Talk:Amway/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

NPOV dispute

Hello everyone,

as there was no consensus reached with the user Rhode Island Red (RIR), I am putting an NPOV template on this page.

In my opinion the following text in the lead does not meet the NPOV requirement:

"Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme.[8][9][10][11][12]"

Reason: saying Amway was investigated as a pyramid scheme without saying that it was not found to be one (see 93 F.T.C. 618) is misleading and might create impression that Amway is really a pyramid scheme. Thus, the version as it is now is not balanced.

For those who are interested in this topic, I believe I have explained the reason in the FTC in lead section. My edits (which were consistent with the "older" version) were repeatedly deleted by the user RIR who, without further explanation, claimed the information about the FTC case did not meet NPOV requirement. I and at least two other users consider the current version to be misleading, so I recommend the following changes:

1. Add the following text at the end of the paragraph: "The Federal Trade Commission found that Amway does not qualify as a pyramid scheme.",

or

2. Delete the information about the investigations from the lead where it is not necessary because the same information is already contained in Pyramid scheme accusations section,

or

3. Revert to the following version (before Arthur Rubin made his claim): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway&diff=700746152&oldid=700297897

Thank you for your cooperation.

Best regards,

References

--Historik75 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's the text you have been proposing that would create the POV problem, as it fails to balance all of the sources that pertain to the pyrmaid scheme allegations. This was explained at the outset in the previous thread discussing the issue, and it was unnecessary to start another thread to beat the same horse. Be careful about citing WP:SOCK and WP:SLEEPER accounts to support your POV. I already tried to warn you about this preemptively; ignored, unfortunately. You need to build consensus; drive-by tagging doesn't help, and has been reverted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

RIR, there is clearly a dispute and NPOV tags have clear guidelines for removal -

When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

This has clearly not occurred in this case, please do not revert. --Icerat (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue NPOV and Balance in particular is an issue with this whole article. A very very large proportion of the article is dedicated to legal disputes, which contribute but a small fraction to actual coverage of the company. Indeed quite a large section is about a dispute in one state of one country! Wikipedia articles should reflect the balance of coverage from reliable sources, this article does not do that. --Icerat (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly pointed out since the outset that the text that Historik is pushing for would not be NPOV as it fails to balance all of the numerous sources that have weighed in on the subject. Until you make some attempt to reconcile these sources (see below), then what you are doing is POV pushing and WP:DE with no legitimate attempt at consensus building.

• The law firm of courtroom tiger David Boies is now maintaining a California class action against Amway in which former distributors have accused it of being an illegal pyramid. The company faces similar claims in India.
• http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html
• In 1979, the FTC cleared Amway of operating a pyramid scheme but did find it guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims. In 2010 Amway settled out of court a class action lawsuit on similar charges.
• http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/amway-selling-the-dream-of-financial-freedom/
• Amway's tie to the phrase "pyramid scheme" dates back decades to when the company was investigated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in the late 1970s. The federal agency ruled Amway was not an illegal pyramid scheme, but was guilty of price fixing and overstating income potential. The direct selling giant has survived similar investigations in other countries in subsequent years.
• http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2015/03/amway_joke_in_house_of_cards_i.html
• This icon of “direct selling” just announced that it has agreed to pay restitution to consumers and reform costs estimated at over $150 million. The payments are in response to consumer accusations that Amway/Quitar is operating an illegal pyramid scheme. The settlement is the largest in MLM history…Even though the settlement states that Amway admits no wrongdoing, the fact that Amway agreed to pay accusers and incur other remedial costs up to $150 million and chose not to allow the case to go to trial will be read by many people as compelling evidence of guilt.
• http://pyramidschemealert.org/analysis-amway-accused-of-fraud-pays-150-million-wheres-the-ftc-and-doj/
• (While the FTC found that Amway was not a pyramid scheme in a 1979 ruling, the company continues to face similar accusations by its distributors and other critics and in 2012 agreed to a $55 million class-action settlement with distributors.)
• http://projects.aljazeera.com/2014/multilevel-marketing/mlm.html
• On November of 2012, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco approved a $55 million class action settlement on behalf of distributors of Quixtar, also known as Amway, the largest and one of the oldest MLM firms.[ 4 ] The plaintiffs had alleged that Quixtar/Amway was an illegal endless chain scheme and that high level Quixtar/Amway distributors made deceptive earnings claims and sold overpriced products and business support materials to lower level distributors.
• http://www.nasdaq.com/article/the-pyramid-scheme-industry-examining-some-legal-and-economic-aspects-of-multi-level-marketing-cm340786
• But it turns out to be so much more complicated. In 1979, the F.T.C., after investigating Amway, a multilevel marketing company with a vast product line, decided that the company’s business model passed muster — even though recruitment was at the heart of it — because it claimed to take certain steps that (among other things) supposedly showed that its recruits were selling the company’s products to real customers, not just to other recruits….Yet the Amway rules have never been codified into regulation — they’re really more like suggestions — nor have they ever been proved to mitigate the harm pyramid schemes do in taking advantage of recruits or lying to them about the potential to get rich. (A vast majority of those who sign up for pyramid schemes lose money, sometimes lots of money.)
• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/opinion/joe-nocera-the-pyramid-scheme-problem.html
• Amway India Chief Executive Jailed After Complaint of Pyramid Scheme
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304811904579587910672325876
• India pressured to change laws after Amway leader jailed for alleged pyramid scheme
• http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2014/05/india_pressured_to_change_laws.html
• The Indian express: how an Amway CEO landed behind bars halfway around the world. Was he running a pyramid scheme?
• http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/28/4472608/the-indian-express-pyramid-scheme-investigations-amway-herbalife
• In 1979 a court deemed Amway to be legitimate thanks to certain policies, such as requiring distributors to sell most of the products they had bought. Since then many firms have adopted similar policies, though some either fail to enforce them or adhere to perverted versions. “I could have a company that follows Amway 100% and you still have pyramiding taking place,” admitted one lawyer for MLMs.
• http://www.economist.com/news/business/21676809-growing-battle-over-how-spot-pyramid-scheme-pharaonic-creations
• In other words, the FTC ruled that Amway would not be considered a pyramid scheme if the sponsoring distributors…Although Quixtar's policies include these rules, the suit charges that it is does not enforce them.
• http://www.mlmwatch.org/04C/Amway/class_action.html
• Why Amway case is similar to a ponzi scheme
• http://www.firstpost.com/business/why-amway-case-is-similar-to-a-ponzi-scheme-821613.html

The driveby tag has been removed again and I strongly suggest that you do no persist in trying to restore it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Driveby tag? An editor actively contributing to the article placed the tag, and another editor who has contributed significantly to the article in the past has agreed with the tag. That is not even remotely drive-by tagging RIR. Now, nobody is disputing Amway has been investigated as a pyramid scheme - it's discussed extensively in the body of the article. What makes the statement in the lead unbalanced is that it omits the fact the company has been explicitly cleared of these allegations. --Icerat (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

One single ruling, which was notoriously vague and toothless, and to this day is highly controversial, doesn't explicitly clear Amway of all of the other accusations, both government and non-government. That something is discussed in the body is precisely the reason it should be summarized in the body. That's what a MOS:LEAD is for. Should we mention that the 1979 ruling also told Amway to stop price fixing? Should we go into detail about China and India and Vietnam and all the other places Amway has been investigated? The current wording is short, sweet, and neutral. Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! Many sources have written about the pyramid scheme allegations against Amway, and there have been some pretty monumental legal actions and commentaries that are inconsistent with the highly unbalanced whitewashed text that was proposed for the lead. Trying to summarize the issue essentially as "the FTC said everything was OK in 1979" is ridiculously non-NPOV. I see no attempt by the POV pusher(s) (or its sock incarnations) to reconcile the issue. It is egregious POV pushing and has crossed the line to WP:DE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about Grayfell? The court In re Amway explicitly stated "It is not a pyramid sales plan", "is not a pyramid distribution scheme", "The Amway Sales and Marketing Plan is not a pyramid plan". How is that even remotely "vague"???? And yes, please go into detail in China, where Amway was the first (or 2nd) company to be licenced, or Vietnam, which is one of it's best markets. --Icerat (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Again Icrerat, any new proposed text would have to balance what other sources have said collectively about the issue, versus simply pushing your own preferred narrow interpretation of one or two sources. I provided a handy list, which you completely ignored in your haste to POV push. [1]

Wow. That's all I've got to say. Clearly this is going to have to be raised as a dispute - except of course, you and RIR are even arguing there is no dispute, removing the POV dispute tag. Hilarious. --Icerat (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't know what I'm talking about, you will need to ask answerable questions, otherwise I can't help you. I don't need to go into detail, because the sources have already been provided. The NYT source above is good starting point to explain some of the controversy over the 1979 'Amway rules'. Also, a 120 page OCR scanned WP:PRIMARY court document from 1979 requires secondary sources to interpret, and even if it didn't, picking a couple of positive points to emphasize in the lede, while ignoring the negative is WP:UNDUE, and precisely why secondary sources are needed. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

(1) we're not talking about the "amway rules", we're talking about investigations Amway is a pyramid (2) There's a multitude of secondary sources, the main body of the article already states Amway was cleared in the UK and US. I provided an additional secondary source for the UK claim (3) I not only didn't "ignore" the negative in the Lede, I added in the UK case. Pointing out an additional case, with additional source is in no way "ignoring" it. Are you disputing that Amway was cleared of being a pyramid in the US and UK?

Now, if you want to talk about WP:UNDUE, I'd love to, as already mentioned. Reliable source coverage of Amway that is not about pyramid allegations and related far, far, far exceeds the pyramid coverage. Don't you agree that coverage in the article should be in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources? --Icerat (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If "wow" is all you truly have to say, Icerat, then you really have no basis for prolonging this tendentious argument. I suggested trying to reconcile the sources I've presented into a coherent and balanced narrative. If you have no interest in doing so, then we're pretty much done here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I provided a clear, coherent and balanced narrative that reflects not onlu reliable sources but what has existed for a long time in the body of the article Grayfell reverted it. --Icerat (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll answer your comically loaded question: Yes, I am disputing that Amway was 'cleared' of being a pyramid: Nobody ever, anywhere is saying that Amway has been cleared of all pyramid scheme suspicions in perpetuity. There have been many in the past which have been resolved in various ways, and there are some ongoing from both governments and the private sector that are still significant. That Amway hasn't been shut down for being a pyramid scheme is so obvious that we don't need to spell it out after every mention of an accusation. Both the 1979 US and 2008 UK rulings came with significant and strict conditions relating to misrepresenting sales figures and charging to recruit members, both hallmarks of pyramid schemes. This is why the 'Amway rules' matter, and this is exactly why it's so much more complicated than just "they were found not to be a pyramid scheme". Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

So just to be clear, you think the lede should point out Amway has been investigated as a pyramid scheme, but not that those investigations cleared it, and to do so would be a violation of WP:BALANCE Is that correct? --Icerat (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, you have the right to dispute whatever you want - except that you don't have a single court decision to support your argument, do you? If so, please give it to us. The simple fact that somebody presents their opinion that he thinks Amway is a pyramid scheme does not make Amway one, unless the court decides. And the court decided that Amway was not a pyramid scheme. You may consider it "controversial" but that's all you can do about it. Your have apparently based your opinion on the presumption of guilt. Fortunately, we live in a world where the presumption of innocence is applied. When you delete the FTC case you should have another court decision that would negate the original decision. You do not have it.--Historik75 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

RIR, in the references you provided, there is not a single one that would prove Amway to be a pyramid scheme. Ironically, several of them, cite the FTC case. For example, I can see that one of your sources says: "The federal agency ruled Amway was not an illegal pyramid scheme, but was guilty of price fixing and overstating income potential. The direct selling giant has survived similar investigations in other countries in subsequent years." Can we use this source you quoted and put it at the end of the lead? Thank you. Do you really consider the publishing cons and pros to be POV pushing? I would say - and I hope I am not mistaken - that POV pushing is when you present only your point of view. I admit that my first edit was inaccurate, but the second one was certainly okay and you reverted it.--Historik75 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I regret to admit it but after this lengthy conversation I have come to a conclusion that no consensus regarding the inclusion or omission of the FTC case in the lead can be reached. Therefore, I would like to inform you that I have requested a dispute resolution process. I hope that the validity of arguments based on reliable sources will eventually win so that we can have an unbiased article both with cons and pros and vice versa. Best regards,--Historik75 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Icerat, that is also a comically loaded question. Amway was not cleared by all investigations. It was conditionally cleared by some, settled/retracted/dismissed/left unresolved in others, and is ongoing in yet more. This not entirely about WP:BALANCE, which is about contradictory sources covering a single issue. I don't think sources are necessarily contradictory, I think your interpretation of them skews towards a specific point of view. Focusing on one aspect of some sources while ignoring others is non-neutral. This is also about multiple events -as we keep saying, there have been a lot of investigations, lawsuits, accusations, etc.- and emphasizing the favorable aspects of the rulings of two cases while downplaying other aspects and cases is not going to fly.

Court decision? Yes, I do. The 1979 and 2008 decisions have indicated that Amway was, in fact, investigated for being a pyramid scheme. What about the multiple lawsuits that Amway and Quixtar have settled? Should we mention those, then? These are more recent, and the courts clearly didn't rule that Amway was immune from the accusation, right? If you think that's an absurd interpretation, then you can see why secondary sources are needed for this kind of thing. All of the accusations, investigations, class-action lawsuits, etc. are pretty clear. Amway is controversial, and has been linked (falsely or not) to pyramid schemes in many reliable sources, including governments, academics, and journalists. Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and a court decision (from decades ago, no less) doesn't exclusively dictate the content of this article. Your proposals interpret a slim selection of sources in the most flattering light possible, and give them prominence above and beyond what is reasonable.

The quote from the source is a step in the right direction, but I still don't think it's going to work. "Surviving" is far too open to interpretation here. That the company still exists is obvious, so mentioning in the lede that they haven't been shut down seems more like it's trying to prove a point than anything else. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, do you find it reasonable to accuse somebody of something and not provide a room to present the whole facts? Very interesting interpretation of NPOV. I did not try to delete the content that was already there, I just added the missing information/fact. That cannot be considered slim selection of sources as the other sources were already there (why should I add them the second time?). On the other hand - why don't you consider the current version to be a selection of only negative sources and thus POV? At least we could agree that the quote could be okay. So what is your proposal?--Historik75 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what Grayfell has in mind, or even that any change to the lead is necessary, but if the text in question were to be expanded, it should look something like this, which provides a good balanced cross section of the relevant coverage:

Amway has been described as a pyramid scheme and has been the target of several lawsuits for unfair and deceptive business practices. A 1979 FTC case concluded that while Amway was not a pyramid scheme, the company was guilty of price-fixing, making exaggerated income claims, and selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors.[2][3][4][5] In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Amway claiming that the company was running an illegal pyramid scheme.[6][7] Amway settled the case, paying out $150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs. The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[8] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[9][10]

Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

RIR, just three points:

1. why repeat the same points over and over again on the same page when they are already contained in Pyramid scheme accusations section? Shouldn't we keep the lead "encyclopedic" as short as possible and keep these accusations where they belong, i.e. in the Pyramid scheme accusations section?

2. I cannot understand why in your "summary" you omitted the following facts regarding the accusations in India:

a) Commenting on the Amway incident in 2013, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality came about." and he also said: "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible."[11]

I still want to believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?

b) The charges in India were based on an outdated 38 years old Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which had been created 20 years before direct selling companies entered the market.[12][13]

I still want to believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?

c) The state High Court issued an injunction against the CID and stated the Act did not prima facie apply.[14]

I still want to believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?

d) After the Amway incident, India is now pressured to create the separate regulation for direct selling which is still missing there.[15][16][17]

I still want to believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?

Last, but not least, you misspelled the name of William Pinckney.

3. Regarding 2010 class action settlement: Amway did not admit any wrongdoing and denied all the allegations.[18][19]

I still believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?

Now, if what you wrote is not a selection of only certain things to create overall bad impression on Amway for you, what is?--Historik75 (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I have noticed that you removed the NPOV tag. I would like to ask you to reconsider your action and put it back until the dispute resolution ends. Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

“I still want to believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?”

Your accusations regarding perceived bias against MLM (a personal attack), which you inexplicably repeated no less than five times, have no place in the discussion. Rather than asking the question of why some point that you regard as important did not appear in my proposed text, simply offer an alternative suggestion. It’s like you have no idea what WP:TALK#USE and WP:CONSENSUS look like. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Historik75 makes many valid points, and I'd like to add more to rebut what RIR says -

1. Contrary to your cliam, in the FTC case Amway was not found guilty of "selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors". That is outright false.

2. Amway did not "$150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs". In fact, nearly half of the cash award went towards the plaintiff's lawyers costs, and the class action administrators struggled to give away the award money as, despite contacting >95% of former IBOs, hardly any made any claims - they couldn't find "victims".

3. Amway India continues to operate and hasn't even been charged with being a pyramid. They continue to work closely with the government to reform outdated and confusing laws. Without going in to details, a single self-appointed consumer advocate has been the source of every single police action affecting Amway in that country. --Icerat (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

RIR, if you read the dispute, I already made three suggestions. I made these same suggestions before. You were the one who ignored them and failed to answer my questions. That's why I filed a dispute resolution request. Even now, you failed to answer a simple question why you omitted the sources I have provided and which put a whole different light on what you presented to be NPOV. Instead, you accuse me of personal attacks. This was not meant as a personal attack, it was a way to stress that there were 5 examples of POV pushing from your side. I regret to say it, but I am starting to think that you are, perhaps unintentionally, abusing the Wikipedia rules to accuse everybody who does not agree with you of POV pushing, SAP, etc. and to shut me/us up with fabricated accusations. Some of the readers could see this as your way to draw away one's attention from your negative POV pushing. So please let's calm down. I only would like to see the answers to my questions which you totally (again) ignored. Again I stress that this is not a personal attack. Please see it as a way how I try to show you that your proposal was not NPOV at all. Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

1. “Contrary to your cliam (sic), in the FTC case Amway was not found guilty of "selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors". That is outright false.”

A minor transposition error on my part. The part about "overpriced products and support materials" was actually in reference to the 2010 class action lawsuit and not the 1979 FTC ruling, and it should therefore be moved accordingly in the lead summary. The source referring to the FTC case made the statement below, which would still be included in the revised lead:

“In 1979, the FTC cleared Amway of operating a pyramid scheme but did find it guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims.”[20]

2. "Amway did not (sic) "$150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs".

According to sources, it was either $150 or $155 million:

“This icon of “direct selling” just announced that it has agreed to pay restitution to consumers and reform costs estimated at over $150 million.”[21]

“Of all the businesses in the world for the Mets to associate themselves with, they chose one that has been sued for being a pyramid scheme…a company [Amway] that settled a class-action lawsuit for $155 million that claimed it was "a pyramid scheme in which distributors rarely sell products to outside customers, only to other new distributors they bring in, who must bring more recruits in to make money.”[22]

"Inside the Amway Sales Machine (Wall Street Journal, Feb 15, 2012, Dennis K. Berman)

“Amway has agreed to a $155 million class-action settlement with former U.S. reps who alleged the company used deceptive practices and misled them about profits.”[23]

“Amway has agreed to a $155 million class-action” (link no longer active) settlement…”[24]

“Ex-Amway Unit to Pay $155 Million in Suit, Lawyers (link no longer active) Say”[25]

"3. Amway India continues to operate and hasn't even been charged with being a pyramid. They continue to work closely with the government to reform outdated and confusing laws. Without going in to details, a single self-appointed consumer advocate has been the source of every single police action affecting Amway in that country."

That unsourced claim on your part has no bearing on the proposed text for the lead, which was as follows:

“In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[26] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[27][28]”

Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

ad 2 - According to this source Amway agreed to pay $55 million to former distributors, closely oversee high-level distributors who run training businesses, strengthen refund policies and make other changes estimated to cost an additional $100 million.[29] (link is still active). Now you can see that your claim was not accurate.--Historik75 (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have misread what you two wrote thinking that RIR claimed that $150 million were for restitution to consumers only. But Icerat was right - the $150 million were not paid in cash (the cash was $34 million out of which up to $20 million went to pay plaintiffs' attorneys, plus $22 million in products) - see the links here [30][31]--Historik75 (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why you keep pushing all these information into the lead when they are already in the corresponding section where they are presented along with all the details. If you want to extend the lead to contain information about India then you also have to say that commenting on the Amway incident in 2013, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality came about." and he also said: "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible."[32] I have pointed that out before and still you ignore it. Why?--Historik75 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

RIR. 1. Amway wasn't found guilty of it in the class action lawsuit either. Now you appear to just be making stuff up 2. Read what Historik75 wrote on that case. 3. Why on earth would that go in WP:LEDE? As per WP guidelines the Lede is for "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Someone being arrested and released (in one state of one country the company operates in) resulting is no further consequences is not even close to "most important contents" regarding a 56 yr old $10b global multinational. Sure, it's (arguably) notable enough for the body of the article, as is much the same thing happening i Amway Korea's early years, but it's not for the Lede. --Icerat (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also ad that - as your own sources indicate - Pinckney wasn't arrested for "for operating an illegal pyramid scheme", he was arrested in response to allegations of this. There is a significant difference you probably should be aware of. --Icerat (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you and the other Amway WP:SPA Historik are both intransigent and not making any constructive proposals, I see little point in continuing this discussion. I'm now inclined to simply agree with Ed Johnston and Grayfell that the text should stand as is. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Distributors"

Seriously RIR, do you have to revert every edit I make? "distributors", like "IBOs" is jargon and should be avoided on that basis alone, not to mention the term is misleading as it implies Amway agents primary job is distribution. It is not, it is marketing. If you don't like "agents" how about the official term "independent contractors"? --Icerat (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

For the last time, stop being being disruptive or you will be banned. The number of sources that refer to Amway's IBO's as "distributors" is voluminous enough to make your assertion ridiculous. It takes all of 30 seconds on Google to confirm.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] It's time for you to take a long overdue break. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

So now disagreeing with you on a talk page is being disruptive? Who do you think you are? Amway IBOs were referred to officially as distributors but aren't any longer. Just because people still do is not an argument for how to word a wikipedia article. "Amway distributor" is as much jargon as "Amway IBO" (of which there are also huge numbers of sources). Non-jargon terms should be used to introduce jargon terms. Using one bit of jargon to help define another is pointless. --Icerat (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop already. You are shooting yourself in the foot. It is supported by a plethora of reliable sources. Pick your battles more wisely and stop wasting WP resources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop what? I made a simple edit to improve the article by removing jargon, and you reverted it, not me. --Icerat (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

False. I added the term distributors and you reverted my edit, despite the fact that I have presented 11 sources that use the exact same term.[44] Your position is indefensible. Like I said, give it a rest. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

False. I did not revert your edit. I thought overall it was an improvement to what was there. I also thought that changing "Amway distributors" a jargon term that while common "parlance in MLM" is meaningless to someone new to the field, with the more generic "Amway agents" would be a further improvement. You took objection to this simple change and accused me of being disruptive and threatened me with banning! --Icerat (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Canadia Class Action

I am attempting to include information on a Canadian class action, using the court decision as a source, along with 3 separate publications by law firms. Despite the fact I'm using Wikipedia markup for citing court decisions, Grayfall seems to think it's not allowed. Regarding the secondary sources, I've asked for opinions on WP:RSN, looking through the archives there have been responses both for and against.--Icerat (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What on earth does using Wikipedia markup have to do with anything? Who cares about that? It's the sources themselves that are the problem, not the way they're formatted. The lawblogs aren't reliable sources, and Wikipedia favors WP:SECONDARY sources, especially for legal issues. Court documents are only usable as WP:PRIMARY sources, such as supplementing a reliable secondary source. A company as large as Amway is going to go through hundreds of legal actions, many of which are going to be totally trivial or irrelevant. Reliable, secondary analysis is required to establish WP:DUE weight. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(1) Your blanket dismissal of "law blogs" is incorrect. (2) As you state secondary sources are "favoured", but they're not necessary. Yours and RIRs actions today are clear edit-warring, deleting and reverting sourced text without any commentary in talk first. I've requested the article go to formal dispute resolution. --Icerat (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Your actions are once again disruptive. WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTRS spells out WP policy on the matter. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY clearly states a primary source may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further". That was done. WP:NOTRSclearly states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Well-established large Canadian law firms are clearly established experts on the subject matter. --Icerat (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Again? Still? Not every lawyer is an expert, and even if they were, their statements would need to be clearly attributed. That is why we rely on academic or journalistic sources which have a history of fact-checking, and a reputation for accuracy. Otherwise it's only usable for opinion, not for fact. Here's one of the blogs' description of the case: The Court of Appeal’s decision in Murphy v. Amway Canada Corporation deals with the difficult issue of federal and provincial court jurisdiction where the parties have chosen to incorporate a statutory regime to govern arbitrations in an arbitration agreement. The decision also grapples with the controversial issue of the validity of class action waiver provisions.[45] So this is straightforward and important enough to mention as a clear victory for Amway? It was about arbitration agreements in Canada, I don't see how this reflects on the entire multinational corporation in any meaningful way. It certainly doesn't need its own lengthy paragraph. Grayfell (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and given that no reliable secondary sources (e.g. media) have covered the case, notability is questionable and inclusion would arguably be WP:UNDUE. It strikes me as obscure poorly sourced trivia. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(1) Lexology has a reputation for accuracy, as I noted on RSN it's regularly cited in academic literature (2) The PS is enough given no interpretation anyway (3) the case was well-covered in trade literature, with google reporting over 600 hits[46]--Icerat (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

So let's finish this at RSN, then, right? Spreading this out over multiple places is a waste of time. Oh, but first, click on the last page number on the bottom of that google link. That gives a far lower number than 600. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"About 631 results (0,32 seconds)", but as always google does its "omitting" thing. There's no disputing it was covered by multiple trade sources. --Icerat (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

After clicking on page 10 while logged out of google, I get "Page 3 of about 26 results (0.28 seconds)". That the case was covered by multiple trade sources is certainly disputable, because those sources need to be reliable, and so far they aren't. Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Google hits do not constitute a reliable source. This is vindictive disruption. Stop it! Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What's disruptive is you constantly accusing me of being disruptive because you WP:DONTLIKEIT. --Icerat (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Amway UK

That Sri Lankan times source is wrong, Amway's operations were never halted. At the request of distributors Amway suspended sponsoring, but otherwise remained in full operation. I'll see if I can find additional sources.--Icerat (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Page 12 of Amway's Amagram explains the situation [47]. I'll let you correct your edit appropriately, Rhode Island Red. --Icerat (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Updated with better and more accurate sourcing --Icerat (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You would need a WP:RS to back up your assertion that a WP:RS is wrong in their reporting. Furthermore, Amwaywiki.com is not a WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't provide or use AmwayWiki as a source either here or in the article, so what's your point? --Icerat (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What? You do realize that you linked to it above, right? Amwaywiki is not even close to a reliable source. The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) is reliable, but since other, more exhaustive sources don't mention this, and it seems like it would be a big deal, it would be nice to find additional coverage. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not link to AmwayWiki, I linked to a PDF copy of the source stored there, and only for the purposes of the talk page. The magazine is the source, not amwaywiki. Furthermore for the article content I used a RS published book, which you chose to ignore and delete. The Sunday Times column is an opinion editorial by anti-mlm campaigner Robert FitzPatrick, not a news source. --Icerat (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you most certainly linked to Amway wiki. The URL you provided was www.amwaywiki.com/images/d/d5/amagram_uk_102007.pdf. Amway wiki is not a WP:RS and the Amway magazine that they have posted there (the PDF you cited) is most definitely not WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(1) Clearly you do not understand how the internet works. AmwayWiki is a mediawiki, like wikipedia. PDFs are not a part of the mediawiki standard. If the "amwaywiki" part offends you for some reason, use this link to access the source instead - [48](2) Your RS comments are moot anyway, the PDF was not used as a source in the article, it was merely provided in the talk for your own edification while I found better sourcing. I did so, but you deleted it anyway. --Icerat (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If we didn't trust the wiki, and we don't trust the magazine, why would we trust a pdf of the magazine hosted from an anonymous IP address? How do we know you didn't just upload that yourself? I'm not averse to removing the line about Amway UK being shut down. Lacking any other mention, I think it was likely a mistake from the Sri Lanka Times, but these sources... Wow. Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(1)Why wouldn't we trust the magazine. It's verifiable and often found in libraries (2) why are we arguing about it, nobody is trying to use it as a source? (3) "but these sources wow"? The two sources I used in the deleted text was an independently written, Wiley published hardcover and an article in the Times UK. "Wow?" Why? What's your objection to them? --Icerat (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

How many ways do we need to explain that primary sources aren't trustworthy? On your talk you said that you were not trying to use this source in the article, so why do you keep trying to defend it here on the talk page? What's the point? The magazine was rejected for being hosted by a wiki, so your proposal for a replacement is an anonymous IP domain? It's frankly bizarre, and completely and totally misses the point. Do you understand why a an Amway fan-wiki is not a reliable host? Why would some random domain be any more reliable? This indicates that you don't actually understand what the problem is. If you don't understand why it's a problem, how are you going to fix it?

There is another possibility. The IP hosting the file is owned by TribeTech, an obscure Swedish company, and you've linked to the Swedish version of Google. Is this a coincidence? You don't have to answer that, but I've formed an opinion anyway. I think you just uploaded it yourself, copied from the amwaywiki. If that's what's going on, that you would think we would accept such a ruse suggest that you're either completely and catastrophically unclear on how Wikipedia works, or you think we are total idiots. I think Rhode Island Red is right. This is intended to be a war of attrition, and you're just playing games to waste our time until we give up. I'm not interested in humoring you any further. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, leaving aside your utter misunderstanding of the use of primary sources on WP, I have pointed out NUMEROUS times that it's irrelevant! Who cares? NOBODY EVER SUGGESTED USING IT AS A WP SOURCE. It's you that keep beating that straw man. How about instead you address why you are rejecting an independently written, Wiley published hardcover and an article in the Times UK claiming the sources are somehow "wow" which I imply means you think they're unacceptable? --Icerat (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Case not related to Amway Corp. deleted

I have deleted the case that was not related to investigation of Amway. Rather it was a tax lawsuit against one distributor who used their Amway distributorship as a means to generate deductions for essentially personal expenditures and to enjoy discounts on items they purchased for personal consumption. In the context of pyramid scheme accusation it made no sense.--Historik75 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Historik75, I actually think, that this Forbes article belongs to the article about Amway. Maybe not here, to the pyramid scheme accusations, that is true, but it shows quite clearly income opportunities. Also the guy was doctor, so not educated in accounting etc. and he seemed to be dedicated Amway IBO, so he for sure joined educational system. And this advice (though incredibly stupid) to generate deductions on personal expenditures is mentioned in selfpublished book Rich dad, poor dad from Robert Kiyosaki, which is heavily recommended by Amway IBOs as essential text book. I know, that it is the easiest way to accuse actual victim, but this guy probably blindly followed his upline, including "educational system" and result is, as it is...

(Anonymous)

It is not an article about Amway. It is an article about one of 3M+ distributors. If you think that people should know that Dr. Mikhail was trying to generate deductions on personal expenditures and the tax court did not allow it, then go ahead and create an article about Dr. Mikhail. I don't think it deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia, however.--Historik75 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not entirely accurate to say that the article is not about Amway. It focuses on the tax case but it includes some information that applies to Amway in general. The case was not about personal expenditures per se; it was about the tax court disallowing alleged business expense write-offs for a business that failed to generate revenue year after year (essentially deeming that it was not a "legitimate business"), which seems to apply to many of the company's distributors, as the article suggests. Also, interesting that the tax court referred to Amway's "pyramid-like" structure. However, until a specific text proposal is made, there is no point discussing the source in the abstract. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment about anon editing

You realize, of course, that IPs can be traced. IIRC, IP6 addresses include the MIB of the modem, among other information. If you were to register an account, those IPs would only be available to Wikimedia WP:Checkusers, who should not release the information to your enemies without a valid court order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous Comment

Hello Guys, just to inform you, Historik75 is most likely Amway PR employee or fanatic pro MLM. He is from Czech republic, where there were some edit wars on czech version of wiki in the past. He basically keeps an eye on articles about MLM and Amway and erases anything critical. You can check on your own. Any discussion with him is futile. Any critical sources (Fitzpatrick, Taylor, Coenen, etc.) are being considered by him not to be legitimate and he erases it. I gave up fighting him on czech wiki, as he was just constantly reverting any source, text, just whatever I added to balance the article. This guy is a textbook case of corporate propaganda on Wiki. (Anonymous) (Unsigned comment by 2a00:1028:9941:eb32:e16c:74cf:c015:fe5b, 17:00, 21 March 2016)

Hello, just to explain couple of things. I am neither Amway PR employee, nor a fanatic pro MLM. I am just a regular user of Wikipedia who wants it to be accurate and reliable. Anonymous had previously made some non-NPOV edits to Czech Wikipedia using non reliable sources and I reverted them and explained why. For example, the last of his edits cited Timi Ogunjobi's book which he took from the English version of Wikipedia. I found out that Tee Publishing which published Timi Ogunjobi's book is actually owned by him, i.e. it was a self published book, so I removed it in compliance with WP:RS from both Czech and English Wikipedia.[49] My edit on English Wikipedia[50] was first reverted by another user[51] but after I proved that Timi Ogunjobi's book is self published,[52] it was reverted back to my version by the very same user.[53] I would consider it a consensus.

I'd suggest anonymous to verify each information before he posts it on Wikipedia instead of making WP:PA against myself - they usually won't help the discussion very much. I won't comment on any WP:PA anymore. Let's just focus on facts and the validity of arguments and present them as accurately as we can. Agreed?--Historik75 (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Historik75, thank you for confirming my points by reacting within couple of minutes... No ordinary wikipedist reacts like you - constantly checking the pages for pro MLM "accuracy". Do not forget please, that almost 2 years ago in your weak moment you claimed on Wiki, that you have several Gigabytes of data about Amway... I am asking other "ordinary" wikipedists - Do you also have several GB of data about Amway as Historik 75 has? (Anonymous)

May I ask how the amount of materials I have about the topic I am interested in relates to the fact that you used non-reliable self-published book as a source? Re the amount of material I have about MLMs: ask any Wikipedia editor who is (not who considers him or herself to be, but who actually is) an expert on any subject (be it biology, physics or medicine or whatever) about the amount of materials he/she has regarding his/her topic of interest and you will find literally thousands of ordinary Wikipedians who meet these criteria. Would you like all of them to be silenced? I ordinarily use Wikipedia as a source of information and when I come accross the misrepresentation, I try to improve the article. I believe that the amount of material I have should not be a reason to silence me. Rather, you should be glad that I am willing to share this material with the public for free. So please stop these personal attacks commenting on who you think I am or am not or where I live or don't live and let's focus on the arguments and on what I believe is our common goal, i.e. to have an unbiased, NPOV and balanced article. That's all I want.--Historik75 (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Historik75, you know, these days, with internet, it is quite unusual that someone gathers such an info for years on one company, but what is quite usual is, that the client at the beginning of PR contract provides data to the PR executive... But lets put that aside for now. We both probably agree, that MLM in general and Amway too, are very controversial topics. What if myself or someone else wants to post the critique of Amway here? I know you studied critics hard, so lets discuss it and you can pick one to be cited, ok? I propose: Robert Fitzpatrick, Tracy Coenen, Jon Taylor, Bruce Craig, Ethan Vanderbuilt, what do you think? Or you can propose one I have not mentioned. I am asking first, as I do not want to add something and have it deleted in 3 minutes. If you do not agree with none of them, as you did on czech version of Wiki, what if I cite Amway Diamond? Would it be ok? I want to cite Roman Hassmann: "Anybody who joins the system should meet the criteria - show plans, have a list of contacts, join the educational system, and do points (buy goods). There is no point in someone joining the business, where we all buy, and do not buy. It does not make sence to register someone to buying business and tell him, that buying is not the condition. So if you recruit someone, buying Amway goods is essential condition." I believe that you will not discredit this Diamond, right? Just want to post this here, as it is well documented, that he said it and it is also in violation with essential FTC rules. Hope you will not tell me, that they are discredited all... (Unsigned comment by 2a00:1028:9941:eb32:e16c:74cf:c015:fe5b, 17:00, 21 March 2016)

First, you have not answered my question, i.e. how the amount of materials I have about the topic I am interested in relates to the fact that you used non-reliable self-published book as a source. Second, I would say that the problem with your edits is simply defined by what you just said. You are apparently not interested in NPOV and balanced article. Why do you want to only add criticism, i.e. engage in negative POV pushing? That's not how Wikipedia should work. Shouldn't we try to add balanced and NPOV text? I suggest you go through the history of changes to find out whether you are not trying to add something that was rejected as an unreliable source in the past, e.g. self-published books, youtube videos, blogs, etc. (which was exactly what you tried to do on Czech Wikipedia). You can also go through the Archives on the Talk page and find out if there was some discussion about the topic you want to add. Then, if the source is reliable and your post will meet the criteria of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE, I have no problem with you mentioning them. But let me ask you first: are you willing to share both cons and pros?--Historik75 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous, Fitzpatrick and Taylor' works are self-published, and as such are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia usage. Coenen has I think one book that is considered RS. AFAIK Craig has not published anything except some web commentary. Vanderbuilt and Hassman I'm unfamiliar with. Oh, and "several GB" of data would be quite easy to reach with digitized versions of some of the video out there, in particular the PBS documentary. Having copies of reliable sources is not a bad thing! Too many people edit wikipedia based on what the can google. --Icerat (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A quick explanation - Ethan Vanderbuilt is a person who made some Youtube videos in which he basically says that Amway is a scam. Anonymous tried to add his quotes to Czech Wikipedia. I deleted them as Vanderbuilt's Youtube videos are not reliable sources. You can google him. Hassmann is an Executive Diamond and his quotes are read out of context and twisted. Of course there is nothing wrong with buying and, according to the FTC, personal consumption of reasonable amount of products is okay unless the inventory loading takes place. Amway does not require its distributors to buy any amount of products in order to be eligible for a bonus. The suggestion Hassmann made was merely a suggestion of how to qualify people who are willing to work the business correctly, i.e. to try the products first and then recommend them to other people. In other words, if you register someone and he is not even willing to accept the fact that he has to know the product in order to be able to succeed in the business, then what's the sense in trying to build the business with such a person? That was the message. Reading it out of context Anonymous wants to imply that Amway is just like Vemma where the inventory loading occurred as it was the only way for distributors to earn the bonus, a totally different situation. Simple as that.--Historik75 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Historik75, Icerat. In no way I am interested in starting edit war here. Icerat, I think I saw your website about Amway on czech pro Amway web Amway-fakta.cz. Right? This czech pro Amway web is also my explanation to why I am anonymous - I have already been threaten to by one of IBOs. I am interested in balanced articles on MLM and Amway. Anyone can check for himself czech versions of articles on Amway and MLM. Though both highly controversial topics, there is no critique at all, which might be misleading for general public. MLM - I just cannot count all the companies which collapsed on its own or had been shut down by governments etc, and it is not mentioned there at all. Amway - dozens of investigations and trials, where sometime Amway paid incredible settlement payments to stay "clean", again not mentioned. Guys, your interest is not unbiased articles...

Historik75, I expected, that you will frame the words of Roman Hassmann. He mentions, that Amway is business about buying (does not mention selling at all) and also states, that he expect any newjoiner to make at least 100 points monthly. Up to that, on the web Amway-fakta.cz, czech pro Amway web, there is mentioned, that some line tried to do house to house sales, but had been told not to. Not to??? So they were in "direct selling" company and they are, by their upline, discouraged to do direct selling??? So what do they do instead? Only option left is recruiting another buyers...

Let me cite you FTC recommendation:

"One sign of a pyramid scheme is if distributors sell more product to other distributors than to the public — or if they make more money from recruiting than they do from selling."

Sorry guys, I must admit you both are exceptionally good at framing and using the rules of Wiki in favour of Amway, but you just can not persuade me. I have been myself recruited just few months ago. Again, no sales mentioned, just buying. Guy did not try at all to sell me anything. This is direct sales? No it is product based pyramid scheme. I can not speak for US, they might be more carefull after all the investigation and media coverage, but in CZ, no one is even hiding, that no sales to general public occurs.

If you are not able to sell, or even discouraged to sell, the only option is recruiting another buyers... (Anonymous)

I will skip your interpretation of the settlement cases and will get straight to the point. First, Amway is not a door to door business. The company does not recommend doing door to door business, i.e. selling to people you don't know, and it is well documented. However, it does not mean it is not about selling. When citing the FTC, you should cite from its 2004 letter to DSA which says pretty clear:[54]

the amount of internal consumption in any multi-level compensation business does not determine whether or not the FTC will consider the plan a pyramid scheme

You should understand, that it's not about the amount of internal consumption, it's about the inventory loading issue and the primary motivation of a distributor to buy a product. Doesn't matter if the end consumer is or is not registered, i.e. he/she could be either the distributor or a non-participant, the essential condition is that the product must be purchased by the end consumer for use (retail sale), not to earn bonus (investment). If the primary motivation is an investment in order to earn bonus, that is the sign of a pyramid scheme as it can be classified as an inventory loading.

When you say no retail sale is made by distributors, you are simply not telling the truth. Many active distributors do sell. However, you must also take into the account that the number of active distributors is usually only a small fraction of the total count of distributors. Others join simply because they want to buy the products at wholesale and there is no reason why these people should sell. They don't even expect to earn any bonus, they just want to buy the product, that's all. But if you count all these people (and there is majority of them) among the active distributors, the percentage of sales to the non-participants will always seem low. Understand?

On the side note, contrary to what you think, I can cite dozens of examples where retail sales to non-participants are encouraged even in the Czech Republic. Just because you read something out of context doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct.

Re your statement: "MLM - I just cannot count all the companies which collapsed on its own or had been shut down by governments etc, and it is not mentioned there at all." Please, bear in mind that this statement is totally irrelevant here. We discuss Amway here. If you know of any company that was closed down by any government for running a pyramid scheme, you can go to that company's page and edit it.

Last but not least, if you feel you were threatened by some IBO, shouldn't you report it to the police instead of complaining here? Just a suggestion.--Historik75 (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

bah, comes with the territory, I've been threatened more than once by anti-mlmers. There's over-zealous idiots on all sides of most debates. Regarding "product based pyramid schemes", anonymous (and please create an account, whatever anonymous nick you like!), that exists when the product is bought not for it's inherent worth, but in order to qualify for some bonus, and getting others to do the same. That can happen even within the context of a legal MLM like Amway. If it's overwhelming the driving force (eg BurnLounge) than the MLM is a pyramid scheme, with the product just masking "pay to play". But note that it's also quite possible to have a legitimate non-pyramid MLM without a single retail sale to non-member customers. One of the reasons why the FTC (and other authorities) like to see significant numbers of customers is because it offers clear evidence that the products have legitimate demand in the market place, so it's not unreasonable to think that there'd be legitimate demand at cheaper member pricing. As your apparently in Czech, I refer you to the EU directive on Unfair Commercial practices -

"Establishing, operating or promoting a pyramid promotional scheme where a consumer gives consideration for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products."

As you can see, it doesn't matter if the product is sold or consumed. --Icerat (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! Hopefully it's clear now.--Historik75 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Great explanation guys, so then, why the operations of Vemma were halted, when they used this argument, that it was consumed among distributors - 86% of products sold within the organisation and 14% outside and was told to be product based pyramid scheme? What you say imply, that it is all perfectly ok? The same applies for Herbalife, which used the same argument during ongoing trial and some commentators on Seeking Alpha said, that they commit suicide (I hope) by this. Why? If it is perfectly legal? Maybe there is not enough bribed republicans in FTC?

Historik75, why did you skipped settlement cases? Why would any company paid over 150 milion dollars to former distributor, if everything was ok and correct? I know it is unpleasant and actually proof of guilt, but I think I am not the only one, who is interested to hear from some (pro) Amway guys.

I quickly checked czech google and there are dozens of people, who are often asking for advice how to get their relatives out of Amway, claiming, that they have enough Amway goods for years... Pay to play? Or they are just getting ready for the war?

Btw. back to infamous UK Amway case, why the part of the settlement was agreement, that there must be IBOs, who are also selling and not just recruiting???

Part of decision was also significant lowering of the prices - to the point, that some products are actually cheaper in UK, than in Czech republic! Why? I think it is because lowering the prices also lowers appeal of endless recruiting as it must have significantly lowered bonuses. Right?

For me personally Amway is sort of a starting drug.

See this guy:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2227w3_pribeh-adama_news

At the age of 16 or 17 he was recruited to Amway still attending high school. He loved it after the presentation, so started doing it. He was able to recruit some people and sell them some products, though he did not have any business licence, but claims something remarkable: "I have not made any money, but it is awesome business"

And continues, in Amway it was older people, but I wanted to be at the !beginning! and among young people, so he joined proven pyramid scheme called Swissgolden and recruits similarly aged teenagers... What a career for young guy...

That is also the heritage of Amway - ruining young lives for decades...

Icerat - I am not surprised actually that someone threatens you. Former downlines? Or ruined downlines relatives?

(Anonymous)

Sorry, I will not continue in this discussion. As RIR wrote in edit summary, Talk page is for discussing specific content and editorial details not a forum for general discussion. Anyway, your arguments have already been refuted, e.g. on Amway-Fakta and many other places on the Internet, so I can see no reason for repeating them over and over again here. However, it has to be said that many of these stories on the Czech Internet that Anonymous is referring to are actually fake stories written by one person (repeating the same grammatical errors and using the same stylistics) who has been trying to discredit Amway for 6 years. Anyway, there is no sense in buying large inventory of products in order to earn bonus under the Amway sales and marketing plan - there is no such condition you'd have to meet to qualify for a bonus other than reaching a certain Group PV. And of course, if you have an inventory, you can return it.--Historik75 (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous, Historik75 has apparently dealt with you before, but I haven't so I'll cover some of your false beliefs -

(1) Amway didn't pay out $150 million dollars to distributors. The actual "cash award" was something like $34 million, around half of which went to paying the plaintiffs lawyers. It's reasonable to assume that Amway's lawyers were paid at least as much, and that if the case went to a hearing it would cost even more, so clearly settling most likely *saved* them money. Furthermore, the class administrators contacted 97% of distributors from a 10 year period and offered them cash and products, no strings attached. After initially requiring evidence they lost money to get the cash the administrators couldn't find enough "victims" to give away the money too, so they accepted people just claiming (with no evidence) that they lost money through Amway. They still couldn't give away all the money. Remember, this is independent people contacting 97% of all North American Amway/Quixtar IBOs from over a decade, offering them cash, no strings attached, no proof required, if they felt they made a loss with Amway, and only a tiny percent said "yes". Where are all the victims?

(2) They did not settle the same case in Canada, and Amway won, with costs awarded to Amway.

(3) The "selling" requirements in the UK were implemented by Amway, not the court, and were actually *easier* than the rules before the case arose. The court explicitly stated they would have cleared Amway even if they'd made no changes.

(4) Amway UK lowered prices on something like a dozen products out of hundreds. Not such a big deal. Amway products have always been priced differently in different markets, as pricing is at least partly based on an analysis of competitor products in that market. In the case of the BERR vs Amway UK case, prior to the official complaint being registered BERR refused to actually explain to Amway what problem(s) they had with the model - something the judge criticised BERR for. Amway, not least in some desperation, took a wide broom to any problems they could identify, including "firing" a bunch of Diamonds, lowering prices on a small number of products, and implementing some other changes. IMO it's legitimate to criticise Amway for needing the threat of a court case to identify and rectify problems - they should be monitoring and rectifying problems constantly, not just because a complaint arose.

(5) I couldn't understand the video unfortunately, but it (a) is normal for it to take many months or even years of work to make money in a new business. Same with MLM - legitimate businesses take time and effort to reach profitability. It seems strange to me that people like yourself criticise MLM because it's not a "get rich quick" scheme! (b) I haven't investigated Swissgolden so can't comment on it

(6) I never lost a friend (or relative) and made many when I was building an Amway business. The threats came from anti-MLM obsessives who hold false beliefs and often spread false information about the company and business model on the internet - and don't like it when I call them out. I reiterate the findings of the class action settlement - they struggled to find "victims".

Amway is not a perfect company and MLM is not a perfect business model, but neither is any other. What concerns me is that a lot of the misinformation and misunderstandings spread by anti-mlmers actually makes it easier for the real scammers to operate as the FUD makes it harder for consumers to distinguish illegitimate pyramids from legitimate business opportunities. --Icerat (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

|}

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Amway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110929144059/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Amway-offices-raided-at-nine-places/Article1-730172.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Amway-offices-raided-at-nine-places/Article1-730172.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131105211544/http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/story.php?id=112554 to http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/story.php?id=112554
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130613141113/http://www.deccanchronicle.com:80/130608/news-current-affairs/article/kozhikode-court-lifts-freeze-amway-offices to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130608/news-current-affairs/article/kozhikode-court-lifts-freeze-amway-offices

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

/* Pyramid scheme accusations */ anonymous edit not supported by any RS removed

Two unsourced edits made by anonymous users (IP: 118.92.38.244 13 November 2013, 10:37, and IP: 66.215.89.177, 28 November 2013, 23:00) removed.--Historik75 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Amway India (Andhra Pradesh and Kerala)

Again, no need to remove the text. Found the sources and re-added text with the references.--Historik75 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

/* eSpring */ text re-added, supported by new secondary sources

Rhode Island Red, there was no need to delete the whole text. Next time instead of removing the content, please try to find alternative sources. I have found some WP:RS to support a slightly modified original text, so I re-added it and included the references.--Historik75 (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Re "It was the first system to combine a carbon block filter and ultraviolet light..." The text is not a quotation of an Amway source. The references in the apropriate paragraphs do not cite anybody.--Historik75 (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, in the first source it was a quotation of Amway source, but the other one [55] did not quote Amway.--Historik75 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear about something, while secondary sources are preferable, it's perfectly OK to use Amway as a source about Amway, see WP:SELFSOURCE --Icerat (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's OK to use Amway as source for statements about Amway as long as the text is attributed accordingly, and of course assuming the detail in question is non-controversial or contradicted by secondary sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

And the eSpring text was neither controversial, nor contradicted, Red. --Icerat (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://quixtar-response.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Dateline NBC

Rhode Island Red deleted a series of text, claiming it failed verification -

In a response to Dateline NBC, Quixtar published a web site pointing out, among others, that:

"We learned that two Dateline producers had registered as IBOs and for months had been conducting undercover research for the story, which included using a hidden camera to videotape meetings and conversations with IBOs. The producers did not identify themselves as working for Dateline, instead feigning interest in building a business powered by Quixtar."

The site also stated that:

"Dateline's story on Quixtar boiled down to the complaints of three former Independent Business Owners (IBOs) – one of whom is a competitor – and ignored the hundreds of thousands of IBOs powered by Quixtar who are achieving their goals."

However the text is verbatim in the cited source, Quixtar's response website. Please explain.--Icerat (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Sure. The book you cite as the source for this does not identify the website in question nor does it include the quoted text that was added to the article. Therefore it is WP:SYNTH. Simple. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, and the website owner can be verified here: http://who.is/whois/quixtar-response.com, i.e. there is no reason to remove the quotation.--Historik75 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually it can't there, since the domain is no longer registered. However it can be done here[56], though there's a fee. I added the Jone's reference as support since it directly refers to them creating the site and has much the same info as to their response, though not directly quoted. --Icerat (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, at first the details appeared when I entered quixtar-response.com into the search field... never mind, we can use another link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080315051338/http://www.quixtarresponse.com/

At the bottom of the page it says: Alticor is the parent company of Quixtar Inc. | Amway Corp. | Access Business Group, © 1999-2006, Quixtar Inc.--Historik75 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

much better link, fixed. --Icerat (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The site www.quixtarresponse.com/ isn;t registred to Amway either.[57] and therefore cannot be used. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It was registered to Amway (then Quixtar) and is stored in archive.org, complete with copyright notices. Furthermore anyone with a Domaintools membership can confirm historical whois information to see who owned it at the time. Who owns it now is irrelevant. If you have a problem take it to WP:RSN--Icerat (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The owner of the second site has changed since then, but the original owner of both sites at the time of publication was Quixtar. BTW: There is a contact information on the website and copyright info. Moreover, the original owner of quixtar-response.com can be verified on http://research.domaintools.com (paid service). No reason to remove the link.

Moreover, there was a link on the official Quixtar website to www.quixtarresponse.com (see the section Related sites): https://web.archive.org/web/20041031084413/http://www.quixtar.com/ --Historik75 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, the text you are inserting violates WP:SYNTH as the first source does not identify the site by name. Secondly, the text you inserted gives undue weight to Awmay's nebulous (and alleged) response. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RIR, you haven't reacted to the facts I presented, i.e. there is a contact information on the website and copyright info - both of them mentioning Quixtar. Moreover, the original owner of both sites is verifiable on http://research.domaintools.com. And of course, there was a link on the official Quixtar website to www.quixtarresponse.com (see the section Related sites): https://web.archive.org/web/20041031084413/http://www.quixtar.com/ There are several ways of verifying that www.quixtarresponse.com and www.quixtar-response.com were owned by Alticor/Quixtar at the time of their first publication. Your attempt to remove the link and the quotation is unjustifiable. Are we going to take it to WP:RSN?--Historik75 (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is another proposal with another wording:

In a response to Dateline NBC, Quixtar published a link to "Dateline Quixtar Response" on its official website. The response, among others, pointed out that:...

How about that? Still don't believe that quixtarresponse.com belonged to Quixtar at that time?--Historik75 (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

References

RIR, what are you talking about? The first source supports the statement Quixtar responded with a website. The second source is the actual website, published by Quixtar. The claims are verifiable and from RS. --Icerat (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I have incorporated the above mentioned modification to the text. It now reflects the fact that the link to quixtarresponse.com site was published on the official quixtar.com website. I would suggest RIR to please stop the disruptive editing. If he has a proof that quixtarresponse.com was not an official response website and the link to this site was published by Quixtar on its official website by mistake, then please take it to the WP:RSN. BTW: the site owner is verifiable, so the removal of text was unjustified.--Historik75 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Pyramid scheme allegations text deletion 1

Rhode Island Red stated the following is not NPOV and removed it[58] -

"Courts, however, have repeatedly dismissed the pyramid scheme allegations" .

This is almost a direct quote from an RS -

"The courts, however, have repeatedly ruled in Amway's favor when plaintiffs have claimed that the company operates an illegal pyramid scheme" (p.179)

And it is factual, no POV involved, please explain --Icerat (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

At first glance, it appears not to be a reliable source. Notable, perhaps, so it could be listed with attribution. At second glance, it appears to be a severely biased source, whether or not "reliable", so it might still be used with attribution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think it's (a) not reliable and (b) "severely biased"? --Icerat (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Pyramid scheme allegations text deletion 2

Rhode Island Red reverted removal of the following text -

Harvard Business School of Leadership , which described Amway as "one of the most profitable direct selling companies in the world", noted that Amway founders Van Andel and DeVos "accomplished their success through the use of an elaborate pyramid-like distribution system in which independent distributors of Amway products received a percentage of the merchandise they sold and also a percentage of the merchandise sold by recruited distributors". Robert Carroll, of the Skeptic's Dictionary, has described Amway as a "legal pyramid scheme", and has said that the quasi-religious devotion of its affiliates is used by the company to conceal poor performance rates by distributors.

References

None of the text apart from Carrol's description of it as a "legal pyramid scheme" is related to "pyramid scheme allegations". --Icerat (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The term "pyramid-like distribution system" is not equivalent to "pyramid scheme". Two different terms with different meaning, i.e. the text about "pyramid-like distribution system" should be included elsewhere or deleted as it doesn't tell anything.--Historik75 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that when the author used the words "pyramid scheme: that he didn't mean "pyramid scheme". That's a highly tendentious argument to say the least. Doesn't fly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RIR, you apparently missed the point. We were not discussing Robert Carrol. We discussed the term "pyramid-like distribution system" used in the connection with Harvard Business School article. Nowhere it says that Amway is a pyramid scheme, rather it says Amway uses pyramid-like distribution system, which is whole different thing. Moved the sentence to appropriate section, where it belongs.--Historik75 (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This one is complicated. Absent a reliable source which specifically distinguishes "pyramid-like distribution system" from "(legal) pyramid scheme" (well, I've never seen one), we might conclude that they are the same. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not complicated at all, there's no such thing as a "legal pyramid scheme". It's an oxymoron. Legal authorities around the world are extremely clear on that. The idea of a "legal pyramid scheme" is sourced to a handful of obviously not very reliable sources. --Icerat (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see anything complicated about it. A term "pyramid-like distribution system" simply doesn't contain a word "scheme". If we are going to assume that "pyramid-like distribution system" is the same as "pyramid scheme", than are we going to assume that "Egyptian pyramids" or the Pyramid Party of India are the same as "pyramid schemes"? We should only present the facts, not what we think.--Historik75 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Amway: Cult of Free Enterprise

Simple question Rhode Island Red - do you have a copy of the book and have you read it? He goes in to detail about how he joined the Yager group, how this was a personal story, and how it may not apply to other groups. He regularly says things like "In the Yager line". There is simply no basis for deleting the reference. --Icerat (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Taking one sentence out of the whole context is unacceptable.--Historik75 (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

60 minutes

The Yager interview in question is on youtube, with the religion section starting at 15:10 [59]. Brief relevant transcript -

Mike Wallace: "I see overtones of religion in Amway."

Dexter Yager: "In my Amway. Not everybody's Amway. Everybody has their own Amway."

Dexter's statement has absolutely no weight as to "others'" Amway. I don't know know what this is intended to support, but it doesn't support anything that should be in the article. He can report that he sees/saw religion in Amway, but he is not a reliable source for any claims that it is not prevalent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some other relevant comment in the interview which would support the statement that religion is not prevalent, but it seems unlikely; and with potential WP:BLP considerations, it should be gone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so let me see. A distributor who was in Yager's group for a short time is OK for a source on prevalence of religion in Amway, but another distributor with far more experience (Yager) is not? Could you explain your thinking behind that?--Icerat (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Arthur, what you are basically saying is that we should take his statements out of context, letting him admit that in his Amway there are overtones of Christianity and hiding his statement that it is not part of everybody's Amway? Do you consider it to be WP:BALANCE? I do not. If we want to quote him, we should quote the whole context also.--Historik75 (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have re-added a slightly modified text according to WP:BALANCE. Yager, interviewed on 60 minutes in 1982, admitted that he promotes Christianity through his Amway group, but stated that this might not be the case in other Amway groups. This should be okay.--Historik75 (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.quixtaraccreditation.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)