Talk:YTB International

Removing "Pinnacle Award"
I can find no reliable secondary sources indicating what that the Pinnacle Award given by Carnival Cruise Lines is in any way a significant or noteworthy award. A quick Google search overwhelmingly demonstrated that it's just something a few travel agencies use to toot their own horns. The first result I got was a press releases issued by YTB, with very little else on offer. Since it doesn't actually give any meaningful information about the business, I am removing the mention. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The pinnacle award is an award given by Carnival Cruise Lines to its top producing travel agencies. I contacted Carnival Cruise Lines to inquire about its "weight" and it is indeed a real award given to top producing agencies.KillTheRumor (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please show a wp:rs citation here. Jim1138 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Condition of the article.
Is this version worse than the current one? If there are problems with due/undue weight, we can discuss it, but the current version is badly sourced (many are simply numbers in brackets without any source attached at all), promotionally written ("Their presence is being felt by the travel industry"), and glosses over a number of well covered complaints and problems (reliable sources agree that the state lawsuits were a direct contributing factor in the company's bankruptcy) while adding a bunch of NN peacock garbage as filler ("In 2010, YTB hosted another National convention"). It's also completely devoid of Wikilinks, which makes it a WP:DEADEND.

If the section on their business model can be summarized in a encyclopedic way, I don't have any problem with it being updated using primary sources. Replacing the whole article with PR is not a good way to address that problem, though.

The recurring complaint by User:KillTheRumor that the sources of the previous version aren't current is bogus, since Wikipedia articles are supposed to take a historical view. Just because a source is old doesn't mean it's no-longer valid. The sources aren't even that old. The current sources are predominantly press releases and other WP:PRIMARY bits that fail to establish due weight. User:Jim1138 will probably see this without the ping, but he added the tags, so I'll invite him to comment too. For the record, I do not have a conflict of interest with YTB Travel. I remind KillTheRumor to comment on edits, not editors. Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say it looks much worse. There are way too many primary sources which should be replaced with RS. Some of the primary sources need RS backup. Pricing should be removed per WP:NOPRICES. The History and Business model section is more promotional than informative. The Lawsuits section seems to downplay the outcome of the lawsuits. Jim1138 (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The complaint is valid User:Greyfell The way you had edited the article and the main reason I changed it was due to the fact that you place the 6 year old "alleged" pyramid scheme and deceptive marketing at the forefront of the wiki article as if it were current without stating that this is a 6 year old complaint that was resolved in 2010 - 4 years ago and that the constituents were never found guilty of anything. This is an edit that belongs under lawsuits where it is appropriately placed and referenced. Historically, they did win the Pinnacle award at least 4 times and although I am waiting on Carnival Cruise Lines to provide a document to state that this is a valid award given by their company to leading or worthy travel agencies, I do have a link to a photograph and article of a Carnival Executive presenting YTB former, now deceased, president J. Kim Sorensen with the award. I meant no offense when stating that you have a conflict of interest here with this company, but I think it may be MLM altogether, seeing that you have edited several wiki's that are MLM based. You flagged the article stating that "a  major contributor" has a personal interest/conflict of interest. I do not. I stated previously that I was going to start with one article and learn. I am new to all of this so please forgive my clumsy citing skills and referencing skills, I promise to get better.  I will go in and remove the pricing. User:Greyfell had placed incorrect pricing and inaccurate information within the article stating that people paid $249 to recruit others and that is simply not true. The person who purchases their website for $249 buys the site to sell travel and travel packages and may not recruit. They cannot recruit UNLESS they  sign up separately to participate in the other side of the business, the marketing arm of YTB Intl. and that other entity in the YTB business is free. They do not charge anyone to recruit.  However,  if they do not want to buy the site for $249, they can still sign up and recruit for free. I have studied this case from the beginning with California because of its profile and the loss that California suffered. They sued for $25 million and lost out with less than $1 million total and tat was for court costs and fees and restitution should a former agent request restitution. (Which most did not - Califormnia is broke so they kept the $$ as stated in the final docs). Studying the lawsuit to see the reasons for the complaint and the reason for the lengthy trial was interesting to say the least and I learned the business model as it was explained several times. This is an essential point to be sustained in the article to make it clear to readers to understand the two points of the company and its business model and to eliminate further confusion. It is not designed to promote the company but to make ones understanding clear when interpreting the business model. I am willing to work with you Greyfell, however, removing the truth to continually replace it with old information and not allowing the true and current information to be listed in chronological order is not congruent with a good wiki article. EX: You removed the BBB rating and removed the Travel Impressions awards among other information just to replace it with outdated negative information. BOTH are in the article now and I believe they should stand. KillTheRumor (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The History section lacks lawsuits, bans, and bankruptcy. It is promotional only and needs to be "warts and all" or removed. BTW: you misspelled . Jim1138 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Historical information should be included just as with the awards. It happened and there is no need to "sweep it under the rug". Jim1138 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * prnewswire.com is unlikely to be a wp:RS By the name, I would say it is paid advocacy. Googling ""YTB International" Pyramid" returns 8500 hits. Not a small number. The class action lawsuit was reinstated here upon appeal so the paragraph is misleading and incomplete. The claim of "no current lawsuits" is not supported by citation and, given the reinstatement of the class action, should be removed. The more I read, the more the article appears to be whitewashed. Jim1138 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup, sounds about right. I tried to integrate some of the lawsuit and bankruptcy sections into the history sections, since they seemed relevant to the company at large. In the process, I expanded the bankruptcy section. This made the pyramid scheme accusations more prominent, since those accusations have been a prominent point of discussion in virtually all substantial secondary WP:RS I could find. Yes, it was 6 years ago. The Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster started in 1927, and it's prominently listed in the history of Union Carbide because sources discuss it as a prominent part of the company's history. Just because something unflattering happened in the past doesn't mean it should be erased from the article. The pyramid scheme allegations (from a noteworthy person, no less) are significant to the company's history, as they caused significant changes in its business practices, and were also directly linked to a large decline in revenue. This led to bankruptcy, and to being acquired by a new owner. All reliable, secondary sources support this. Rather than list a bunch of unweighted factoids in a timeline, why not use the sources to explain the actual history of the company?


 * As I said, the info on the business model is out-dated, and I'm glad to see someone so enthusiastic to update it. However, KillTheRumor, it has a serious problem. Your statement that the company doesn't require a membership fee to recruit other members is not supported by the source. You just linked to the company's main site, which is not helpful. If there is a specific document on that site explaining the company's business model, use it! Don't make the reader do your job. If you can't find a source, don't include the info. If it's not WP:V, then it doesn't belong in the article. It's that simple.


 * As for the pricing thing, that's a good point. That guideline is only applicable to current prices if there isn't a good reason to mention them and a source. It does not apply to sourced, relevant historical ones, like the $450 down/$50 a month websites from before the company restructured, which was a major impetus behind the pyramid scheme accusations.


 * Here's a proposition: We do a partial revert. The history and lawsuit section from the older version, but we use the current business model section as a jumping-off point for a rewrite. Any sort of "awards" section needs WP:SECONDARY sources (that means not a press release from the company, and also not from the organization issuing the award) before being included, that includes the BBB rating. This is a pretty standard criteria for inclusion. If you have a problem with that, please use Wikipedia policy and guidelines to make your case, rather than simply insisting that you are being unbiased, or pointing out that my edit history has some MLM companies in it.


 * If you know of more flattering secondary sources, please bring them here. I recommend reviewing WP:RS before you do, however. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Since there hasn't been any response, I've made that change. I plan to continue expanding the article's history section, as well. There are sources indicating that the company was acquired by ac company named Sixth Scott in 2011, which seems like it might be worth including. Any mention of the national conventions should be supported by WP:SECONDARY sources. Not by Facebook pages or press releases, or such. Grayfell (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

YTB's travel-agency branch doesn't appear to exist anymore.
This source: suggests that YTB's travel agency arm hasn't existed since Oct. 2012, having been absorbed by a newly formed company First Travel Alliance. The sources makes it clear that the company is no-longer MLM. This raises the important question: what the heck does YTB actually do anymore? Is it an MLM promotion and marketing company that recruits for a different, non-MLM company with a different name? I mean... that's possible, but I feel like I must be missing something. I'll keep looking into it, but if anybody wants to clue me in, that would be great. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Judging by their website, the company seems to still be somewhat active, and their website suggest they are still doing pretty much the same business model as always. Their event listings includes recent (a couple of days ago as of this posting) "Giants CEO Tour" with Scott Tomer, who was reported as having resigned in 2012. Strange. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing business model
I am removing the business model section as it is puffery and is stated that the company is an MLM in numerous sections. Tipaloo (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)