Talk:Southwestern Advantage/Archives/2012

Removed Newspaper & Magazine Section

This section contributes nothing to knowledge about the company. I have removed it, again, completely.

Removed Noteworthy Alumni Section

The section is without a source completely. It obviously needs to be cited - but as not a single one is cited, I will remove the whole thing.

Discussion: Changes and Opinions

Erichahnwilhelm: This is not an advertisement in any means. It is the description of a company that has been a great program to help college students learn important life skills including communication, organization, and marketing. It has been around for over 150 years and is much more than a book publishing company. It is a person building program.

I fixed it.24.120.168.55 06:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

24.87.105.19: I do not believe this company to be a person building program. The Better Business Bureau is a business funded organization so this doesn't do much to accredit the reputation of southwestern. I have heard from various articles that this is merely a company akin to Noevir. An illegitimate, exploitive program which markets an inferior product.

• note Nanger: This is Opinion by anon user 24.87.105.19

24.87.105.19: Added reference for why Southwestern is a company with a dangerous reputation in europe. There are several other examples but I do not feel it is necessary to further evidence something that is already blatent from the first reference.

24.87.105.19: Changed Notable to Some, because notable appears to denote the fact that these individuals actually coelesced something they learned from the program and used it in their jobs. Instead these individuals may have just gone through the program for one summer, and were not supportive of the program. Thus these graduates are merely that... graduates.

81.154.80.237: That $8700 figure for the average first year student is just a lie.

24.87.105.19: Please stop turning this article into an advertisement for Southwestern.

Werzelg: If the ban has really been lifted then shouldn't there: 1. Be a link to this report. 2. the DSU Union policy link be removed because it is out of date. The chagrin of non-North American students is an opinion not a fact.

Werzelg: I've never seen it but I have heard from several reliable sources that similar to the DSU article, there was hoo-haa in an Edinburgh student paper in 2003. It has been removed from the net now. These Universities that try to ban SW but later change their minds (I know Bristol is among their number as well), are they shown the error of their ways? Are they threatened with legal action? I think this needs to be made clear.

Werzelg: What I'm trying to say is, having sold for one summer and having mixed feelings, with some cooperation and compromise, this page can be turned from an information tug-of-war to an impartial view of the company. Both of the recent versions, the diatribe and the blatant advertisement, contain truths that prospective sellers and customers have a right to know about.

Nanger: In regards to a link to the report, I am still waiting permission to post the pertinent information

Nanger: The DSU policy link is not out of date, however you can make a case that the DSU ban article is see here for DSU policy where Southwestern is clearly under current policy http://intranet.dsu.org.uk/policy/list.php, However, I will make note that the ban article was an initial reaction that has since been retracted.

Nanger: To the Chagrin of non-north American students is in fact an opinion, I will change this to the chagrin of SOME north american students which is a fact

Redrum12: There is no reference for the lifting of the ban. Please provide reference for the lifting of the ban.

Nanger: I have already stated that I am awaiting permission to use the proper reference.

Nanger: In regards to the comment about inferior products, I have heard from Southwestern representatives that their product is not inferior or similar in any way or manner. They made it absolutely clear to me. Since I have never seen this product or actually used it, I would ask that someone provide evidence for or against this fact.

Werzelg: I don't know what the boundaries are in defining a company as an MLM (it's usually an accusation rather than a category), but if SW is one then that should be mentioned on here. If you haven't sold books yourself Nanger, is there a reason why 'Southwesternbots' are pernicious to you? What was your source in saying it was an inferior product? I mean, it has to cover several levels of comission so it might be overpriced, but the accusations of SW 'cutting corners' with their product don't appear to be substantiated.

Nanger: The point about inferior products is not my point. But nonetheless, the article itself has nothing about "southwestern bots" or "inferior products" because they are just that. Opinion. I do not see what your concern is because the article itself states notthing of that fact. This is a discussion, and people are entitled to their opinions despite how wrong they may be.

Redrum12: I removed most of the entries that seem opinionated.

Nanger: Reverted Redrum12 Changes

The thing that Southwestern has working against it that really no other company does is that it works almost exclusively with college students. I sold books with them a long time ago and it certainly is one of the best experiences I've ever had. Some people quit though. When they do, they find every reason to justify why they did. They look around and try to find everything bad that "Southwestern" did to them and everything bad "Southwestern" does to people. At the end of the day, people who succeed will love the program and people who quit will hate it. People who are somewhere in between will have feelings somewhere in between. Southwestern is just a company. Posting stupid stuff like "to the Chagrin" shows Southwestern's biggest problem--the same one they've had since I sold--they work with immature college students.

There are a lot of Catch 22s about this business. 1. They are exceptionally good at advertising and marketing, which also means that they are good at producing misleading information. However, that $8700 figure is not twisting the facts to make them look more appealing - it is a lie. First years win the Sizzler trip by delivering 1800 Units a gross profit of approximately $7200 and they, by the company's own admission, are the top 25%. 2. Students are encouraged to believe "I and I alone am responsible..." for handling all their cash-flow, their living conditions, their working hours, the demos they do and their handling of their own emotions. Therefore, to criticise the company is labelled as blaming others for one's own failings. I don't think that, over a year after leaving the bookfield (having completed the program), turning a critical eye to some of their practices makes me an "immature student". 3. A well-known speech in Sales School asserts that if you burn with a desire to succeed at this, then nothing in the world can stop you. Of course, you're highly unlikely to succeed without desire, but some people are good at selling and others aren't. Everybody has limitations and they will still be there no matter how hard they're pushed. But if you believe what you're told, then failure at selling is just lack of will, and the people who train you, and who make money off your sales, should have no culpability. 4. There is nothing wrong with adding links to all those sister-companies, but is there a problem with having links to discussions that include criticism, some that's quite insightful? They're open discussions, where anybody can come on and take the critics apart. And you keep removing the rather significant fact that Student Managers benefit from the sales of their recruits. I don't see why that's anything to hide.

1. The $8700 is not a lie. That is a the average profit made by first year dealers who work at least 20 days of the summer. Do the math if 40% of first years don't work 20 days that leaves 60% of first years on the field. If the average is 8700 then that means that roughly 30% of first years earn more and 30% earn less than that. 1800 units is slightly above $8700 in profit. Let's say 5% then you have your top 25%. As in top 25% of all the students who started the summer. It seems like you are from the UK from your grammar, and $7200 may be the profit for 1800 units there because I believe you get paid less per unit than the american students due to some law about things that must be provided for you that aren't provided for U.S. students. 1800 units in the U.S. is more like $9000 in profit, but I feel that the $8700 figure is a lie.

2. I don't think it makes you an "immature student" to turn a critical eye toward some of the company's practices, but what are you really trying to accomplish here? Is there really anything that you've written that you feel is so important that you didn't know going into the summer? If so, then that is something that does need to be addressed. By people who can make changes--namely the head of the company. Writing on wikipedia isn't going to stop people from working with Southwestern, so if you really want to help the students out (if that is your aim) why not take it up with people who can change things from the inside and make a difference.

3. Please reread your #3. It doesn't really make sense. First of all, why in the hell would the people who "make money off of you" not want to see themselves as "culpable" if you don't succeed? They don't make money off of you unless you do succeed. The better you do, the better they do. If they don't accept responsibility for not helping you, then they are punished first by not being paid for the effort they put into you, and secondly they have no room to grow as a leader without accepting responsibility. Ulitimately though, you have a philosophical difference with 99.9% of successful salespeople about how "some people can sell and some can't." It may be true that for some it is easier than others and that for some it is easier to learn than others and some have a higher level they are capable of ultimately attaining than others, success in the book business (meaning that you get a check at the end of the summer for $5000 if you manage your expenses well) involves selling 2/30 partial sets of handbooks per day. The two part isn't difficult (over the course of the summer, although it may be in the beginning) it's the motivation to keep going while getting the 28 no's that is hard. Selling is a skill that can be developed. It is a very, very difficult one to develop, but if it weren't developable, then Southwestern wouldn't have other companies where it consults with their sales forces on how to sell and gets paid for it and people wouldn't improve over the summer and subsequent summers if it were something you were just born with.

4. The links you keep posting are to the Durham thing which is an invalid site because the matter is resolved. If someone wants to find it, they can but it doesn't belong on the page. Wikipedia is for facts, not opinions, and none of the links posted are fact based, they are all based on opinions of people. Southwestern is NOT just a door to door book selling program. Therefore, listing a bunch of stuff about the "job description" (especially since it varies so widely from student to student) just does't make sense in this medium. The last sentence is the answer to your question about student manager pay. I can't imagine anyone not knowing that their manager would receive a financial benefit if they succeeded. And just so you know, it is possible for a sales manager to lose money from a recruit as well.

Reverted Changes Foresightofman 00:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Changes

"First of all, why in the hell would the people who "make money off of you" not want to see themselves as "culpable" if you don't succeed? They don't make money off of you unless you do succeed. The better you do, the better they do. If they don't accept responsibility for not helping you, then they are punished first by not being paid for the effort they put into you, and secondly they have no room to grow as a leader without accepting responsibility"

Im sorry, but thats just retarded. First off If you don't make money, what does the student manager lose. Ill tell you what... If the student doesnt make money what does he lose? Sorry your southwestern LOGIC FAILS HARD.

Secondly, Give a link refuting the one in the article otherwise shut your trap.

Thridly, If your reputation is so great then why are you worried about a Wikipedia article that raises questions about your past. Rather than constantly deleting an article and replacing it with your capatilistic propoganda, why don't you give a damn effort and provide some damning evidence to the contrary.

FYI, stop spouting the freaking company line and instead PROVIDE LINKS FOR YOUR FREAKING INFORMATION. SERIOUSLY... the last few edits are absolutely, downright company propoganda, it freaking smirks of microsofts wikipedia entry before ppl caught on to their little scam. Good god, thankfully southwestern is such an obscure company, you GUYS ALMOST GOT AWAY WITH IT.... GOD go BACK TO YOUR HOLES.

WerzelG: Sorry, I'm the one who laid out the 4 points I was just trying to think of a response. It wasn't me who said all that, and I haven't touched the article itself, that's for wiser men. I preferred your verion to the one it replaced.

Yeah, I think it's a bit sneaky to imply that the only people who criticise the company and stir up controversy are ones that haven't done well. It's simply not true. If the pay system differs for overseas students then let's keep such statistics off there, I'm sure you'll agree.

And what I meant in my third point was: you imply that those who complain about Southwestern are the kinds of disobedient students who fail at their degrees and blame the University. You only really compare yourselves to a University when it suits you. First of all, the quitters rate at SW is one third, I don't know of a University on either side of the Atlantic to which that compares favourably. And when students fail at their degrees, or drop out, then that is damaging to the Uni's reputation. The Uni doesn't try to smear drop-outs by implying that it's their own fault and publish statistics that deny their existence (which is what their average figures do). Oh, as an aside, a man who was the company's VP of Marketing when I was with them, one of the most charismatic speakers at Sales School went to Harvard Business School at the same time as Bill Gates. Famously, only one of them finished Harvard Business School so it doesn't really lend credence to the 'quitters never win, winners never quit' line does it?

Oh and the reason I've spent an irrational amount of time and enthusiasm in arguing this is because, yes I believe it would influence people's decision to go out and sell. And for an overseas student, to see the kind of misinformation that would inspire one to commit to a job that's statistically unlikely to cover it's own cost the first summer, grates me.

STOP CHANGING THIS TO AN AD

Discussion

Discussions on this page is extremely hard to follow for an outsider. Please use some kind of headings or indentation (with ':' at the start of a reply, '::' for the next, etcetera). Also, please sign your message with --~~~~. Also, no, this is not supposed to be an ad. But for all the controversy bits, there need to be decent sources! First of all, a lot of stuff like this often comes from disgruntled ex-employees or customers. And while these 'accusations' may be true, they all do need to be sourced. And, last of all, we try to avoid self references, so I removed the bit about the company and Wikipedia, also because there are no secondary sources for that. --JoanneB 20:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) RAWR

Current Employee

I am also a current "employee" of the company, and I have never been a part of such a positive success oriented organization in my life. Students may go out and have a miserable time during the summer, but they are the only determinants of their happiness. I have come across many individuals for whom this program has changed their lives for the better. Yes, they did invest a more than 72 hours a week into "the program", yet it was never forced. Students voluntarily work for the company, and no one forces one to do anything. Also, this is the type of program where a student makes what they are worth. As that might be a scary thought for some individuals, its an incredible possibility for many others. Myself being one of them who worked through the days similar to the girl below. I worked 10 weeks last summer, at 80 hours a week and made $14,000--walked home with $11,500. I almost quit at one point because I began to believe that it wasn't possible to sell--yet "miraculously" I had 250 customers during the 10 weeks. This program isn't for everyone, but it most certainly is for individuals who are up for a challenge and want the opportunity to show what they are made of. It definitely is not easy, but it most certainly is worth it and life changing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.83 (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am currently a part of the Southwestern experience. I have been doing this for two weeks and at this particular point in my experience, I would have to say that it is one of the worst decisions I have ever made. It doesnt have anything to do with the company, however. I have a really great Sales Manager and a great District Sales Manager that both want to see me do well, not because they want to make money off of me(which they will and im ok with that),but because they are my friends and they care about me. I take full responsibility for my crappy time so far. I have just discovered that I like having a boss. I am a really hard worker and always have been, but since I have been out here on my own, I just dont know what to do. I get really frustrated, not with the people I am talking to, but with myself. I cant keep up with where I am going. I cant find any families. And I cant work through all of that frustration. Maybe this is more a cry for help from any alumni of this program that read this. Im not going to quit, but I cant move forward. So what will I do?

Not a discussion forum

For that reason, both of the above two sections probably need to be removed. I guess I'll wait for input and to think it over. - Taxman ^Talk 20:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

History

This article states "In 1867, Nashville fell to Union forces" The Civil War ended in 1865, this date seems wrong.

P.S. I also worked for Southwestern one summer and they are a slimy bunch.

21:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Starrymessenger (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, I checked the citation and changed the date to 1862. --CliffC (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Mike asks about 'asking about children' I was wondering if anyone else was concerened about their tactics to ask neighbors 'where the children live in the neighborhood' and their ages. I told a SW sales person once I had no kids and she asked me to tell her where the children live in theneighborhood and their ages. Also, just today I had a person come to my door asking about my daughter. This seems very shady to ask about the children in the area. Do they sells this information to marketing companies as well or only use it to target specific houses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.251.40 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

They target homes with kids to sell product. Belgarath TS (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Company edits

I've several times reverted recent edits by User:98.193.164.110 and User:Dhillis30, as they run headon against several of the policies and guidelines that make Wikipedia an encyclopedia and not an advertising venue. In general:

• Ad-like language such as "The Southwestern Company summer internship is where the leaders and salespeople for our family of companies come from and it is the reason our other businesses have been so successful."
• The material uses copyrighted material from http://www.southwesterninternship.com/Southwestern-Company-Family-of-Companies.aspx - even with permission granted as outlined, the writing style is not appropriate for an encyclopedia
• The language is not neutral
• Overuse of external links, see WP:EL
• That 98.193.164.110 is editing from Nashville suggests a conflict of interest.
  

Note that the location and length of the new material make it hard to find the details of the Summer Sales Program, which is what I think most readers come here to learn about. --CliffC (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sales method

I changed the sales method mentioned in the lead from "by networking though a community" back to "door-to-door". Southwestern sells its products by good old-fashioned calling on customers door-to-door. Google News, probably the best way to find reliable sources of information, confirms this: between the years 2000 and 2010 it finds 32 news stories that include "Southwestern Company" "selling", and "door to door". A search for "Southwestern Company", "selling" and "network" or "networking" yields no meaningful results beyond one mention of a salesman for an unrelated company. --CliffC (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Cliff - the term door-to-door is one of the direct selling methods employed by Southwestern Advantage dealers along with referral and word of mouth marketing. In fact, I suggest it is more accurate to describe door-to-door as a method of direct selling as opposed to how you have related the two.Tjthomas67 (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"provisional health insurance"

I removed the recently added claim that summer sales program participants "...are provided a provisional health insurance lasting the length of the summer for $25." The claim lacks a a reliable source, and lacks sufficient detail about such a program to be encyclopedic. --CliffC (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Its also false, given my discussions with students in this situation.. Belgarath TS (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced POV, unexplained deletions

Looking at the article history, since 19 March there have been many unsourced anti-Southwestern additions, and more recently several deletions that removed properly sourced statements unpopular with the company. I have reverted the article to its reasonably neutral 19 March 2010 state, a good base for future improvement. Let's all cite proper sources when we edit, and let's always use edit summaries or the talk page to explain what we're doing and why. --CliffC (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

History in non-chronological order

The history section reads really badly, in parts is non-chronological and needs essentially a re-write. I'd volenteer to do it but I don't know nearly enough. 131.231.41.149 (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

External link to southwesterncompanytruth.com

Copied from User talk:CliffC

Hey CliffC I noticed you made some changes on the southwestern website. I assume your objective is to keep the integrity of wikipedia and keep information balanced. I remove a propaganda website of the page which was funded by lawyers (their lobby group) to pass legislation to outlaw the independent contractor status. Trial lawyers benefit tremendously by killing the status by being able to sue every company that uses them. They are trying to discredit Southwestern due to the fact they challenged a law they were supporting in Wisconsin a couple of years ago. I don't feel political propaganda belongs on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefloyd1 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wade, I see you have now deleted the same external link to southwesterncompanytruth.com that was deleted by User:72.48.74.193 and restored by me a few days ago. Thanks for offering an explanation, that link is often removed without an edit summary or other explanation, so the removal tends to look like a run-of-the-mill vandalism and gets reverted. Just about every company with a Wikipedia page has both pro and con links and the con links are never popular with the subject company. I don't see that a claim about who's funding them, 'propaganda' or no, would make any difference. I haven't read everything at the link, but it does seems to pass WP:ELPOV, "...On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views...", since it partly balances Southwestern's own six links in the same section. I have restored the link.

Assuming you are the same Wade Floyd who is a district sales manager at Southwestern, you have a conflict of interest and probably should not be editing the Southwestern article. It's best to make any suggestions for change at the article's talk page so they can be seen and discussed by interested editors. I'll copy this section over there now. Any further discussion should take place there. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent unsourced edits

I have reverted several recent edits that are either unsourced, or that contradict what is said by sources already cited in the article, or that seem to be original research. Please provide sources for all edits. --CliffC (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Host Family Discussion

I'm a host family and it turns out that the students are not even told they will be paying rent or providing for their own meals; And much of the data currently on the page is false. Students get told that SW will provide for them , but it looks like it only happens for the morning meal so Southwest is only providing one meal a day. I'm learning a lot about this company from the inside, what is the best way to provide this data to the Wikipedia community in a way that will actually see the data added to the page without getting reverted? Belgarath TS (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those insights. I'm surprised that your students were not aware that they would be paying rent to the host family, and that they would be on their own for meals as well. Perhaps by not spelling this out, the company is allowing them to take the word "host" too literally, in the sense of trusting the company to be a gracious provider of housing and meals. The company is quite coy about making any housing promise ("Each Southwestern Sales Manager has been provided the resources to arrange accomodations for each first-year dealer prior to the summer. In the rare event host family arrangements are not finalized or fall through before the student leaves Sales School, Southwestern will pay for the first week’s lodging in a local extended stay hotel and students will get help in finding their headquarters during their first week of selling.")[1], and I don't see any mention at their web site of meals one way or the other, perhaps I missed it. But when you're young and eager, you tend to hear what what you want to hear.

If there is something false in the article, please bring it up here for discussion. As for adding data to the article without it being challenged and reverted, the only sure way to do this is to write in a neutral tone, and back up what you write by citing a reliable published source for it. Thanks for contributing. --CliffC (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of criminal behavior

I again removed a paragraph describing an online news site's accusations that Southwestern engages in various criminal activities. Regardless of whether a source might be considered a neutral and reliable one (and a quick scan of salem-news.com suggests otherwise), Wikipedia does not publish accusations. At a bare minimum, any such statements would have to be sourced to mainstream media reports of a criminal indictment. --CliffC (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please point me to the written policy of Wikipedia against writing that someone or some organization has accused some other person or organization of a crime or "criminal" activity. If that policy exists, then I agree, this section should be edited to comply with it. 97.117.106.149 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think CliffC is overreaching when he says "Wikipedia does not publish accusations". It certainly does do that provided the accusations are sourced to a reliable source. A "criminal indictment" is not necessary. The problem is that salem-news.com does not meet the criteria for being a reliable source. See WP:RS for details. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard I fail to see where that site would not meet the criteria for being a reliable source. It is an established local news media site which according to their website has been in operation for seven years and is owned and edited by long time professionals in the news media industry. While the reliable source page gives the NY Times as an example of a reliable source, surely Wikipedia accepts other sources as well? Let us also not get distracted from where this information is going: the "controversy" section. Since this page is already made up primarily of references to Southwestern Company sites (why is self reporting acceptable) or anti-Southwestern "propaganda" sites, it would be helpful to have at least some reference to legitimate news media as well. 97.117.106.149 (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Expanding on what Pseudo-Richard points out, WP:RS requires "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The salem-news.com Southwestern series (1 2 3 4} is a mixture of facts and one reporter's opinion. Although it is based in part on the same embarrassing facts about the company's Summer Sales program mentioned in the Wikipedia article, it goes on to draw its own conclusions, making unsubstantiated claims such as "The Southwestern Company is and has been engaged in a highly organized criminal operation that includes tax evasion, money laundering, illegal immigration violations, labor law violations, and ruthless exploitation of workers". These statements are highly biased.

According to searches with Google News, no legitimate news source has ever confirmed, verified or even repeated any of the salem-news claims of Southwestern criminal behavior, tax evasion, money laundering, illegal immigration violations, labor law violations or exploitation of workers. In June 2006, salem-news proudly announced "Salem-News.com Becomes Part of Google News Service". But, what's happened since then? If we use Google News today to search for "Southwestern Company" in conjunction with any of the crimes alleged by the salem-news series, the search turns up nothing, not even the salem-news series itself, suggesting that salem-news.com has been "demoted" by Google as a legitimate source of news.

In some spots the series seems to attempt to avoid making a direct claim of criminal behavior by using terms like "potential" or "this would appear", as in

• "Potential RICO violations committed by the Southwestern Company include illegal immigration violations under U.S. Code Title 18 Sec. 1546, and money laundering violations under Title 18 Sec. 1960."
• "Potential money laundering violations arise from the Southwestern Company’s general scheme of tax evasion. The Southwestern Company has structured its operations to evade State and Federal taxes. It then induces its employees to open bank accounts and transfer funds across State lines in furtherance of this tax evasion scheme."
• "The Southwestern Company also has a policy of having its employees find their own housing. Employees are required to go door-to-door asking strangers if they know of an available room for rent in their neighborhood. This would appear to violate the provisions of the J-1 Visa program requiring that the sponsor assist the Visa holder in locating safe housing."

Other apparently "bad" things about Southwestern are

• "The Southwestern Company CEO, Henry Bedford, Lives on a multi-acre estate in Franklin, Tennessee, on the outskirts of Nashville. His massive home, surrounded by woods, overlooks a man made private lake."
• "Spencer Hays, a major owner of the Southwestern Company, is reputed by Forbes to have a net worth of $400 million. He owns a multi-million dollar McMansion in Nashville, along with an apartment at 778 Park Avenue in New York, where units sell for $25 million."

Rich people own and run a large company? Wow. Perhaps worst of all from the salem-news viewpoint is

• "The Southwestern Company donates heavily to the Republican Party. Their executives have given thousands to the likes of John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and Lamar Alexander: some of the most influential Republican politicians of the last two decades."

Setting the site's Southwestern series aside, it's easy to spot other examples of editorial bias. A recent article from elsewhere on the site by founder, owner and editor Tim King is about "mindless [Israeli] thugs beating a young American trying to speak his mind about Israeli atrocities in Israel", titled Here is Israel's Crap Treatment of an American Jew, Thanks Obama, Biden and Clinton. In the comments section following the piece, King responds to a reader who questions his support of the Che-Guevara-shirted protester:

"You're the puke on this page. What country do you back? You're no veteran, however I am and the US is not Israel, which is a terror state and a war crime nation. This young man has a thousand times the character and courage that you do you stupid armchair quarterback reject. You judge? Nobody cares what little girls like you think anyway."

Wikipedia should not use such sources. --CliffC (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

New, unreviewed article?

This article is tagged as a new unreviewed article, but it just appeared in the category now, and it has a history going back years. I have removed the unreviewed tag from many new articles, while adding various appropriate tags, but I decline making any decisions whatever on this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That was an anonymous hijacking of a long-standing, well-sourced article, and I have restored the original. This article draws boosterish claims and unexplained deletions by Southwestern officers and past salespeople each spring as the college recruiting season begins. I don't have a lot of time to spend here anymore and would like to see the article watchlisted by more editors. --CliffC (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to start cleaning this page up.

I'm going to try to start cleaning up this entry on Wikipedia. I see there has been a lot of problems from reading the talk page. Anyone care to help? I am trying to make it read in a neutral way.--BeckiGreen (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, good to have another interested person involved. There has been some additional semi-recent discussion of the article on my talk page here and on Jauerback's talk page here. Best, CliffC (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Selling on commission

Copied from User talk:CliffC

CliffC, I see that you added the phrase "on commission" to the lead for the Southwestern Company page; this is not accurate. As already stated in the lead; "...purchasing books at wholesale from the company and selling them directly to private families..." is the accurate representation of the relationship between Southwestern Advantage and Dealers. Our dealers do NOT work on commission any more than Walmart, Amazon, Home Depot, or retail small businesses do. Please remove the phrase "on commission". Thanks Tjthomas67 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. Although the (retail minus wholesale = what the dealer keeps) formula seems to pass the duck test for a commission, it is not technically a commission. --CliffC (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)