid scheme was reiterated in Coenen's 2009 Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide also by Wiley publications.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bruce, this is clear WP:POV editing and violates WP:AWW] and [[WP:OR. Any dispute over definitions has a place in the MLM article, but not on articles about individual companies. One has to ask what is your motivation in inserting text that adds nothing to the article but merely obfuscates. As you well know, governments around the world have clearly stated "pyramids are illegal" and that Amway is not a pyramid. A "legal pyramid" is an impossibility and simply indicates that a source is either not reliable on the topic or extremely outdated. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger 3
I have added another subheading of Amway, Amway Australia to be merged into this article (as well as the current Amway Global) merge. I plan to do this merge as soon as time permits. If there are any problems, please let me know. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fiftytwo thirty. I think Amway Australia does qualify for its own page. Amway Australia has its own history, loca products (Nutriway), local investments, community involvement and controversies. The page is only in its early stages as yet and I do plan on beefing the article up over the coming weeks. It would be great if you would allow me to finish what I have planned before taking any action. Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.18.239 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement
I landed here while looking up Orlando Magic (via Amway Arena), and wanted to know what Amway was. I must say, this entire article really feels like an advertisement, or at least written by Amway's PR. Doesn't really have an encyclopedic feel about it, I feel I could have just visited amway's own website for the same information.--114.76.132.93 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what you get when the page is written by their PR team/people all involved in the org, with a vested interest. If you find something in violation of WP rules, then edit it accordingly. If you find some other good well sourced information to give it a fairer perspective, add it.

Personally I don't know why anyone who is paid to represent Amway is even allowed to edit WP? There are many of them lurking here. Financeguy222 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the introduction is basically neutral business info that you'd find on their company website, further into the article there are references to negatives regarding Amway. I'd like to see the article improved by the addition of the 'to-do' items listed at the top of the discussion page. I'll work on that as time allows. Octopet (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The controversy (e.g., pyramid scheming) has received much media attention and a large section of the article is deovted to coverage of those areas, so the lead should mention/summarize these controversies. Excluding it makes the article seem whitewashed and imbalanced. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest another business article to serve as a wikified model for improving this article? The Walmart article intro does not include controversies, and yet they are frequently sued. We should be objective in determining why an introduction to Amway must mention controversies. Why not make a section devoted to controversies, instead of scattering them throughout the article? That would seem to be more encyclopedic Octopet (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really a question of what's been written about most often by secondary sources. In Amway's case, much of the press coverage they received deals with controversy, criticism, and pyramid scheme issues. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Amway Global article has a section for controversies. The structure of that article is better and the content mostly duplicates the information here. Why have these not been merged?Octopet (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. They should be merged. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Any competent editor can do the merge. Just copy over the material, including citations, and leave a tag on the empty article. #REDIRECTAmway When moving the content in, just make sure to say in the edit summary where it came from. --Will Beback(talk)

Merge/Controversies?
Thanks for the input (who made that last comment about merging?). Since we're no longer discussing 'Advertisement', I'll create a new heading. Do we have a consensus on the section for controversies; address them all in one section, or in reference to other topics of the article? If I/we merge the articles, let's agree on the format.Octopet (talk
 * Not sure what's wrong with the auto formatting. My section heading didn't work. My signature tildes don't work either. This is Octopet... -- Octopet (talk
 * WP:NPOV guidelines suggest there should a "controversy" section per se should avoided -
 * Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.
 * A merger would be a good time to attempt to do this. Some of the areas can go under history, some under international expansion/individual market sections. The current lede needs rewording too, the last sentence is very POV and unbalanced.--Insider201283 (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good! I'll have a chance to start on this in a few days. Thanks for the NPOV point about sections. Octopet (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not sure what's happened with the signing, fixed some of them --Insider201283 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

<-Just to add, contrary to some comments above, the vast majority of WP:RS coverage of Amway is not about controversial issues. The Amway Global article is in fact unbalanced in this respect. The company does however have some somewhat passionate detractors (and supporters) which means lots of compromises need to be made in order to get much done. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm now wondering about this merge and how to handle it. Some Amway affiliates, like Amway China, Amway India, Amway Korea, and Amway Australia have had significant independent coverage, and as such likely qualify for their own articles. This was recently discussed in an afD on Amway Australia and the article was kept, albeit needing a lot of work (which I'm attempting to do in the face of challenges). One of wikipedia's current missions is to increase the scope of "international" articles and this would seem to fit that purpose. However it might be difficult to source material properly on Amway North America as currently it's just known as "Amway", same as the global business, and news media often doesn't discriminate clearly. The other issue is how to handle "criticism". My preference is to role it in to the body of the article, however it's common with other companies to put "criticism" in a separate article. This might be the best way to go here? --Insider201283 (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. In-line critique is best but sometimes it just doesn't work well. In those situations a seperate section might be a solution but it wouldn't be my first choice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's not a clear consensus to merge then I won't. I don't know enough about the various affiliates to sort it all out, but the articles duplicate each other in many instances. The merge tag has been pending for three years. If we're not going to merge then I suggest we take the tag off.Octopet (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I originally supported merging (may even have added the tag myself!) but I think I've talked myself out of it. Right now I'm thinking this - the Amway Global article should probably be named Amway (North America) which covers Amway Corp. and Amway Canada Corporation, which are the North American operations. Amway China, Amway India, Amway Thailand, and Amway Malaysia (the latter two are publicly listed companies) should probably have articles created. Amway Japan as well, but most coverage is in japanese so going to be tough! Amway Russia possibly too. All of these are significantly sized companies in their own right and attract a deal of independent coverage, as well as sometimes operating in different ways (eg Amway China's retail stores). The main Amway article should cover the business model and history and summaries of the other articles incorporated into a section on different markets. Many other markets have local coverage, but not enough to justify their own articles. It needs to be noted that Amway North America is no more than about 10% of Amway's business, so a focus on issues in that market is not reflective of the company. How to handle the Alticor/Amway relationship is an issue. Strictly speaking when Amway's global sales are reported, they are for Alticor, which includes things the Amway Grand Plaza hotel, Fulton Innovation, and contract manufacturing as well as the direct sales business. The only remaining question is whether to role "criticism/controversy" in to it's own article, incorporate it in the main article, or handle it in individual articles with summary on the main article. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are the one who can sort this out! Let me know if I can help with any of the copy editing once you've gotten the renamed articles/stubs figured out. And I agree with the comment above, WP:NPOV guidelines suggest a "controversy" section should be avoided.Octopet (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm actually trying to come up with generic content guidelines for company articles. They don't exist at present. In theory the companies wikiproject is supposed to come up with some, but there's not been much action there lately. I'm drafting some proposals, it would be good if interested folk could comment when I'm done. I'll post here when ready, may even be later today. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a proposed template for corporations which looks useful. Octopet (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Politics & Culture
Seems to be a bit of OR in this section. For example, the "gospel films" source doesn't even mention Amway. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article states, "Multiple high-ranking Amway leaders such as Richard DeVos and Dexter Yager are also owners and members of the board of Gospel Films, a producer of movies and books geared towards conservative Christians as well as co-owner (along with Salem Communications) of Gospel Communications." That much is supported by the source:  "The appointments, announced by past chairman and current board member Richard M. DeVos, took effect on January 1, 2005."  I haven't the foggiest idea how you consider that original research, unless you're ascribing meaning to that statement that goes beyond what the article actually states. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * seems to be synthesis of separate unrelated materials coming to an OR conclusion, by it's very inclusion, about the "politics & culture" of Amway has a whole. How does one retired founder and one of thousands of "leaders" make for a statement about "culture"? Multiple "high-ranking Amway leaders" have been NFL players, what do we do with that?--Insider201283 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Put it into the NFL article. FWIW I don't mind the sourced info standing as is - and sitting in a "Politics & Culture" section is as good as anywhere.  Insider, are you arguing that these people are not involved in Amway?  Shot info (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the point is it says little to nothing about the "politics & culture" of Amway. If we pick religion for example, the majority of "amway leaders" are Chinese and most likely Taoists & Buddhists. The gist of this section seems to be to imply that Amway is evangelical christian and "republican", when in reality the majority of Amway isn't even American let alone "republican", and based on ethnicity it's highly unlikely that anywhere near a majority is "christian". Does Amway have an "NFL" culture because multiple leaders are former NFL players? Does it have a "German" culture because multiple leaders are German? If we start listing individual factoids this section simply becomes ridiculous, so what do we report here, if anything? We need third party sources that say something about the culture of Amway as a whole (whatever that is). The rolling stone article says something about Rich DeVos, not Amway. The articles on Yager say something about Yager, not Amway. If there was facts that described a majority of Amway leaders or similar, then perhaps it's legitimate to put it in the article, right now the whole section is just odd. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And there are several other sources cited in the article that speak to the politics and culture of Amway. You're cherry-picking; hoping that by excluding one source, you can continue to exclude fact after sourced fact until the article states what you want it to state.  The synthesis you read into the article is that you ascribe to the totality of the facts; it's not our fault that A + B = C.  I think we're doing a fantastic job in refraining from pointing out that "C" (for "Conservative Christian") fits Amway quite well, as to do so most certainly would be OR.  But again, presenting the facts as they are is not, and can never be, "original research". -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeff, you're kind of proving my point. A number of sources that are quoted aren't about "Amway" at all. Why are they included?*Right now* the article cherry picks such "facts" to lead to an implication that "concervative christian" fits amway quite well, when to any knowledgeable person knows that is wrong, as outlined above. It may be correct for Amway's owners, and it may be correct for some Amway groups, but it is wrong for Amway as a whole. If the sources were about Amway, if RS and V then they would have their palce (even if wrong!) but at present they're not even about Amway. --Insider201283 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Things about Amway's owners and some Amway groups have a proper noun in common - Hence it makes sense that they are within an article about that proper noun. So Insider, you are correct that Jeff is kind of proving your point - problem is, you don't see how in reality you're just agreeing with his original points for inclusion :-).  Shot info (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So I take it you think we should put in all the NFL players, Taoists, Germans, Opera singers, actors etc etc etc etc etc etc etc in to the article as well? I suspect it would be WP:POINT, but it appears that's what you think should be done? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right - you are being disruptive. Shot info (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, no. I've made no edits at all to this section, I'm discussing it's poor content and to try to come to some idea of how to improve it. So how about contributing positively? I'm trying to find another "company" article that has a "politics & cultur" type of section so I can see how it's handled elsewhere. Can you help? --Insider201283 (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are hung about the title of the section - propose a change. Shot info (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When we're talking about sources and factoids that aren't even about Amway, any kind of "descriptive" title is effectively OR. At best they might go under some type of "other" heading, but things like the other company board memberships of individual Amway distributors seems pretty damn un-notable to me. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So propose a change to section(s) title then. Shot info (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What I see here is one user with a complaint about WP:OR and no one agreeing with them. The OR tag has been up since June 2009 and the user who placed it there has made no effort to address what they perceive as being problematic. I checked the references and I do not see significant evidence of OR either. The tag will now be removed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, what I see here is WP:STALK. Amazing how you don't consider the connection of unrelated sources to make a conclusion as SYNTH, but info on one website regarding USANA you do! In any case, this is the problematic statement - "Multiple high-ranking Amway leaders such as Richard DeVos and Dexter Yager are also owners and members of the board of Gospel Films, a producer of movies and books geared towards conservative Christians as well as co-owner (along with Salem Communications) of Gospel Communications.[57]" This has required someone to go and research what other involvements DeVos has (not to mention Yager, who I don't think is mentioned in the Amway article, nor connected with Amway in the source) and then add it to the article in order to deliver a particular POV. DeVos has been involved in an enormous number of different things, everything from the America's Cup to NBA to RNC to World Expo to you name it. Add in other "high-ranking Amway leaders" and you're going to have literally thousands of associations, perhaps tens of thousands! Heck, even in the field of religion there are "multiple high ranking Amway leaders" that are Jews, Hindus, atheists, whatever. It's OR, pure and simple --Icerat (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Heck, the source doesn't even work, deleting. --Icerat (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As you already well aware, I am following up on the Amway articles, as I said a I would, specifically because of an editing conflict you have been having with another user while working on the Amway Australia page. There have been comments placed on both the COI and NPOV noticeboards regarding those edits. What's truly amazing is that you unilaterally slapped up the OR tag on this article in June 2009 and then let almost 2 years elapse without doing anything to remedy the situation, and now after I removed it (because I read the discussion and saw that 3 opposing editors thought the content should be kept as is) you are suddenly interested enough to not only (a) remove the 'offending' material that you could have removed 2 years ago (but didn't), and (b) still reinstated the OR tag after removing the material that you felt was OR. Astonishingly, you quoted the actual text from the article in question above, and since you obviously know that the source exists and have confirmed the text, the proper procedure would have been to simply place a tag on the content. It looks as though your intention is to purposely degrade the credibility of unflattering content in the Politics and Culture section through improper use of the OR tag. Overall, your conduct is way over the top. The tag is being removed again and a 'dead link' tag is being added to the reference. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Good grief man, I haven't even touched this article in more than a year. There is one primary source for this material, which according to the information above didn't even mention the topic of the article. (Yet miraculously you don't believe any OR is required to use it) That primary source is not just a dead link - the entire website is gone and archive.org isn't pulling it up either. Again - do you believe we should list the various organizational affiliations of every "major Amway leader" - after of course defining what that is? (oh no - more OR!) Please answer.--Icerat (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you re-read what I wrote and then read the policies I cited in my edit summary. Your course of action in both restoring the OR tag and deleting the content in question (on the basis of a dead link) was clearly inappropriate. What I see here is that you put up the OR tag 2 years ago, then you raised your issue on the Talk page and 2 editors disgagreed with your assessment (one went as far as to say that your arguments on this issue were disruptive), and yet the tag remained there for 2 years without any further input on your part. After I removed the tag today, it was an astonishing move on your part to go so far as to both remove the material that you didn't like originally, and to restore the OR tag after you deleted the content. As I said in my last comment, the proper procedure would have been to simply add a dead link tag. If you want to resurrect the campaign you launched, unsuccessfully, 2 years ago, that's your perogative. But you would be doing us all a favor if you excercised a little more restraint and patience (a little less sarcasm would be nice too). In the meantime, I'll look into the content in question so that I can make a better assessment as to the vailidity of your arguments. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleting OR based on non-existence sources is not inappropriate, especially not for BLP material, simple as that. If you have a problem, how about you raise it on the OR noticeboard? --Icerat (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny how you say "If you want to resurrect the campaign you launched, unsuccessfully, 2 years ago, that's your perogative" but you keep deleting the tag. I'll try again. --Icerat (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted to No_original_research/Noticeboard since you're clearly not going to do it. --Icerat (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So much for restraint and patience. It is clearly not a non-existent source -- that is a gross misrepresentation. You know that the article existed -- you quoted text from it and indicated quite obviously that you had read the article. You used the fact that the link was now dead as a justification for removing the content. Clearly, you must recognize that doing so was inappropriate, and if you don't, then you probably didn't read the link to WP:DEADLINK I provided, which states:


 * "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line."


 * To make matters worse, after you inappropriately removed the content, you reverted my removal of the OR tag. That proves that you simply wanted to have an OR tag on this section, even when you no longer had a reason, and that leads me to conclude that, for some reason, you want readers to discount all information in that section as unreliable. The OR tag isn't meant to be used to label content as unreliable; it is a message to other editors to pay attention to a issue that may require attention. You aren't contesting the other information in the section, yet you make overarching efforts to denigrate all of the information because of one portion of text that bothers you. Furthermore, your interest in this was only rekindled 2 years after you had placed the tag and after two other editors had disagreed with your assessment at the time. You are not handling this matter in an evehanded manner. 03:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (1)WP:Verifiablity requires verifiability. This was not a published article, it was a list of directors or some such (exactly the kind of source you are denigrating as unaccepatable on the USANA article). If the web page is non-existent there is no source. (2) I added a new May 2011 tag, not reverting you edits, and which you have now reverted three times in violation of 3RR. (3) I have concerns other material in the section is also OR or SYNTH. In any case, I *still* have OR concerns, as you know I have posted it to OR/Noticeboard for further opinion - leaving in the information under dispute - and you continue to delete the tag.--Icerat (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing the date on the tag doesn't make it a new edit (and if you don't believe me, you can try reverting again and see what happens); that's just a very poor example of wikilawyering on your part. You are clearly reverting removal of the tag. The sources, as you well know, but refuse to admit, exist and are verifiable. Reverting 3 times is not a violation of 3RR, reverting 4 times is though and you are standing at that precipice. I advise you to not do it again or you will be blocked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Judge, jury, and executioner now are you? Feel free to take it to 3RR. In the meantime leave the tag until discussion is over. --Icerat (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of points to Amway and POV
}So now you have a source for the connection, for Rich DeVos, care to explain why it belongs in this article rather than in the article on Rich DeVos? And how his affiliation with that company is relevant to the "politics and culture" of Amway, rather than of RDV? --Icerat (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've made multiple edits to this article since I posted this question several days ago regarding Gospel Communications, yet you've still not replied. --Icerat (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor's don't always feel compelled to comment on questions that aren't associated with actionable content suggestions. NB: Answer to question can be found in article's text and sources already cited. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you expect to obtain consensus if you refuse to discuss issues surrounding your edits? --Icerat (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * cf. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'm remove the clearly WP:SYNTH stuff since you chose not to defend the edits. --Icerat (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to life
I haven't read the entire archive for this page (and don't propose to!). Has this source been considered before regarding the "Welcome to Life" movie? I'm not familiar with Polish news media, but it appears to be an RS on the face of it. --Thepm (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is RS. It's a more recent source than when that part of the article was written, which is why it probably wasn't used. Not sure if it adds anything that wasn't already in the sourced information that Rhode Island Red keeps deleting. --Icerat (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead links
I ran a script on this page and it found 15 dead links. Some of them may be trivial to fix, unfortunately my time is limited to spend on more article research - hoping a few of you with interest could fix the links if possible. Leef5 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving
Any objection to submitting this page to MiszaBot to get threads inactive for say 3 months or 6 months, moved to an archive page? --Icerat (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Politics and Culture POV pushing
At present this section is extremly undeveloped and poorly written. Listing certain topics/affiliation that are not directly related to the article topic, such as the interests of people related to Amway, on a section on corporate culture appears to me to be little more than attempt to imply that those interests mean the company and/or independent sales force ascribe to or push those interests through "corporate culture". This is a violation of WP:SYNTH - Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (my bolding). Various organizational affiliations of individuals are best left to articles on those individuals, not each article about companies they are affiliated with. In this section only the corporate political donations, the UN award, and maybe the US Chamber positions are relevant. --Icerat (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the major rewrite, certainly an improvement, but The Evelyn Pringle Scoop piece you've cited extensively is clearly labelled "opinion" and shouldn't be used. Given you've used it for WP:BLP stuff I assume you'll now do the right thing and remove those claims. There's also issues with some of the Mother Jones stuff, since it has clear factuals errors in it, for example Dexter Yager is not an "Amway executive", and he didn't use corporate voicemail. Amway had a voicemail product that people could hire, and he used that product within his Amway group. If I recall correctly MG published a response from Amway about that article pointing out errors like these, but you've failed to include those clarifications. There's a discussion over on WP:V about the issue of wikipedia and the verifiability vs truth problem, but I think you'd agree it's important to have an article actually reflecting the truth? One major problem with the coverage is that it is also in truth primarily about one group within Amway (Yager) rather than Amway per se. The Yager organisation (which has indeed been known for it's religiosity) has never represented a majority of Amway. In another example the article talks about "Amway Motivational Tapes" when in fact these tapes weren't made by Amway at all, but by Yager. There's hopefully some references about this, and since I assume you're interested in truth rather than POV pushing, then you should make an effort to find them. I would have thought the Butterfield book had info on this? I don't have it, but since you've referenced it extensively, then I assume you do? Please check it for that information. Some of your quotes are also more than a little misleading, for example your quote about Rich DeVos "charging up the troops" is referring to the company when it was founded in the 50s. It reads as if it's current. You've also completely failed to note the official company rules that actively ban promotion of politics and religion in Amway meetings and in training and support materials, rules that have been in place now for many years.


 * Some of the other stuff you've put in also is still about individuals, not about Amway, and thus clearly falls under WP:SYNTH. It should be moved to articles about those individuals.


 * Looking forward to reading your rewrite.--Icerat (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also of concern is that the sources used for a substantial part of this rewrite are self-acknowledged partisan, ie Mother Jones, a liberal-progressive magazine, and South End Press, which has a self-described "radical agenda". While Mother Jones is RS (the Butterfield book less clearly so), the non NPOV nature of these publications should be noted when being used to discuss controversial political issues. --Icerat (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rhode Island Red - Do you have a copy of Butterfield's book? --Icerat (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re your latest deletions, the Henein article several times talks about the source of the material eg "Coming in for the largest share of criticism were two top-level Amway distributors, Dexter Yager and William Britt, who have developed lucrative businesses independent from Amway that specialize in selling motivational sales tools." and the action required - "The court's consent would also require Britt and Yager to label all motivational tools with an advisory". The Butterfield book, which you claim to have read, also makes this extremely clear, talking about the origin of these materials from Yager's company, not Amway. As for the Yager quote, Wallace, following up on Yager talking about his christianity, says "I see overtones of religion in Amway". Yager replies "In my Amway, not everybody's Amway, everybody has their own Amway". Wallace then goes on to talk about the talk of religious overtones he's encountered talking about Amway in Charlotte (where Yager lives and is being interviewed) and Yager again says "well, that's me, I'm a Christian". --Icerat (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG! Icerat is bleating on about SYNTH and then tries to defend these indefensible improperly synthesized edits? (1) Heinen's quote starts a new section of the article in which she introduces a discussion of Butterfield's book and draws no connection whatsoever with Yager or Britt. (2) Where is the transcipt or video of these quotes claimed by Icerat to be from the 60 minutes interview? (3) Even if evidence can be provided, Yager claiming (in response to the question "I see overtones of religion in Amway") "In my Amway, not everybody's Amway, everybody has their own Amway...well, that's me, I'm a Christian" does not support the statement attributed to Yager in the article: "Dexter Yager, interviewed on 60 minutes in 1982, admitted that he promotes Christianity through his Amway group, but stated that this was not the case in other Amway groups." He neither stated that he promotes Christianity nor that "this was not the case in other Amway groups". Ridiculous! I'm going to delete this unsupported material again. Hopefully Icerat won't eat up more time and resources with this nonsensical WP:TE -- this can't be allowed to go indefinitely. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense indeed! I suggest you go and read WP:TE and stop removing properly sourced edits. (1) the entire Heinen article refers to Britt and Yager repeatedly (2) You claim to have read Butterfield's book, so you know that's what he also refers to. (3) The only synth going on is that Yager talks about christianity, then Wallace mentions religion, yager gives the reply, yager then continues to talk about christianity. Are you claiming (and you claimed to have watched the interview) that Yager means some other religion when responding to Wallace? I'm perfectly happy to change to the following ""Dexter Yager, interviewed on 60 minutes in 1982, admitted that he promotes religion through his Amway group, but stated that this was not the case in other Amway groups.""--Icerat (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For cryin out loud man, if you've actually read any of the sources you claim to have read, you would KNOW that Amway doesn't produce motivational tools. Even if I accept your interpretation of the Heinen article, Why on earth are you so insistent on including material that you know is false and misleading? --Icerat (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Throughout his book, Stephen Butterfield makes it clear he is referring to his experience with Dexter Yager's group within Amway. He makes it clear when referring to tapes and seminars, he's referring to tapes made by Yager, and seminars run and hosted by Yager. He even at one stage explictly asks regarding some of Yager's operations "Do most Amway groups operate like this?". He doesn't answer the question. He doesn't know. At another point he mentions that he was discouraged from buying Amway produced materials and attending Amway hosted seminars. Rhode Island Red, in his edits in this page, ie either ignoring this context, or, I suspect, may be relying on google snippets and isn't even aware of this context. I repeat - Butterfield makes clear in his book that his book is primarily about the Yager organisation within Amway, not Amway as a whole. It should not be used as a source to make statements about Amway as a whole unless he is explicitly doing so. I believe however that this book, and some other sources I've now tracked, including the 60 minutes video, are enough to decide notability for Yager himself. You may want to include information in such an article instead of this one. I intend to create one in a few weeks if nobody else has. --Icerat (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And where is this 60 Minutes video evidence of the comments to which Icerat refers? Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The portion of Butterfield’s book that Henein discussed in her article, and from which she quoted (i.e., "It's out with the bad and in with the good. God is positive and the Devil is negative") is Chapter 3: Thank You for Teaching Us (pages 23-33). Britt and Yager are not mentioned in that entire chapter (their names are mentioned briefly on page 7 and then not again until pages 38 and 44, respectively). It is obvious that Henein was not referring directly/exclusively to materials produced by Yager and neither was Butterfield. As I said before, this weak attempt at refactoring the author’s comment constitutes SYNTH, OR, and POV pushing. Edit will be restored to the original now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's called cherrypicking, you take the totality of a source, whether it be the book, or the Heinen article to get a sense of what they're talking about, you can't arbitrarily decide to ignore one part by calling another part "a new section" as if it doesn't apply. I don't have a copy of the book now, I read it many years ago when living in another country altogether, but I'm certainly surprised to hear your claim Yager isn't mentioned again until page 38. Ordering a copy now. --Icerat (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No that's called "the most ridiculous defense for OR and SYTH ever concocted". Icerat is inferring what the author meant in one chapter based on names that were mentioned in a different chapter of the book; deleting what she said, which speficially identified what she was talking about, and then appended a ludicrous OR opinion on to it. Are these the kind of shenanigans we get to look forward to from Icerat? We go by what the author said, not what Icerat thinks the author really meant. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My question is being ignored. I'll ask one last time -- where is this 60 Minutes video evidence of the comments that Icerat added to the article? Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is given. I have a full digital copy of the interview. Tell you what, post or send me a scan of chapter 2 of the Butterfield book and I'll see if I can post the relevant part of the interview. That can allay both our concerns. --Icerat (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Icerat can't hold WP hostage and issue forth ransom demands when challenged to provide verification for contentious material. This isn't a game for spoiled children. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ransom demands? I'm wanting to verify the material, because what you claim doesn't match my recollections of the book. I've been quite upfront about my skepticism that you have the book, and I have reasons for that skepticism - (a)it's an old and obscure title and not one you're likely to have around for a subject you haven't previously been much interested in, (b) you only seem to be citing parts available in google books, and (c) the claims you are making clearly don't fit the context of the book. Despite that, I'm leaving the material in until I can get a copy of the book. You on the other hand claim to have watched the 60 minutes video and claim this material is not in it. Is that correct? --Icerat (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More silly games from Icerat. How can this user both challenge the verifiability of text from Butterfield's book and quote from it in the same hour. My text addition regarding Butterfield's book (a direct quote), made several days ago, has not been contested. Such a blatant contradiction. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)