Talk:Amway North America/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Amway North America. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to NOT include this link. Also, see "Take 2" for inclusion thoughts as well as "Article rewrite"

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

• Consensus was to INCLUDE But the BOT guarding this article is reverting the edit to add this... still vote to include: Wikipedians have on several occassions suggested that if people want more info they go to "other sources". QuixtarWiki has tons of information on Amway/Quixtar and the people involved, which by all rights don't belong in an encyclopedia but are a reference point for people doing research. INCLUDE Gallwapa 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This particular link should be included for two reasons: 1.) it's another wiki that gives a wealth of information and detail related to this article that doesn't necessarily belong in this article 2.) Those seeking additional information and detail on the topic need at least one source (such as another developing wiki) that provides such data. The Mule 13:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is another wiki run by an independant group considered reliable, especially given the amount of self promotion that seems to be a speciality of quixtar? David D. (Talk) 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You put the link back and say: "This does pass WP:RS". How do you know? In what way does it pass? Saying it is so, does not make it so. David D. (Talk) 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters because it's a wiki and anyone can edit it. The Mule 11:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But who cares about a quixtarwiki? You think there is a balanced opinion at that site? How many edits a day does it get? You cannot compare it to this wikipedia. It is more like a blog in a wiki format. David D. (Talk) 15:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Quixtar Supporter and QuixtarWiki is actually run by a Quixtar critic (Eric Janssen of QuixtarBlog) but I vote to keep the link. It has so far been shown to be run in what I consider a fair and reasonable (and importantly, fairly impartial), manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insider201283 (talk • contribs)

The point is that the Reliable Source of quixtarwiki is being questioned. It's run by the same software running this wiki. It counts self-professed Quixtar supporters, detractors and neutral parties among its principle contributors. There's a wealth of information there. What's not clear is why a Wikipedian wouldn't want an external link to another wiki that provides much more information than any news article or official corporate site could provide. And it should also be noted that such detail isn't appropriate for this Wikipedia article but it's very appropriate for a wiki focusing on Quixtar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mule (talk • contribs)

Are you implying that it must be a reliable source because it runs wiki software? With regard to your demographic of its users, how do you know? It does not have the same volume of users and is very low profile. Given there were 10,000 quixtar IBO's at the 2003 conference it could easily be run only by quixtar supporters. i find it strange that you find it hard to believe a wikipedian here might doubt the objectivity of its contributors. Of course it could be much less objective than news articles. And of course we link to Quixtars official corporate site and clearly that site is not objective, but no one expects it to be objective. Remember that wikipedia is not a link farm. Since there are masses of links that various parties wish to link to from this article, I think it is very valid to keep linking to a minimum. And for those that want to find out more, that's what google is designed to do. David D. (Talk) 06:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This was voted on and elected to stay. Thanks for your input but it should stay. The Mule 09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break three people commented on it;. There was no vote. Furthermore voting is not important. The quality of discussion is. One solid argument will defeat tens of votes. If it were not so, vote stacking would win each decision. Does this mean you have given me your best evidence that it is a reliable source? David D. (Talk) 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This simply means that I don't wish to continue to debate. You obviously have some sort of agenda and that's fine but don't bring it here to Wikipedia. Look up the article on Microsoft. Do you see any blogs linked from there? Why should that be there? Because it's a valuable resource just like the Quixtar Wiki. I find it interesting that you doubt the voting. Basically it appears that all you care about is your own opinion.

I think it is silly to have too many links to unreliable sources. I have never edited microsoft and i can assure you i would cut the blogs there too. What is my agenda? I have cut unreliable sources that are both for and against quixtar. Wikipedia is not a link farm. That has nothing to do with an agenda. We need only a few but reliable links. If you doubt this get a second opinion. I will post this on RfC and see what others think. David D. (Talk) 02:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is in my opinion that quixtar wiki is complety biased and as a result cannot provide accurate information. Futhermore it is quite clear quixstar wiki is nothing more that a recruitment page for quixtar. It should be shut down and investigated. Futhermore I think it should be banned from wikipedia and someone should notfiy the admins immedatly of quixstar wiki and its activities. (Cigarette man 09:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

ROFLMAO!! QuixtarWiki is run by two well known and vocal Quixtar critics - Eric Janssen of QuixtarBlog and Mevi of QuixtarDemons. No supporters of Quixtar have any admin rights to that site. To their credit Eric and Mevi have however aimed to run it along WP:RS and WP:NPOV guidelines. Looks like when quixtar critics actually have to be fair then the site ends up being like a "recruitment site". hahahahahahah - now that's funny :-) --Insider201283 09:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL says we should avoid adding links to wikis. I've removed the Quixtar wiki. -Will Beback · † · 02:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

• Vote to include...useful stats on here including IBO earnings. Gallwapa 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary comments prior to archiving. No consensus on this link. NOT included for time being.

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to NOT include this link.

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

• In inspecting the history, I find that no one except for Illusion408 voted to "include" this link. Hiding behind a confusing removal of other users' comments under the guise of "see history for detail" seems extremely misleading and disruptive. I will again be removing the link. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, there were 2 of us who voted after like 2 months ...and we both said include. I didn't know how to archive talk... so I did my best...*blush*... Gallwapa 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should not include any of the blogs. It sets a bad precendent and is generally not accepted on wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Weblogs, one positive, one negative, and one employee to be fair for all. --65.40.167.66 14:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)CK

This has nothing to do with fairness. Blogs are unreliable sources and should not be used. Two wrongs do not make a right. I see the bot has already removed them. I'm not sure you want to get into a revert war with a house keeping computer. David D. (Talk) 14:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that I noticed is you have some of the authors of their own site/blog adding themselves to this page. I don't know about anyone else but I think that takes quite a bit away from Wikipedia when the operator's add their own site to this page. -Independent Patriot

Copy of comments prior to archiving. In summary, no consensus was reached but this link has remained in the article.

• This was actually removed...I still vote to keep it, it is a useful resource and has broke many stories, including the Quixtar Googlebombing attempt (which was later picked up by the news organizations listed below...). I feel its a better source than Amquix.info, infact, and If I had to choose, I'd take this one. Gallwapa 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I removed again, mainly because it sets a bad precedent. It is generally accepted that wikipedia articles do not link to blogs, no matter how good. Once you add one, every Tom, Dick and Harry want to make a case for their own "excellent, objective" blog. This then leads to the link farm mentality that was so obvious on this page. David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy of comments prior to archiving. In summary, Consensus was to NOT include this link.

Copy of comments prior to archiving. In summary, consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

• Good info here, but it is now a dead site. Vote to remove. Much of the useful information is on the "QuixtarBlog". Gallwapa 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy of comments prior to archiving. In summary, consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

Yet another blog that an anon IP is trying to add to this article. I have not even read the content. A quick looks shows many advertisements on the page (commercial links- are click throughs generating revenue for this user?). As I have said above, regardless of the quality of information available, wikipedia is not in the business of promoting blogs. If someone really wants to find out all the different opinions on Quixtar, after reading this article, they can easily use google to quickly find many different blogs and other resources on the web. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Do people like Paul Harvey really support Quixtar or are they paid to endorse quixtar? Sure he advertises their products on his show, but i don't see how this is the same as supporting the product. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I really question the whole section and whether or not it actually adds anything to the article. It doesn't provide specific endorsements (Ronald Regan thinks Amway/Quixtar helps American's do "X"...) it just says he spoke. Fantastic. I speak daily - often times in public places where others hear me. It doesn't mean I endorse the particular venue... Gallwapa 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although there is a reliable quote from Asafa Powell, for what it's worth, where he says that Quixtar products improved his performance and helped him get the 100m world record. Of course, it is a no brainer he would say this if they pay him to endorse the products. David D. (Talk) 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Asafa Powell was introduced to Nutrilite by his brother, whose wife's parents were Quixtar IBOs. It wasn't until sometime after the world record that Quixtar/Nutrilite even discovered he was using their products and they suggested a partnership. There's a promotional video on youtube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx8LtMWFUjE]--Insider201283 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to wikiepedia, so I don't understand? There was a section for who endorses Quixtar and somebody added a list and linked to a video with those very people saying they support Quixtar. It's not like the video is on wikipedia, it was just used to support the website post wasn't it? --LordTedric 11:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Who made the video? Is it used for advertising purposes? It it a reliable source? Do the supporters have a vested interest or are they neutral? Is anyone paid to appear on the advertisment? Is the government spokesperson speaking for himself or for the government? And so on. David D. (Talk) 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually watch the video David? To query whether John Engler giving John Engler's opinion on something is a "reliable source" on John Engler's opinion is farcical. Nowhere is it claimed that a "government spokesperson" is speaking for the government or that the government endorses Quixtar, either in the text I added or in the video. However, having the publishers and CEOs of magazines and companies endorse something is also self-evidently giving the opinions of those companies - that is their job. The names and positions of each person is listed. The video was not publicly released at the time and is not an "advertisement" per se. To the best of my knowledge nobody was paid, but if you're going to reject sources because of the *potential* for bias because they *might* have been paid and not giving their real opinion - in other words, accusing them all of lying - well frankly virtually every source becomes untenable. Newspapers, medical journals, magazines, whatever, they all take paid advertising. The video is conclusive support that these respected individuals, who are not Quixtar IBOs and do not work for Quixtar, support Quixtar. --Insider201283 19:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I did watch the video. Whether my opinon is farcical or not this is still a promotional video. You deny that? I am not accusing anyone of lying, i am saying i want to see a secondary source that does not come from the company, at least. As i watch source come and go on this article the common theme is that they are almost all from the company directly. We already have plenty of their own stuff on this page. Again, wikipedia is not here for Quixtar to show case its product. David D. (Talk) 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So let's be clear here - you are stating that a person stating their opinion is not a valid source for that person's opinion and requires a secondary source? --Insider201283 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Insider201283, David. A video of a person giving their endorsement is pretty much the strongest possible "primary source" you can get that they endorse it, I can't see how it can be disputed??? --LordTedric 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

—Let me be the first to raise the red flag here. I find it very interesting that Lord Tedric has started contributing today after Insider has been called for adding his own site to Wikipedia as a link and then linking his site again by cramming in some text and linking a video that is nothing more then simple promotional material. The very next day Lord Tedric shows up out of nowhere and adds back the video (and the link to Insider's website) the day after it was removed. Not to mention taking an interest only in this paticular video. Then on top of all that their timestamps for their posts here seem to be pretty close together.

As far as this video being bias, one only needs to see it to know it is clearly bias. Many of these companies are partner companies with Amway and therefore have a financial interest in making these videos. Many of the speakers refer directly to the business relationship with the company. Getting an endorsement from those who have a financial interest in your success is anything but unbiased.

Also, since all the POV sites and blogs have gotten the boot Insider has simply been seeking ways to get links to his site from Wikipedia, which is a clear bias POV site. If you are going to let links like that stand then you open up a can of worms where other POV sites will add videos mixed in with BS text and other things just to get the links. If Wikipedia plans to stay unbiased in their articles, this video needs to stay deleted and any links to a clearly bias website as well. Otherwise you may as well open the floodgates and let anyone with a blog or site about Quixtar post a link here. Independent patriot 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh? I guess the concept of the discussion-for-links got forgotten?... Gallwapa 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i did read the discussion but there seemed to be too few contributors to make sense. My feelings are blogs are not useful and too many links to Quixtar controlled sites are not useful. I tried to cut the links down with an objective criteria in mind (reduce the link farm look and retain reliable sources). A compromise might be to quote the sites as sources but that gets back to the problem of what is a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Either we include blogs in this topic or not. It is not fair for a select few to decide which blogs are OK and which ones are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.237.246 (talk • contribs)

If you're referring to my comment above I said "My feelings are blogs are not useful", in other words no blogs. Who said anything about "a select few to decide which blogs"? Blogs are unreliable sources and should never be used, let alone five or six blogs. David D. (Talk) 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone expand the details of the connection between Quixtar and "[http://www.the-team.biz The Team]"? I don't understand it well enough to explain it. I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to this article and this discussion. It helped me understand this thing when a friend tried to get me to sign up for "The Team" without telling me of the connection to Amway. Barwick 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC) The Team is an organization that teaches specific techniques and offers support on building a Quixtar-affiliated business. There is no connection to Amway, short of being owned by the same parent corporation (much like Aston Martin and Ford are owned by Ford Motor Company, but are obviously not the same companies). And on a personal note, I'm sure your friend checked "this team thing" out, and believes it's good and would be good for you, are you going to trust your friend whom you've known for years? decades?, or some strangers on the internet?

I asked another admin on IRC about those links and decided to reduce the blocklist to only the blogspot and the www.thisbiznow.com ones. Thanks.Voice-of-All 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it should not go off any more since I just removed 2 other links that I forgot about (though there are still 2 spam links).Voice-of-All 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added back Powell since it can be sourced. Having said that, it is from http://www.prnewswire.com/ (but published on Forbes.com) which seems to be an advertising agency? I'm not sure this is a reliable source and the article in Forbes (from PR Newswire), reads like promotional material. I would be happy to delete the Powell stuff unless we can find an independant source for this information. David D. (Talk) 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Barwick (talk · contribs) wishes to use the word unscrupulous to describe an investigative journalism report. An example of the rationale is here as quote: "undercover" implies it was done with respect for rights of innocent people (like an undercover cop). If I tricked your kids into letting me into your house to watch your family, is that "undercover"? End Quote. I stand by my comment that the use of the word is Berwick own POV opinion of the investigation. Undercover seems to be descriptive of what happened. Unscrupulous paints a picture. here are the two definitions of undercover:

1. Performed or occurring in secret: an undercover investigation.
2. Engaged or employed in spying or secret investigation: undercover FBI agents.

Neither definition of undercover "implies it was done with respect for rights of innocent people". Undercover means it was secret. This could be either bad or good. Uncrupulous can only mean bad, consequently the use of the word undercover is significantly less POV than unscrupulous. What do others think? David D. (Talk) 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way if you have a quote about it being unscrupulous then that might be able to be used in the article. Your own opinion counts for nothing. Read WP:OR for more on this issue. David D. (Talk) 19:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[http://www.webraw.com/quixtar/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2448&highlight=definitive+lawdawg+lies this post on Qblog] has all you need to know on what a pyramid is. In summary, if you do not have payment for recruiting then you cannot be an illegal pyramid. It's the sine qua non of an illegal pyramid. This was made clear in FTC v Amway ...

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

BY PITOFSKY, Commissioner:

...

A. Allegations That the Amway Plan Is a Pyramid Scheme

...

The Commission had described the essential features of an illegal pyramid scheme:

Such schemes are characterized by the payment by participants of money to the company in return for which they receive (1) the right to sell a product and (2) the right to receive in return for recruiting other participants into the program rewards which are unrelated to sale of the product to ultimate users.

This has been repeated again and again in case after case. Links to first sources are in the first link provided. The claim the 70% rule and Retail Sales Rule are what makes Amway/Quixtar a non-pyramid are, to be charitable, a gross misunderstanding by MLM critics that has been repeated ad nauseum over the internet.

Now, as for the 70% rule, to quote FTC v Amway again -

The '70 percent rule' provides that '[every] distributor must sell at wholesale and/or retail at least 70% of the total amount of products he bought during a given month in order to receive the Performance Bonus due on all products bought . . ..' This rule prevents the accumulation of inventory at any level.

It's about inventory loading, and it includes sales at wholesale, ie to downline distributors for resale. The statement above is from the Court in 1979. Here it is again clarified by Quixtar in a letter in 2004, since the "misunderstanding" keeps getting spread, even as far as here on Wikipedia -

Specifically, the Rule requires that an IBO sell at least 70% of the products purchased monthly to downline IBOs, members, and clients

[http://www.amquix.info/images/ronmitchell_1.JPG]

It's only "arguable" if you ignore the guys who wrote the rule and ignore the courts who interpret it. The 70% rule and Retail Sales Rule were found to protect against inventory loading and to encourage retail sales (that is, sales to end users, it's not even specified this has to be a non-distributor, and the letter talks about that too).

---

WP:RS is not the correct standard to apply to external links in an article, as WP:RS is meant to apply to sources cited in the body of the article. I propose that links that were erroneously removed under "Failure to pass WP:RS" be restored. DonIncognito 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish, but how is it possible that this topic requires so many extermal links? A why would wikipedia discourage unreliable sources but then have external links to everyone's favourite blog, POV web page and self published books at the bottom? David D. (Talk) 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Don Incognito is incorrect re WP:EL and WP:RS. Under Links to be Avoided WP:EL explictly states "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources." and links to WP:RS. Thus WP:RS is to be taken in to account when considering external links. --Insider201283 03:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a dispute above about whether a video of a person giving their opinion is acceptable evidence of that persons opinion, but reading the "controversy" section there doesn't seem to be any sources at all except the dateline video. What gives? Why is that acceptable? --LordTedric 20:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it from a Quixtar source? Is it a promotional video or an aired "report"? Is it journalism or marketing? David D. (Talk) 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I mustn't have been clear. I wasn't querying the use of the dateline video as a source, I was querying why an essentially whole unsourced section was acceptable? --LordTedric 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dateline did an investigative journalism piece and invited Quixtar to interview with them as well. Quixtar declined. The video Insider has been trying to add to get a link to his site from Wikipedia is a promotional video with many of the endorsements coming from the founders and CEOs of companies who are partnered with Quixtar/Amway and therefore have a clear financial interest in endorsing Quixtar/Amway. Matter of fact many of them elude to the business relationship in that video. Clear not a bias promotional video for Amway/Quixtar. Also, why would a video that only mentions Amway be added to the Quixtar page at all. I thought they were two different companies. Independent patriot 02:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, when I watched it I'd swear the video mentions Quixtar quite a few times, the microsoft guy definitely did. I'm also not sure with the obsession of the video. It's not being shown here, it was just being used as a source to back up the claims in the text wasn't it? It's clearly a primary source under WP:RS isn't it? Anyway this still isn't about what I'm asking here. There appears to be no WP:RS support for the entire controversy section except the dateline video? How can all that be put in with no sources? --LordTedric 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i must have got confused,I had thouight you were challenging the NBC source. Why don't you move the text you think is unsourced to the talk page. Then someone can either find a source and reinsert it or it can just stay here out of sight. David D. (Talk) 13:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Having watched the promotional video I'd like to make a couple of comments. One, it does not show companies endorsing Amway/Quixtar. It shows executives of companies saying nice things about Amway/Quixtar. If we are going to refer to their comments we should summarize them more accurately. Second, it does appear to be a promotional video. Based on the Chinese subtitles it appears intended to promote Amway/Quixtar in China. Advertisements and promotional materials often include compensated celebrity edorsements, and it isn't clear that these are genuine expressions of opinion. Lastly, if we're going to link to it I suggest that we use a direct Youtube link. -Will Beback 23:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Watching it again yes the Microsoft guy does mention Quixtar on his segments. However, this video was clearly for Amway in China. With all due respect Will I feel you are wrong. Those companies are endorsing Amway. Not one of those executives refers to themselves. All of them who are heads of companies refer to their companies when endorsing Quixtar, and refer to their business partnership. A few examples:

MCI - Said MCI and Amway were "ideal partners" and that the business relationship has brought "customers for us".

Franklin Covey - Says they are committed to providing tools and principles for accomplish Amway goals (anyone here actually think they are providing them free of charge). They also say they are excited about the relationship between the two companies.

Rubbermaid - They say they are proud of their long-term business partnership with Amway.

Macleans - Says they are honored to partner with Amway.

Newsweek - Says they are proud of their "marketing partnership" with Amway.

Every single one of those heads of companies, or executives (even the Microsoft guy) uses their companies name when giving the endorsement and not their own. Clearly they are envoking their company in this promotion of Amway. Every one of those companies has a clear financial reason to endorse Amway. Amway success can only mean more dollars for their companies. The only guy on there that could be seen as an unbiased endorsement with nothing to gain would be the United Nations guy.

This video is clearly not an unbiased video, and the site that is being linked is clearly not an unbiased site. Therefore neither should be on this page unless we want to open the flood gates. You let one on and you will have to let them all on. Just my 2 cents. Independent patriot 04:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The question comes down to whether the video can be considered a valid primary source under WP:RS doesn't it? --Insider201283 07:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

At no point in the video does "Microsoft" say anything. A person who is employed by Microsoft says something. In any case, this is hardly better then filling an article about a book with the comments from the dustjacket. However, if you want to say that "Joe Schmoe of Microsoft has said in a promotional video that Amway is really great" then that would be accurate. -Will Beback 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've ever heard a "company" talk, Will. It's the companies representatives that talk on behalf of the company. Are you claiming CEOs and Chairmans of companies do not talk on behalf of those companies? Who does then? --Insider201283 07:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You can use the material, just attribute the comments to the speakers and give the context of the video. -Will Beback 07:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean they are putting up the video, or they can have the text of the comments from the speakers? I don't mind that, but I don't see valid reason for the video, or a link to a clearly biased site. Independent patriot 00:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You're OK with the information, you just don't want the source included because the site is pro-Quixtar? --Insider201283 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not OK with the video, but have no problem with text being put up with what some of those people said. Personally, I think the only unbiased viewpoint is the UN guy. Everyone else has a financial gain from saying those things. Also, I believe any text put up should have a statement with it showing that these companies have a professional business relationship with Amway/Quixtar and it is not known whether they were paid for this endorsement. If an admin decides the video should be allowed then it most certainly should not be linked to your site Insider. The only reason you put this up in the first place was for that link to your site. With Wikipedia being number 2 on search results for Quixtar, there is no doubt a link would drive quite a bit of traffic to a new site without much traffic. Also, your site is POV in favor of Quixtar. If they will allow your site then they might as well open the floodgates for any POV site. Independent patriot 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed, but my site has no advertising at all. I'm not interested in traffic, I'm interested in truth and facts, it doesn't really worry me were it is obtained. I put this text up because it's true and factual, and it's linked to the video because it's the source and wikipedia should be sourced.

The heck you are not interested in traffic. I know you Insider and I know why you started that site and I have seen what you have on there. You may be interested in all that but your site doesn't show it. Your site is clearly biased and the only reason you put that video up is a for a link to your site. I have seen your history here and all you were doing before was removing critical sites and trying to keep adding yours even though it kept getting deleted because of it's bias. So you can drop the innocence act. You are an Amway IBO overseas and have a real chip on your shoulder for Eric Jannsen and Scott Larsen. Bottom line your site is bias and a link to it from here is unacceptable unless links are going to be allowed for bias critical sites as well. Independent patriot 02:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You've made it very clear your problem isn't with the video, it's with me. The video is factual. If it has facts you don't like on it, that's your problem. Facts by definition are not biased. Those people endorsed Quixtar. Deal with it. --Insider201283 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't care who endorsed them. I know you don't care either. You only care about the link to your site to drive up traffic. Not to mention those companies stand to financially gain from their endorsement which hardly makes it biased. I would encourage anyone to go through your contrib history and see the sites you deleted and why and then see all the times you added your own site even though that is very much frowned upon. Tell you what if the video really matters link it from youtube.com, your failure to do so only shows I am right about you only caring about the link to your site and not the video. Remember I know you Insider and your shady history.Independent patriot 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So you are OK to put the endorsements up with the link to the youtube video? --Insider201283 12:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not really but if the admin is going to allow a link to youtube I can compromise. I would however still like a ruling on whether it needs to be stated that many of those companies have a financial partnership with Amway and therefore stand to benefit financially from Amway success. Of course to me that means basically a paid endorsement but if that statement is in there I can let a reader decide for themselves. One note of caution is that there is still ways to drive up a sites traffic since I know Insider uploaded the video to youtube. This still has potential for opening the flood gates for other POV sites to do a similar tactic.Independent patriot 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone (no, not me) has also put the info and link to the video on QuixtarWiki. Would that be OK for you? Should pass WP:RS as a valid secondary source with supporting primary source. It's even run by Quixtar critics, which I'm sure makes it a far more valid source in your mind, but I have no problem with it re POV. --Insider201283 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikis are not reliable sources. We should not be using them as sources. -Will Beback 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The wiki is not the primary source. The video is the source. According to WP:RS when quoting a source that may or may not be reliable, eg a wiki, it's sources should be considered. The source for each individual endorsement is the person themselves, as per the video, thus the wiki article is in the case indisputably accurate. --Insider201283 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

<-- So why don't we just link to Youtube? -Will Beback 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Because WP:RS says to avoid it, but if that's the only think IP will agree to, then sure. To be frank it seems the problem here isn't the validity of the information or the primary source. Independent Patriot apparently just doesn't what the article to link to any sites he doesn't approve of. POV and bias is in regard to the accuracy of the information. In this case there appears to be no dispute as to the accuracy. I'd note that quixtarwiki is already used as a source in the "endorsements" section and is also listed in the links.--Insider201283 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No let me be clear in that I don't like the video either. However, if Will is going to allow it then I can compromise as long as a biased POV site is not linked. That will open the floodgates for all other POV sites to do the same. Also, I would like a ruling from an admin as I feel there needs to be a statement added that many of the people in the video represent companies that have a financial partnership with Amway and therefore stand to benefit financially from their endorsement. If that disclaimer is put in text before the link to the video and the video is linked to youtube.com then I can compromise on this. But let's be clear that if it was up to me the video would not be allowed because of the relationship between Amway and the company reps giving the endorsements.Independent patriot 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh good grief. You don't think perhaps the very fact they have a business relationship with the company is an endorsement in itself? Quixtar does not pay those companies to be business partners (with the exception of Microsoft as a development partner I would assume). Quixtar doesn't pay the then Governor of Michigan. Quixtar doesn't pay the head of the Chamber of Commerce. Your tautological view appears to be that anyone who endorses quixtar is by definition biased towards quixtar so therefore the endorsement can be shown! An endorsement IS a bias. I note looking through the history of this article you haven't onced challenged the use of any single site being run by a critic as being biased. Not once. Cry me a river. --Insider201283 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

History eh? Yeah let's look at history, such as your contribs history which shows you deleting several critical sites while adding your own biased POV site. Any comments on that Insider? Didn't think so. As far as the endorsements go the only endorsements I am talking about are the ones from company reps. Having a financial interest in the gain of a company gives a big financial incentive to do an endorsement for them. If you got a video with just the Chamber of Commerce, UN, and Governor of Michigan then we don't have an issue do we? But hey if an endorsement is a bias then I think you just disqualified your own video didn't you? Also to address your desperate attempt to try and lay accusations on me, when I registered many of the POV sites critic and supporter alike were being removed. Most by you of course. I think the links that are there now are fine.

Wow, you guys still fighting over this. Independent Patriot, I think "bias" relates to whether a source can be considered accurate or not, not whether what the source is reporting shows any bias. Unless you think Insider201283 has faked the video, then it's unquestionably a primary source for the endorsements. Whether you think those people are biased or not really doesn't matter. There's no claim being made about whether their endorsements are right or not, just that they did the endorsement. The claim was made those people endorsed quixtar. A primary source was provided unquestionably backing up the claim. I don't see where the problem is?--LordTedric 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well welcome back Lord Tedric. Interesting to see you back just after the admin sent a note to myself and Insider, kin of like how you first showed up to add Insider's site just after he got called for adding it himself. I have made my position clear on this several times, and I have also made it clear that there were very few neutral endorsements in that video because many of the companies have a financial interest in Amway. However, I have already stated I would not argue the video being put up with a link to YouTube. Insider is the one who apparently wants the link to his site. All I have asked for is an admin to decide if a statement needs to be included about the financial relationship between the companies. Honestly, if all of what I am saying really doesn't matter then putting up the video shouldn't be a problem. But for some reason you and Insider keep fighting over something that you keep telling me doesn't matter.Independent patriot 15:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The video is available directly from Youtube. -Will Beback 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines discourage linking directly to youtube due to risk of copyright issues. Linking to another site with the relevant text supported by the video bypass this as a problem. --Insider201283 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines discourage linking to any site that hosts probable copyright violations, particularly external links. Unless the other hosting site owns the copyright, it and Youtube are identical in this regard. Since the video is actually hosted on Youtube, we might as well go straight to the source. -Will Beback 09:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See how hard Insider is fighting to get his link on this site. Now he is trying to discredit you tube when that is where he has the video in the first place. C'mon, this is now too obvious. Not only is Will correct in his statement, but once again Insider's site is clearly biased and allowing the link will have to allow any link from other biased sites who pull the same stunt Independent patriot 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not me "discrediting" it, it's mentioned in WP:RS --Insider201283 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't either, but if an editor feels the need to do so then it should be done correctly. -Will Beback 00:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#YouTube has been added recently. Since all versions of the video are hosted by Youtube, the problem is common to all of them. -Will Beback · † · 09:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to revert it yet but bring it to the talk page. I still stand by my comment that this is original research. The formula currently used in the article is A) NBC criticise Quixtar (cite 1) B) NBC criticised about truck incident (cite 2) leading to C) NBC of Quixtar not reliable. This is a good example of original research. To avoid this unencyclopedic editorialising it needs to be structured as followed; A) NBC criticise Quixtar (cite 1) B) NBC criticised about Quixtar article (cite 3). As i see it cite 2 has no business in this article. Cite 3 is required and it should be from a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 18:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the truck incident has to do with this. I understand Dateline rigged up a truck to make it look more sensational, but to link that to Quixtar there has to be some proof from a reliable source that they rigged up the hidden video that we saw to make their show look more sensational. Does anyone dispute the hidden video? Has anyone gotten proof from a reliable source that the hidden video was rigged and planned by Dateline? Now I don't think Dateline's depiction of Quixtar is 100% accurate, but it certainly addresses some issues within the business. The problem is those issues are more with the Motivational Organizations and not Quixtar the corporation. But, for some reason many are hinged on this truck incident that happened more then 10 years before the Quixtar episode even aired and there is no proof even hinting that Dateline did the same thing to Quixtar. Independent patriot 04:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this information posted by 70.186.203.234 (talk · contribs) from the article since it seems more like talk page commentary. David D. (Talk) 09:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is also of worthy mention that Quixtar reps. in the Hampton Roads area do not enforce the 70% rule, and in fact (as IBO's, some friends and I experienced this directly) the leaders make house calls to remind people to switch their business volume from 'personal' to 'client' which seems to me like squeezing through a loophole.

• On Quixtar's defence to Dateline, they issued that Dateline used misrepresenation about the truth. On the home page of Quixtar.com it takes a few well placed navigations but there is a disclaimer that over 98% of business owners will never achieve profitablility. To further the matters, on of the techniques used at open meetings is to claim that a person will save $86 dollars a month shopping on Quixtar. However, again using Quixtar.com's own website, it takes a while, and some serious navigating, but again there is a disclaimer, that says that most IBO's actually operate at a yearly loss of over $900. Quixtar reps said that the majority of people are not angry, but that Dateline sought out people who did not make it and were angry. 186,000 complaints have been filed against Quixtar. The FTC has proposed a new bill that Quixtar outlines in their website. The bill clearly is aimed to stop most of the ways in which Quixtar operates. The bill declares that there are "Business opportunity frauds," that seek to "look like ...health and nutrition... cosmetics..." The bill also slams down on Quixtars method of trying to get people involved before they can make an educated decision. Seven people in each Chapter will be required to furbish actual paychecks. One weeks time will be required before a person can be initiated. There are also several other restrictions that will be given to multi-level marketing companies under the new bill.

It should also be noted that 60 minutes, a very credible source of news, also did an "Amway" expose and it was much like the Dateline segment. Supporters seem to conveniently ignore this.

http://www.amquix.info/soap_and_hope_page.html

• It is also interesting to note here that Quixtar sends new recruits home to look only at <thisbiznow.com> A website owned by Quixtar, with the Mayor of a town: ADA valley, speaking. ADA valley is run By ALTICOR, the parent company of Quixtar. All the factories there are owned by Alticor. This is of particular interest since 1) Quixtar claims that they make no products of thier own "like Walmart," and 2) it is not direct buying but multi-level buying, where the prices go up as the products go down, just like traditional retail, possibly worse. 28 day supply of basic multi-vitamins cost over $60 plus shipping and handling. Quixtar claims that the Vitamins are all home-grown, and thus higher quality. However, they fail the big test of high quality vitamins which are about half the cost of Quixtar brand, that is the extracts are not standardized. Furthermore, a vitamin x, denotes a particular chemical compound, with a particular structure that is always the same. Their vitamins are neither mehtylated nor estherified. Again, who is misinforming? Typically when a government agency looks into a company's behaviour they are on the verge of being illegal or revolution. But what kind of revolution seeks to make everyone pay more for 'stuff they already buy anyway' If the entire world succumbed, then we would have suckered ourselves into a sales-oriented communism, where nothing gets done, because everyone is only concerned with how much they could have, and not actually working to get it.

• It seems that in the end Quixtar is selling a beautiful product. One that never gets old. One that can always be sold. We shall call it greed. They wrap it up, and give it the name 'if only' Greed and a plan for how to accomplish greedy indulgence will always sell, whether it is noble and helpful or not. The government should stay out of it though. If we can buy stuff for love, like thank you for being there for me cards; then, we should be able to buy greed at Quixtar.com, peanut butter and Zenso tea that if I just buy more, I will get rich. Someone show me honestly, how, that works in the long run, and I will go eagle every month for the rest of my life, and buy all kinds of greedy junk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.203.234 (talk • contribs)

70.186.203.234, don't be ridiculous. The only way to make money in Quixtar is by selling stuff at wholesale or retail. If you think you get rich by buying stuff then you need to have the business model explained a little better. --Insider201283 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a scan of a faxed response from the FTC to a letter from the Direct Selling Association. As such it is a primary source document. Independent patriot keeps deleting the text and source document apparently for no other reason than he doesn't like where the PDF file is hosted. --Insider201283 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I found it at another website as well, one devoted to direct marketing. However since it doesn't mention Quixtar it's use here may be original research. It's always dangerous to use primary sources and draw conclusions from them. -Will Beback · † · 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? There is no conclusions drawn, the letter is clear. --Insider201283 05:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the conclusion I referred to:

• In other words, Amway and Quixtar members are to be considered legitimate end users of their products, and since no money is earned for recruiting new people into the company, Quixtar is not a pyramid scheme.

Since the letter doesn't mention Amway or Quixtar, we are drawing a conclusion about what the FTC letter means and how that applies to the subject. -Will Beback · † · 06:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you disputing that Quixtar uses a multi-level compensation plan? --Insider201283 07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No. -Will Beback · † · 09:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will about the danger of drawing a conclusion and is why I am asking for the original source to see what context this letter was published in. This letter does not mention Quixtar and does not directly reference the Quixtar compensation plan. The only reason I question the site it is linked too is because I know Insider's site is not where it is originally published and if this letter is going to be allowed (as it appears to have nothing to do directly with Quixtar) I would think it should be linked to where it is originally published. Also, it brings into question if Insider as the site owner even has permission to publish this letter on his site. Independent patriot 04:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, so obviously you agree we should rewrite the entire Controversy section to only cover sourced non-POV info? The FTC part goes, it's about Amway, not Quixtar. The Dateline part can stay, it was about Quixtar. Would you be willing to write a sourced summary of the Dateline segment to replace the current controversy section? I'll add something about Quixtar's response and we can go from there. Agreed? --Insider201283 05:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the controversy section needs to be rewritten. The FTC ruling however I believe needs to stay since it is what is referred to as the precedent for Quixtar being a legal MLM. The wording needs to be redone to take away the critical slant. I will write the sourced summary of the Dateline episode. I still stand however that the letter you have sourced needs to go. It has nothing to do with Quixtar directly and as Will has stated, you have drawn a conclusion that is not clear in the letter. You agree to that and then we can most certainly go from there. Independent patriot 06:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Text should not be deleted while under dispute, please replace it and mark it as disputed. I have drawn no conclusions at all. The FTC quote is clear about multi-level compensation plans and Quixtar is a multi-level compensation plan. Are you seriously claiming that Quixtar does not operated under a multi-level compensation plan? --Insider201283 06:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is so clear then we can let readers draw the conclusion for themselves. See also my repsonse to you above. -Will Beback · † · 07:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reworded. --Insider201283 07:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It still draws a conclusion:

• Thus, the amount of products consumed by Amway and Quixtar members plays no part in determining whether Amway and Quixtar are pyramids. Since no money is earned for recruiting new people into the company, Quixtar is not an illegal pyramid scheme.

That is not functionally different than what was there before. The best way I can see to use this letter would be to say something like:

• Some have charged that Quixtar is a pyramid scheme. However the FTC says...

And leave it at that. No words like "thus", "in other words", "since", "therefore" etc. -Will Beback · † · 07:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call that "original research" Will or drawing a conclusion. It's simply paraphrasing. But let's wait for Independent Patriots rewrite of the Dateline section and then I'll add the response. The FTC letter is a response to the entire unsourced POV section so there's a good chance it won't even be relevant. Please leave as is until then. --Insider201283 07:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the letter doesn't mention Quixtar or Amway, I don't see how you can call it paraphrasing. That portion of the text should be removed. -Will Beback · † · 09:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To quote from dictionary.com - paraphrase - to render the meaning of in a technical paper for lay readers.. It says "multi-level compensation plans" a somewhat technical term that includes Amway and Quixtar. Unless you dispute that the Amway and Quixtar are covered under the term "multi-level compensation plans" then paraphrase is exactly what it is. --Insider201283 09:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

<-- Then another appropriate wording would be to write that the FTC has said that properly structured "multi-level compensation plans" are not pyramids. The FTC didn't say that Quixtar is not a pyramid, and it would be incorrect to put those words their mouth. -Will Beback · † · 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

problem solved, unsourced POV and sourced response removed --Insider201283 10:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Insider, you were the one who wanted the rewrite of the sections. It seems though what you want is a section that reads how only you want it to read. The litigation does not say anything about the FTC saying IBOs were making exaggerated claims which was a find in that litigation. Also removing the text about the tools from the Dateline segment wrong. They were clearly discussing tools and income and it should be included since that is where the major controversy is. I made sure to include that Quixtar requires signatures of forms for this stuff to be disclosed. Having a rewrite done to make sure an article is fair and covers all bases does not mean it needs to read how you like it. Independent patriot 20:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability and facts. What you just added, while much better worded, has ZERO sourcing. I suggested you rewrite the section with sourcing and you did no such thing. What you added is currently POV stuff and as such is unacceptable. Get some WP:RS acceptable sources and we'll talk about it. I'm sure there is some out there. Until then you can't just add your opinion. --Insider201283 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, though no longer important, FTC correspondence, as a government agency, are public domain, and Wikipedia guidelines also state that it is not the job of normal users to police copyright. --Insider201283 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I reworded what had been up there for quite sometime and was never deleted for lack of sources. None of what I wrote is my POV. If you don't like it reworded then put up what was there before, and was accepted. This page does not conform to what you like to be written. What I rewrote states the argument of each side and I think gives equal billing to the facts. Show me what I wrote that is not a fact. Independent patriot 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia standard is verifiability not fact. Without sources it can't be verified. The dateline show actually mentions what you're talking about, so all you really needed to do was reword to that affect. I've done it for you. Happy now? :-) --Insider201283 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So one can only wonder if you are really all about just getting the correct information out there you didn't rewrite it that way the first time and instead you just deleted it. If you can't put your bias aside perhaps you should not edit. Independent patriot 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the information is particularly relevant or well sourced. In my view the Dateline episode is fatally biased and poorly sourced, but I frankly aren't going to bother challenging it. I'm certainly not going to go to the trouble of tracking sources and rewriting the section. Some minor changes to be made re your latest edits, but we're apparently getting somewhere. --Insider201283 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I legitimately missed the part in the dateline transcript about declining to be interviewed and tools income "unavailable". That's because I searched for "unavailable", which you had put in quotes. The actual term used was "not available". --Insider201283 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said for much of what Quixtar and the motivational organization put out. I also can't help but wonder just how familiar you are with the Dateline episode since you missed a well-known fact that the people they were talking about declined to address the allegations of Dateline's investigation. Independent patriot 23:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough I don't spend my weekends watching it, no. --Insider201283 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr Phil was brought in to talk to Quixtar leaders, something he initially was not interested in doing. He, like most folk, had a complete misunderstanding of the whole industry. After tours and meeting folk he gave spoke at QuixtarLive and this endorsement. Later he contracted Access Business Group, a sister company of Quixtar to manufacture the "shape-up" products for his company CSA Nutraceuticals. I'm not sure how, but CSA Nutraceuticals was somehow linked to The Allan James Group. The Allan James Group was recently purchased by Alticor subsidiary Interleukin Genetics, thus Alticor became party to the settlement. Dr Phil's endorsement of Quixtar precedes the business relationship.--Insider201283 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The settlement to the class action suit against Dr. Phil was a major news story covered by dozens of papers (verifiable). It's revelent to his endorement and should not have been deleted. Steve8675309 15:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if his endorsement of Quixtar is in here any sourced story about his relationship with the company should be included as well. Independent patriot 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What do we mean by "sister company"? Are they owned by the same corporate parent? Could we clarify the connection in the text? -Will Beback · † · 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Alticor owns Quixtar, Amway, Access Business Group, Interleukin Genetics and some other companies. Access Business Group made the products for CSA Nutraceuticals, Dr Phil's company. Looks like Alan James Group bought CSA Nutraceuticals, and later Interleukin bought Alan James Group, which is when Alticor (nothing to do with Quixtar) became a party to the court settlement. The Quixtar endorsement (a) precedes the business arrangement by quite some time and (b) has nothing to do with Quixtar per se. If the info is going to be included it needs to be significantly reworded. I'll look it doing this now. --Insider201283 11:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Footnotes - "Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail." I think it is very clear that the explanation of McGraws later business dealings with A Quixtar sister company "distracts from the main point" which is his endorsement of Quixyar. I think it's fair enough to include the fact he later has business dealings with the company, but (a) given it happens after the endorsement and (b) it happens with another company altogether, albeit related, it does not belong in the main body of the article. --Insider201283 09:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The prior version had a bunch of text in the references section. That doesn't conform to anyone's style, including wiki's [Wikipedia:Citing sources]. I moved it back to the main article and replaced the sentence about the settlement with a simple quote from the lawsuit reference. I did this because the prior sentence contained a blatant advertisement for Quixtar IBOs ("marketed exclusively by Quixtar IBOs in the United States"!) [Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion].

It was original as a footnote, which is as per Wikipedia:Footnotes. That was then changed to references and then someone added references. If the text is to be included I think it should be maintained as a footnote. --Insider201283 19:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For now, I kept the text about Access Business Group, Interleukin Genetics, CSA Nutraceuticals, Alan James Group, and Alticor. But nothing in the reference provided links CSA to anyone other than Quixtar. I propose that this text be deleted unless someone can reference a link between these companies (Access Business Group, Interleukin Genetics, and Alan James Group) and McGraw. Discussion?

Steve8675309 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The provided reference does not provide a link to Quixtar, it provides a link to Alticor, Quixtar's parent company. I don't see this whole lawsuit discussion has that much relevance to Quixtar, given (a) the endorsement happened before ShapeUp was launched and (b) the connection to Quixtar is somewhat disjointed -> ShapeUp was made by a company (Access) that is owned by a company (Alticor) which owns another company (Nutrilite) whose products are marketed by another company owned by Alticor (Quixtar). --Insider201283 19:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jaysbro added this comment - Some critics of Quixtar have accused it of ignoring the consent decree. http://www.amquix.info/''

An accusation with a link to the home page of a POV critic site isn't exactly Wiki-class sourcing is it? Quixtar most definitely requires IBOs to report customer volume or it does not pay the bonuses on downline volume. I recall someone complaining on quixtarblog about not getting paid a bonus, and it ended up being because they hadn't done this reporting. --Insider201283 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing dispute tag as the person who added it has given no reason for doing so. --Insider201283 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why were these links removed?

• [http://www.webraw.com/quixtar Quixtar Blog
• [http://www.amquix.info/ AmQuix.info
• [http://www.merchantsofdeception.com/ E-book written by former Amway Emerald about his experience

I don't see a consensus to remove them. -Will Beback · † · 00:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: A number of links have been added and removed. Let's discuss rather than revert. -Will Beback · † · 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Webraw is a personal blog, which shouldn't be linked to as per WP:EL. Amquix fails WP:EL "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" - the author has on a number of occasions had to pull information when threatened with lawsuits due to factual inaccuracies and in my opinion there is still plenty more. Site also fails WP:RS and WP:NPOV. MOD - a personal site that fails both WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Remember, the basic test of inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. None of these sites meet that test and none of them are covered under any of the 4 points of WP:EL "what should be included". I added the Corporate blog sites, they provide "meaningful relevant content" as per "what should be included" and they also pass the WP:EL blogs test as "written by a recognized authority" - they are by executive staff of Quixtar, there can be no question of their authority. --Insider201283 03:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither external links nor sources need to meet NPOV, only our own articles do. Your own opinion of the reliability of isn't a sufficient test. I see that in a previous discussion the consensus was to keep the Amquix link. I don't see a new consensus to delete it. What meaninginful content do the corporate blogs add? -Will Beback · † · 06:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS are not guidelines for external links, so stop pretending that they are. Furthermore, webraw and amquix provide more "meaningful and relevant content" than the corporate blogs. Nor are you the arbiter of what is "authority" and what is not. There was previous consensus regarding external links; you just seek to remove anything critical of Quixtar and substitute it with company-published sites peddling the company line (NPOV my arse). Nevertheless, your "corporate blogs" are still "personal blogs" as well, so if we listen to you, they'd fail your own criteria for inclusion. At least try to get your story straight before you unilaterally revamp that which had been agreed on. DonIncognito 07:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Blogs such as webraw are explictly excluded. Blogs by an "authority" are considered acceptable. All blogs are by definition "personal". Executives of a company are by definition authoritive - to claim otherwise is absurd. WP:EL includes guidelines to avoid unreliable sources and links to WP:RS as the reference for this - to claim WP:RS does not apply to WP:EL is false. --Insider201283 08:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Amquix got deleted from this article a long time ago, check the history. That "consensus" is very old and the discussion seems to not include much in the way of AQ supporters and even then, it doesn't at all seem to have reached "consensus" - someone just decided it had. Believe me - wouldn't have a chance of consensus now. :-) If POV external links are to be included then Wikipedia standards require "balance" so we'll end up adding quite a few links to support both sides. Personally I'd prefer to have no POV links rather than get in to a link war. The Corporate blogs are quite unique as they add direct insight and access to corporate staff and resulting information - I'm not aware of any other MLMs doing this. I don't see what the big deal is? They're relevant, they're useful, they pass Wikipedia guidelines. --Insider201283 07:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It is correct to say that WP:RS and WP:EL are separate guidelines. External links are held to a lowere standard than sources. One of their purposes is to show the range of POVs on a topic. What meaningful content do the corporate blogs contain? Can you link to a useful bit as an example? -Will Beback · † · 18:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I quote from WP:EL "Links to be avoided" - "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.". WP:EL clearly directs the reader to WP:RS for "Links to be avoided". The corporate blogs have given factual information on numbers of "qualifiers" for given years, they have given commentary on corporate direction, they have explicitly answered questions about such things as why "Amway Arena" was named that and not "Quixtar Arena" - an initially odd looking decision given Quixtar took over from Amway in the US several years. To be perfectly honest to me they seemed such obviously relevant and useful links I didn't expect to have to spend time justifying it, and frankly there also not so important that I'm going to any further. --Insider201283 19:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What inaccurate information is included in the deleted web links? How verifiable are the corporate blogs? -Will Beback · † · 19:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

While obviously they have a certain POV, as does a corporate home page, Corporate blogs are by definition "authorities on the subject". Re the other sites, webraw is obviously not acceptable as it's a personal blog site and forum and little more. Amquix is little more than a blog either. While it has some useful factual information, no attempt is made to distinguish between fact and opinion. [http://www.amquix.info/alticor_hypocrisy.html This article] on Amquix is factually incorrect, as explained on [http://www.thetruthaboutquixtar.com/index.php/content/view/710/83 Get The Facts - the Truth About Amway and Quixtar]. This has been pointed out to Larsen, but he has not corrected it. He has tended only to remove incorrect information when threatend with lawsuits, as outlined [http://www.iboai.com/IBOAI-Info-News-IBOAINews-QuixtarInternetCritics.asp here] and [http://www.iboai.com/IBOAI-Info-News-IBOAINews-ScottLarsenApologizestoQuixtar.asp here]. The first of those outlines a number of errors Larsen has made, such as " An assertion that an IBO with two qualifying legs must have at least 2500 PV in side volume to qualify for the leadership bonus;". This leadership bonus is a basic fundamental of the Amway/Quixtar business. Larsen has been maintaining this website for nearly a decade, and to find he didn't even understand that simple issue was quite revealing. His [http://www.amquix.info/amway_basics.html Amway Basics] page, while correcting one of his errors regarding this bonus (side volume requirements) still fails to mention at all that you can earn a portion of this bonus if you have lesser volume. These types of errors persist through a number of his analyses still on the site - pretty much anywhere he calculate incomes. In another [http://www.amquix.info/internet_viop.html recent article] discussing voicemail services he cites rule 4.14, pointing out that IBOs are not allowed to market other products "crossline", but he fails to mention 4.14.3 - which explictly excludes the type of thing he is talking about from the rule. The whole site also analyses Amway/Quixtar in terms of it being similar to a job, ie "what's the hourly rate?", and while this is part of the business, the primary attraction for most people is the ability to build a business asset, an entirely different thing altogether where "hourly rate" is a nonsensical subject. I could do an entire website on things that are wrong Larsen's website! In fact I am :-) --Insider201283 20:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Those appear to be minor errors. Since we include a link to rebuttals to critics we should include a link to the critics. -Will Beback · † · 20:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Will, have you ever been an IBO for any length of time? Those are not minor errors. They fundamentally warp the whole perspective of the site. To even consider linking to such a blantantly POV site, directly contrary to point 2 of "what not to link to" blatantly violates wikipidia standards and frankly you should know better. There are not links to "rebuttals to critics" in the external links. That would include quixtarresponse.com and thetruthaboutquixtar.com at a minimum. --Insider201283 21:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I have never been an "IBO" and have never had any business relationship with any Alticor company. That gives me a neutral perspective which appears to be lacking on this article. We don't require external links to be neutral. -Will Beback · † · 23:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

But external links are supposed to be "balanced" and according to WP:EL sites that are unreliable as per WP:RS are to be avoided. Frankly I'm still stunned that you think that giving false and misleading information about what an illegal pyramid is and giving false and misleading information about the Quixtar business plan are just "minor errors". Both issues are fundamentally critical to understanding Quixtar. --Insider201283 23:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, the "Information Control" section appears to have been arbitrarily excised by an unregistered IP a while back. I've reinserted it as a subsection of the "Controvery" section. --Halloween jack 17:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The sections primary sources were blogs, not valid under WP:RS --Insider201283 19:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the sources were blogs. Please don't delete an entire section because of one bad source. -Will Beback · † · 20:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Primary source for that story is webraw blog. It was cited numerous times, and the one other source cited, OJR, has as it's primary source the same webraw blog. WP:RS explicitly states that primary sources should be considered when considering the value of sources. The title is also blatantly POV - Quixtar has explicitly stated they are not doing what this section says, entirely apart from the fact the allegations themselves are questionable as the blog and OJR cite a quixtar leader saying they were doing it - not Quixtar. Will, if you are going to persist in supporting obviously POV sources that violate WP:RS I frankly have to question your impartiality as an administrator with regards to this topic. I note you have previously been admonished by ArbCom regarding POV issues. This article had remained in an essentially unchanged and non-controversial state for some months until these blatant POV links were added by Don Incognito. I recommend it is reverted to that noncontroversial state. I'd note that I have not readded the corporate blog links, which I considered uncontroversial but apparently are not, and have said I will not persist in trying to have them added --Insider201283 21:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I only reinserted it because I didn't want to see it deleted without any sort of review. If the sources are shady, then by all means cut it out or revise the section to say that Quixtar is only alleged to have done these things. --Halloween jack 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is the place for "allegations" unless they are particularly noteworthy. Given that the majority of links on google's first search page are to sites critical of quixtar, I would think [http://googlebombproject.blogspot.com/2005/12/google-bomb-amwayquixtar.html this page] is more noteworthy than the webraw allegations! --Insider201283 22:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that http://googlebombproject.blogspot.com/2005/12/google-bomb-amwayquixtar.html is a worthwhile source? The ArbCom has never admonished me about POV issues, only about treating an autobiographer with more respect. That has no bearing on this article. If the article wasn't NPOV then it was overdue for the inclusion of balancing information. I would personally admonish any editors who have an economic relationship to Quixtar to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -Will Beback · † · 22:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That text and sourcing was written for the google bombing article while under arbitration. The source is a Primary source, POV is irrelevant. If somebody says "will beback claims to be a multi-millionaire" and links to will beback's site where he claims to be a millionaire, that's a primary source, POV is irrelevant in this instance. Oh, and I'm not even in North America, let alone a Quixtar IBO, I have no economic relationship with Quixtar. --Insider201283 23:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you have no relation to Alticor's business. From your previous comments it had appeared that you were involved in an IBO. I'm not aware that this article has ever been subject to arbitration. Do you mean mediation? Mediation is between parties, and the mediation for another article was apparently held by email (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Google bomb). It is not binding on other editors. So you think that blogs are sufficiently notable sources for their own opinions? If so we can say, "According to Webraw, x y z". -Will Beback · † · 00:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Alticor, I said I have nothing to do with Quixtar. Me editing this article doesn't benefit me in anyway. I am not and have never been a Quixtar IBO, and for the record I have no Quixtar IBOs associated with my Amway business. A persons blog is of course relevant evidence as to their opinion. So on an article about webraw it would be perfectly acceptable to link to the webraw blog. A bloggers opinion is not usually relevant however to another wikipedia article. In this case the claim is that some Quixtar critics are google bombing, and that page is direct evidence of it. You are correct, it was mediation not arbitration, my error. --Insider201283 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Insider may not be a Quixtar IBO but he is an Amway IBO in Australia. So he is very much involved with "Alticor's business", though it is not Quixtar. He also loves these types of half-truth half-lies. DonIncognito 00:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep guessing, I'm not in Australia either. Yes, I am an Amway IBO with a daughter company to Amway Europe, which is a daughter company to Alticor which also owns Quixtar. You likely have closer links to Quixtar than I do - you can certainly become a Quixtar IBO and profit from Quixtar more than I do. I'm on this site defending the accuracy of this article for the sake of Quixtar IBOs - I personally get no benefit from it. I should be busy rewriting the Amway article, which is chock full of unsourced POV and non-WP:RS sources. --Insider201283 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands then. Whatever. Only with typical Insider logic does any American resident have a closer relationship to Quixtar than a distributor involved with its sister company. What a load of bull. Amway and Quixtar are distinuishable pretty much in name only, and since the same reputation haunts both companies, you very much benefit by trying to suppress negative information and pretending it doesn't exist. DonIncognito 16:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Some sites critical of Quixtar have also engaged in Google bombing, one even making no effort to deny or hide the practice.

"Some", in this context, would refer to more than one. Is there more than one? -Will Beback · † · 00:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

take it up with the arbitrator, I didn't write that text, the "other side" did, I just agreed to it. --Insider201283 00:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no arbitration. There is no public agreement to the mediation. If you'd like to provide a link to what you're talking about that'd help. Otherwise it appears that "some" is incorrect. -Will Beback · † · 02:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, the mediation was done via email. In any case, according to every dictionary I've just checked "some" is "an undetermined or unspecified number" or similar. One is included in that so therefore "some" is not incorrect. It is an indeterminate number. A review of critics websites find they list and link many other "critics" websites, but not many supporters websites, would seem apparently in support of the anti-quixtar "google bombing". No critic website for example lists http://www.thetruthaboutquixtar.com in their links lists, despite it quickly becoming the most largest and most popular supporters site. In any case, here's [http://www.cocs.com/jhoagland/webhq.html another anti-amway/quixtar site] where the author admits to setting up an anti-amway webring to drive up traffic to anti-amway/quixtar sites.--Insider201283 03:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An "anti-amway webring" is not the same thing as "gogle-bombing".

• Amway and Quixtar critics have openly engaged in google bombing in order to artificially drive up traffic to sites critical of Amway and Quixtar.[http://www.cocs.com/jhoagland/webhq.html Anti-Amway WebRing]

This assertion is not supported by the source. If we want to say that "Amway and Quixtar critics have formed webrings of critical websites." then that would be an accurate summary of the source. -Will Beback · † · 07:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What Quixtar, or at least, some Quixtar leaders, are alleged to have done is not google bombing either, but I'll reword. --Insider201283 08:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Setting up dozens of virtually identical blogs with the same cookie-cutter news briefings and multitudes of links is exactly what Google Bombing is. But I'm not surprised that the "Insider definition" is different and somehow includes webrings while excluding actual google bombs. DonIncognito 16:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "www.thetruthaboutquixtar.com", I just noticed, from your user page, that it is your own website. It's linked to from eight pages including this one. But I don't see how it counts as a reliable source. Rather it appears to be a blog, no more reliable than Webraw. Addition of it by the creator is against WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest. Please clarify. -Will Beback · † · 08:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the site is a blog and is clearly labeled as such. Other parts, particularly the "Facts" section are fully sourced with third party sources provided. As discussed, the other sources for this section are blogs or the equivalent as well too. Own links are "allowable" if you are considered an "expert" in the area and even the critics on the most popular quixtar forum, webraw.com/forum have granted me that status :-)! But yes, I should have listed it here first in Talk, my apologies. Frankly I don't think this section should be included at all due to the lack of indisputably WP:RS sources - and yes, that includes that particular post on the thetruthaboutquixtar.com, which is indeed in the "blog" section of that site. It's my opinion that Don Incognito (and I'm aware this goes against Wikipedia:Civility) is wanting the link to the anti-quixtar google bombing blogs purely to raise their pagerank - well fine, same standard should go for a supporters site. DI is a vocal critic of Quixtar on the webraw.com/forums despite never having actually been involved in the business. --Insider201283 08:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues with this website. One is that it does not meet our standards for a reliable site. We can't say that some parts are facts while others are opinions. It's all a one-person compendium, just like a blog. I note that you were trying to remove Amqix, a highly comparable website, while using your own site as a "reliable source". And that brigs us to the other issue, which is that you added your own site to so many articles, which is basically spamming. On account of both of those problems I am going to remove the website where it appears as a source. It may stay on lists of external links where Amquix is also on the list. If other editors would like to add it back we can discuss it on a case-by-case basis. -Will Beback · † · 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, (a) it's not actually one person, just the other people are in different languages :-). (b) Unlike amquix the site clearly categorises what is fact and what is not, and is sourced. WP:RS says to consider a sources sources when determining reliablity (c) on wikipedia I try to link to original sources wherever possible, however that information is sometimes subscription only (eg consumer reports) or the Facts article brings together multiple sources. No idea how there ended up being 8 linked pages? Don't think I've done that many! Except maybe if you include talk? Talk pages are not spidered are they? So that shouldn't be of particular relevance. Care to tell me what the pages are/were? :-) --Insider201283 09:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake: that was eight instances of links on pages, on about six different pages. Here's list of links remaining.[1]

So, let's see here...webraw is only a reliable source when granting Insider "expert" qualification. Whatever. Also, your site has been shown by other blogs to have misleading information. So, just like amquix.info, your site has both factual and misleading information and therefore should not be included by your own criteria (Of course, you probably don't think that your site is misleading at all, but that's expected). Finally, I really don't care about raising those pages' Google rankings, so you can drop the speculation and accusations; my addig of those blogs was in response to your adding of the corporate blogs. If people's personal experiences aren't RS, then corporate spin isn't either. You apply different standards to pro-Q websites and I'm here to make sure that the standard applied is equal. And since you're someone who's linkspammed Wiki and other people's blogs with links to your own website, your attempt to smear others by accusing them of only linking to raise "pagerank" is the height of hypocrisy. But then again, that's standard MO for you. DonIncognito 16:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever any incorrect information has been pointed out on my site it has always been corrected, if you're aware of an instance where it hasn't been, please mention it on the site forums so it may be corrected. Corporate Blog Sites run by the company an article is about are primary sources by recognized authorities and ARE acceptable according to WP:RS. Even personal blogs such as webraw are generally considered valid primary sources for an article about the blogger. Your assertion about the corporate blogs not being valid under WP:RS is false. Furthermore, the appropriate action if you dispute the source is not to add undeniably invalid sources, it is to edit or discuss the sources under contention. To claim I have "linkspammed" Wiki is a serious and false accusation. Outside of talk discussions and my user page the site has only been linked to on three occasions, each of which would pass WP:RS requirements as a valid secondary or primary source - ie properly sourced information not available elsewhere due to firewall/subscription requirements or which collates other information into a single article or as a primary source. I retract the claim of why you added the links - you've instead admitted it was a deliberate violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:Civility and WP:RS.--Insider201283 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Misleading information on your site has been pointed out by other blogs and you're skilled enough to find it yourself. My assertion why the corporate blogs fail WP:RS is true for reasons I've stated earlier in this Talk page; you saing "NO" does not make it so. A review of your edit history will reveal you deleting sites and adding your own in place and you HAVE linkspammed blogs such as [http://ohana.lava.net/blogs/JoeCool18] and other sites with links to your site, so don't go playing all innocent regarding changing Google pageranks. And you've violated Wikipedia:Civility countless times, including yesterday, so get off the high horse, hypocrite. Furthermore, if we judge you by the same standard, you've also violated Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as you've only deleted links that you don't like while leaving plenty of information that fails WP:RS but that you like (see Network 21 page before today's deletions of blatant advertising material.) DonIncognito 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to complain about other sites, take it elsewhere, Wiki:Talk is not the place. --Insider201283 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out your hypocrisy and dishonest intent; if you don't like it, don't do it. I suppose Wiki:Talk was the place for attacks on others, but not when someone holds a mirror for you. Also: you wanted examples of inaccuracy on your site? Well, that page of yours that you linked(spammed?) under the "Google Bomb" section of this site states that A/Q "critics" set up link farms, and that pro-A/Q people should not "Don't just setup meaningless link farms as the 'critics' do." You use [http://googlebombproject.blogspot.com/2005/12/google-bomb-amwayquixtar.html] as the example. Even a cursory look at that site will reveal that the owner is not an A/Q critic but a left-winger who Google bombs anything dealing with the right. So, that's lie 1. You provide no other evidence of "critics" setting up link farms, so saying that "critics" do so is lie 2. You also state that a "Webring" encourages people to set up link farms. Lie 3. Your site has deliberately misleading information and does not pass WP:RS. Awww. DonIncognito 19:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

riiighhht, so someone who says doing the google bomb will also "keep unwitting people from being scammed" is not an A/Q critic? Uhuh. And someone who says they are trying to drive up traffic to sites critical of A/Q by using webrings - an older technique of SEO - is not actually trying to umm ... drive up search engine ranking. uhuh. And "critics" who setup list of links to other critical sites are also not setting up, uhhh, list of links to critical sites (aka link farms). Yeah right. --Insider201283 23:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more than obvious that the owner of that site is an anti-right blogger and only linked Quixtar because of their perceived right-wing affiliation. Not a typical Quixtar "critic" by any means, just a left-winger google bombing anything on the right. Webrings are not SEO but a way to link together sites with common interests; your deliberate ignorance really shows. So where's the evidence of "critics" setting up link farms? Oh wait, there is none and you don't provide any. Nice try, liar. DonIncognito 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Don Incognito's charge of Insider link-spamming Wikipeidia and other blogs is correct in everyway. I remember when I first looked at this article a little while back Insider had added his own site while removing critical sites. I removed his site because it was against the rules for him to add his own site, and because it was no different then the sites he was deleting. Insider then tried to add a promo video which was on his site and at youtube, but he linked his site instead. I removed that link as well since again the author added his own site, and because the video was nothing more then promotional material that had no substance. Curiously someone named LordTedric then added the video back and sided with Insider on it's relevance and interestingly enough has not made any other contributions to this page or the Wiki. His last attempt from what I know was to link his site by putting a letter between the FTC and the DSA on his site and linking to that letter. A letter that did not reference Quixtar directly, and again he was adding his own site. There are three examples of him link-spamming this site. Next he has link-spammed the heck out of Quixtar Blog in the comments sections trying to get traffic to his site. He has also put up link-spam comments at Quixtar - The Dream or the Scheme, and Quixtar Inside Out blogs. Also, Insider don't flatter yourself, you are not considered an expert on Quixtar, by any consensus. Yet another lie. Independent patriot 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

blah blah blah. Wikipedia guidelines say not to link directly to youtube, but thirdparty is ok, that's why the endorsement video was linked in that way, plus the article it was with provided the list of names and affiliations. Of course, completely contrary to all reality, folk like you argued that individuals giving their opinion on video is not a valid source for those peoples opinions. uhuh. Now you claim that representatives of many major companies and government and UN reps endorsing Quixtar is not relevant material of substance? Uhuh. I'm still of the opinion that is a valid WP:RS link but I'm not willing to spend my time taking it to arbitration fighting folk like you who have no interest in actual factual material here if it doesn't support your minority viewpoint. The FTC letter was a PDF file, also a legitimate source, the issue of linking to it when hosted on a blog is not clear in the guidelines and is currently under discussion. Of course, you know the FTC letter is valid, but don't want that here either - no interest in facts, just pushing your POV. In any case as a PDF file it has to my knowledge no effect on SEO, so what's "link spamming" got to do with it I don't know. Claiming "link-spam" of Quixtar blog is ridiculous. They are links to relevant articles in the discussion. That's why I setup my site, I got sick of having to repeat the same indisputed facts over and over again while you folk keep sprouting BS and outright lies. So I answered it once, then just give the link every time you repeat yourselves. Much more intelligent wouldn't you say? As for "expert" I see Santa didn't bring you a sense of humour or a "smiley dictionary" for Xmas. When there were POV sites in the links, I added some balance. When it was consensus to remove them all, including mine, I abided by that. When "critics" did not abide by that I removed their links. But i know you're not interested in the truth, so why am I bothering explaining? You have a pathological obsession with me and A/Q, and if you're who I think you are, you've never even been in the business. Go get some therapy, you'll have a much happy 2007. --Insider201283 04:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, and for the lurkers reading this, here's a quote from the critics on "QuixtarBlog" regarding my activities on wikipedia trying to bring some balance - "Maybe we should all go over there and help keep him in line. I do believe that would drive him nuts.:-):-)" So expect more of these folk to pop in with various allegations. I stand by any independent reading of my history of edits. There's been some errors due to not knowing all of the guidelines (I still don't, apparently there's well over 100!) but I'm here in good faith. As is obvious here in talk, some are apparently primarily here just to attack me. --Insider201283 04:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Insider, there's no prohibition on linking to Youtube. There is a prohibition on linking to pages with copyright violations on them. Unless you've obtained permission from Alticor to host their copyrighted video then your site is no different than Youtube. We discussed this previously. -Will Beback · † · 05:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS specifically mentioned avoiding linking to youtube, that section has since been removed, as noted by someone else in the Talk. When I was pointing that out I was not aware of your admin status and in light of the WP:RS statements simply considered you were wrong on that issue. Now a moot point since it's gone from the guidelines. I've also queried the status of videos as sources there because of the controversy on that. The other editor at the time disputed it as a legitimate source, so it's worth clarifying "officially" the position of these type of videos one way or the other --Insider201283 06:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Insider, you are being quite uncivil in your words to me and I would suggest you stay in line with the Civility policy of this site. You claim there are hundreds of guidelines so you have made some errors when the clear fact is there are only two you seem to have issues with and that is WP:RS and WP:EL. First of all I don't buy it because some of my first edits was deleting your site because you added it yourself. However, you don't acknowledge your fault until called on it by an admin. Also, through the talk of this page you have been corrected several times on your biased interpretation of those documents.

Don't pretend to know who I am if you don't, you have stated things about me that are not true at all and I would appreciate a full retraction from you, not to mention an apology for your therapy comment which was totally out of line. You claim you are here to bring balance, one would think you would be civil to those who are trying to balance as well.

Hosting a video on your site, or a PDF file will no doubt draw traffic to a site. Also, there will no doubt be those who look to see where this document or video is hosted in the web address and visit the main site therefore driving traffic up even more. Driving up traffic on a brand-new site is no doubt very tempting, and also called using Wikipedia to advertise. Will, I think has already addressed the video issue and it was my issue with it initially. You did not show that you had permission to host the video. As far as the PDF goes it was between the FTC and the DSA and did not address Quixtar. I have also seen your link-spamming take place at other blogs as well where you put in very irrelevant comments with your link in the comments section. Of course if one reads through this talk page just above I see you were talked to by an admin about deleting a website that had a consensus to be left on this page.

Thank you for posting that comment from the Quixtar Blog however. Did you have permission to copy that text from the website. If you read below the save page button while editing this page you will see that you are not to copy text from other websites without permission. Anyway, I don't think it will have the effect you expect though. From that comment it appears we are not the only ones who feel your edits and behavior on this page have gotten out of line. It seems to be the consensus from those who visit here. By the way, how is LordTedric? Independent patriot 02:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out this comment made by Insider:

"Own links are "allowable" if you are considered an "expert" in the area and even the critics on the most popular quixtar forum, webraw.com/forum have granted me that status :-)!"

I have been over to the Webraw forums he is talking about and this comment made it back over there. It seems to be the biggest joke on that forum where the consensus among the members of that forum is that this is a made up lie by Insider and he was never granted and such status or viewed as an expert in any area of this business. I find it very unethical to link your own site in violation of the Wikipedia rules, but even more disturbing to lie about the circumstances when called on it. Independent patriot 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As it stands now, all of Quixtar's websites appear to be "reliable sources" while weblogs and similar sites are not "reliable" due to being "self-published." Consequently, any pro-Quixtar claims made on a site such as "quixtarfacts" are quoted in the article with said website as an "RS" to back them up, while counter claims are deleted as unreliable simply because the vast majority of them cannot be found on a corporate or mass-media website. This leads to an inherent pro-Quixtar POV. I find that websites such as quixtarfacts do not pass WP:RS as they are "self-published" sources; namely, they fail the "not contentious" and "not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing" aspects of that criterion. Because currently, the logic here is "if it's on a corporate site, it's reliable; otherwise, it is not." Claims of critical IBOs deserve as much credence as those of "successful IBOs"; however, currently, one of those viewpoints gets much greater exposure on this page than the other. DonIncognito 23:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

From Jimbo Wales in NPOV -

* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

The Quixtar "critics" POV is an extremely small minority, with no prominent adherents. Less than a handful of websites by a vocal few. Contrast this with "independent" sources - BBB: Less than 1 complaint about Quixtar IBOs per year. FTC: Asked for submissions regarding proposed changes to the Business Opportunity rules - over 3000 submissions supporting Quixtar. Two against, and one of those was pro-Quixtar, just had a problem with one aspect (it was our "friend" Tex). This despite Larsen on his Amquix site asking visitors to write! Even Larsen's own "correspondence" pages has more letters from people supporting Amway/Quixtar than against it! The only "notable" controversy regarding Quixtar was the NBC Dateline show, and that is included in this article. --Insider201283 23:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The section I am referring to is "Controversy". The "Successful IBOs" are likewise a small minority, and are not an "independent source." Being quoted on Quixtar's corporate spin site does not make them "reliable." That section presents a one-sided view of the tools controversy and the only reason the pro side is quoted more extensively than the critical side is because they're published on quixtarfacts.com. Their claims are just as anecdotal as the claims of the critics', so if we're going to be including anecdotal evidence, then it better be from both sides for true NPOV. DonIncognito 00:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, BBB and FTC ratings are completely irrelevant to the viability of the business plan or the tools problem, so you can quit playing the little misdirection game. DonIncognito 00:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Right - so let's just get this clear. According to you -

1. Anyone succeeding with Quixtar is not an independent source about whether Quixtar is a sensible business opportunity, because it worked for them and therefore made them biased.

2. Quixtar cannot be considered an authoritive source about Quixtar's own statistics.

3. People giving their opinions ON VIDEO are not reliable sources of their own opinion!!!

3. Neither the FTC or BBB provide relevant information about whether a business generates controversy or complaints.

You're being ridiculous --Insider201283 00:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's according to your twisted interpretation of what I said.

1.Not what I said at all. I said that if someone like that passes WP:RS then a critic giving their opinion should likewise pass WP:RS. The fact that one is published on a corporate-sponsored site does nothing to affect their reliability. WP:RS cuts both ways.

2.Never argued about Quixtar's statistics, stop putting words in my mouth.

3.Are those people's "opinions" RS for the purpose of this article? If so, then so are the opinions of the critics. You don't get to pick and choose.

4.Not what I said at all. Read it again and stop pretending to be dumb. DonIncognito 00:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So what is your point then? There are no links to "endorsements" because I couldn't be bothered fighting that battle (I didn't originally add it). There is no references to the fact FTC and BBB have very few complaints. The only part of the article containing any "anecdotal evidence" is the part you added re "google bombing" - which is entirely based on anecdotal evidence. Anything based on such flimsy blog sourcing (including demonstrably false assertions) shouldn't be included at all.

My point is that according to [Jimbo_Wales] guidelines, the "critics" side of things should not be considered at all since it has no prominent adherents and is a very small minority.--Insider201283 00:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't the subject been criticized by 60 Minutes and Dateline? Aren't those notable critics? -Will Beback · † · 09:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I mention above "except for Dateline". While I disagree with their angle - namely they deal with one relatively small organization within one larger organization that seems to be the source of virtually all A/Q criticism, and ignore the vast majority of the A/Q world that generates no complaints - I accept it's a valid source for this article and have never disputed it being included in the controversy section. --Insider201283 09:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Then criticism of Quixtar is not a fringe POV, but rather a POV that has been promoted by one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, among others. It is not, as asserted above, "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". -Will Beback · † · 10:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I respectfully disagree. One hyperbolic TV show (or two counting Dateline back in the 80s) giving voice to 4 people, (two of whom are a couple and one of whom admits acting unethically when he was a Quixtar IBO and now runs a competitor company) criticising a company with a 70yr history (including Nutrilite) which has involved literally tens of millions of people around the world is quite patently an extremely small minority. Especially in the context of the other half of that media conglomerete (MSNBC remember) explictly endorsing Quixtar (as per video) and another of that channels shows, NBC Today, even having the VP of Quixtar, Jim Payne, on the show two days ago (and same time last year). The verifiable facts remain -

1. Millions of people have been involved in the US alone

2. Better Business Bureau gets on average only 1 complaint a year about the behaviour of Quixtar IBOs

3. FTC reports only 2 anti-quixtar submissions amoungst more than 3000 Quixtar-related submissions for it's request for input on MLMs - this despite a campaign by Amquix to get people to write in

4. The self-described "largest public collection of Quixtar and Amway information" publishes more correspondence supporting amway/quixtar than against - and that's even when he has never published any of my supporting letters!

5. More people qualified as new "platinums" (average income 47K/yr) in 2004 alone than have total ever written to Amquix or on webraw quixtarblog forums or any other site criticising amway and quixtar

6. More than 100 times more people register with Quixtar every week than write to Amquix with some negative opinion in a whole year.

I don't think you get a more clear "minority" than that. --Insider201283 11:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

<-- By analogy, there are over one thousand million professed Roman Catholics. Only a few thousand have alleged sexual abuse in the last while. That's a tiny minority, though significant nonetheless. GE and Microsft, partners in MSNBC, are not quite as large as the Church but they're still among the largest corporations in the world, far larger than Alticor. The fact that they've criticised the subject means that criticism is legitimate, not a fringe topic. -Will Beback · † · 12:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you seriously equating criticism of Quixtar with sexual abuse? Sexual abuse is a significant problem because of the nature of the problem - not because of it's prevalence. In any case, according to wikipedia, statistics on prevalence of sexual abuse in Catholicism range from 0.2% to 1.5%. A similar rate in Quixtar would up to 15000 complaints a year! Another view, less hypothetical, lets look at actual reports - there are approximately 65 million Catholics in the United States [2] - In 2004 there were 1092 new credible cases presented, mostly originating from the 60s and 70s[http://heartofcanada.typepad.com/randomthoughts/2005/02/sexual_offendin.html]. So in 1 year 1092 "complaints" from a population of 65 million - a prevalence of 0.00168%. In the same year, 2004 the Better Business Bureau received 1 complaint about Quixtar IBOs. Over the same time frame 60s to present there has been at least 15 million separate "people" (couples counting once) registered as IBOs (extrapolating from 340,000 in 1979 to 1 million currently, only 30% renew each year, 70% are new.). That's a prevalance rate of 0.000007% - 240 times smaller than your rather offensive analogy. Lets throw in complaints to "Amquix" (and how many abused catholics never report officially, just "confess" on some anonymous website?). He publishes around 90 a year. A prevalence rate of 0.0006%. Still orders of magnitude less than your sexual abuse analogy. Furthermore, the Quixtar prevalance rate could potentially be halved as many of those IBOs were couples. There are quite a number of "critics" who are divorced from their partners, and their partners are still IBOs and supportive of Quixtar. That quite obviously doesn't apply to sexual abuse cases. Sorry Will, not even close, try again - where is an informal complaint rate of 0.0006% and a formal complaint rate of 0.000007% considered anything but a "clear minority"????? --Insider201283 12:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting your BBB statisitics from? This page says they've received 20 complaints about the corporate parent in the last 36 months, 8 of which were in the last year.[http://www.grandrapids.bbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=11002927] -Will Beback · † · 20:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The stats of 1 a year is about IBOs "sales behaviour", which is why I said complainst about Quixtar IBOs. This is the issue of "controversy" regarding Quixtar and what was addressed in the Dateline show and easily 99.99% of online criticism. The other issues were matters of logistics and such, normal type of business issues. Including them makes little difference to the fact your analogy was way way way off base - complaints about sexual abuse are many orders of magnitude higher. --Insider201283 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Forbes magazine also appears to have criticized Quixtar.[http://www.forbes.com/best/2001/0625/040.html] "By joining organizations like Quixtar, you're more likely to fill your shelves with bottles of shampoo than to fill your bank account with cash." That's abnother example of criticism from a notable source. -Will Beback · † · 20:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that should actually be construed as criticism of Quixtar, since the only way to "fill your shelves with bottle of shampoo" would be by explicitly breaking Quixtar's rules - so it would actually be criticism of the person breaking the rules. Granted, the journalist probably didn't mean it that way, they were just demonstrating yet another example of supposedly professional supposedly objective people writing POV stuff from a position of ignorance. The legitimate MLM industries fault for not explaining itself properly I guess, but remarkably unprofessional on this journalists part. Particularly given the CEO of Forbes has explicitly endorsed Quixtar, ala the video discussed earlier, and just this month [http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/14/homebusiness-amway-pyramidscheme-ent-law-cx_mc_1214scam_slide_5.html Forbes described Amway as a "legitimate business"] and recommended it as one of [http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/04/startup-disney-exelon-ent-fin-cx_mc_1201underfive_slide_2.html Nine Business You can start for Under $5000]. Mind you, in the later article they're completely ignorant of the fact that (a) Amway hasn't operated in the US since 2001 (replaced by Quixtar) and (b) the door-to-door model is 20 or 30 years out of date. You'll also find forbes "journalists" in other places stating, completely falsely, things about MLM like "The earlier you get in and the more recruits you have beneath you, the more money you make." Frankly I think Wikipedia considering journalists as valid WP:RS is a mistake. But if you want to put the link in with some text feel free, but you can expect me to add a whole bunch of links from forbes and elsewhere endorsing the business as well as various links showing that the claim is blatantly false (eg the rules!). Again though, Amway/Quixtar is a company with a 70 year old history. I never claimed there are no complaints about it, or indeed no problems. It's a matter of balance, if you're going to link to every piece of criticism then you going to have link to every piece of endorsement. I've got more than 3000 separate testimonials published on FTC.GOV if you really want to go down that path! A quick google has found far more media criticism of a far younger "company" - wikipedia. --Insider201283 21:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned Forbes just because you wrote above that, "the "critics" side of things should not be considered at all since it has no prominent adherents and is a very small minority." There are in fact notable critics, and therefore the criticism should be included. I never said we should include "every piece of criticism", but we shouldn't exclude every piece of criticism either. -Will Beback · † · 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

One throw away line from a journalist that I've never heard of before, and I doubt you have either, does not a "prominent adherent" make. --Insider201283 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I never called the Forbes writer a "prominent adherent". I haven't heard of most journalists, so that isn't a practical standard. The issue is your contention that criticism is not allowed because there are no noteworthy criticisms. -Will Beback · † · 23:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did I ever say "criticism is not allowed". What I did was point out Jimbo Wales guidelines would exclude any discussion of criticism since it is an extremely small minority. A journalists interviewing an "extremely small minority" doesn't change this fact and this guideline. In fact, despite this I think it would be a bit silly not to include the NBC Dateline topic, and I have never challenged its inclusion. My point with the Jimbo Wales quote was to put things in perspective. Your analogy of the catholic church and sexual abuse lead to me doing that even further. Quixtar critics are an extremely small minority, but by virtue of their internet "power" they have a larger voice than they normally would have. That's not always a bad thing, and IMO some of the criticism is perfectly valid and led to improvements in the way Quixtar operates. The issue is it's lack of balance and extreme generalization of issues (which is another topic altogether). --Insider201283 23:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

www.quixtarwiki.com is I think a valuable resource that should be included. Though it is admined by known "critics" of Quixtar, "supporters" like myself are active editors there and IMO the admins have been fair. WP:EL says wikis should be avoided "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." What exactly "substantial" is I'm not sure, but IMO quixtarwiki fits the description for "exceptions". WP:EL also says "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" should be included. It most definitely fits that criteria. The fact it's inclusion is supported by both sides should also be considered. Unless this changes it should be reinstated as an External Link --Insider201283 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you document that it has a large number of editors or that is is stable? -Will Beback · † · 02:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

just look at the history (and bypass my botched attempt at categorising today that should have been marker "minor" :-) A quick count indicates 35 different editors in the last 2 weeks. Despite this "substantial number" major pages like the front page hassn't been changed in months, and even the "Quixtar" article has had only minor changes in the last 6 months.--Insider201283 02:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I count seven logged in users over the past month. [3] That does not appear to me to be a substantial number. -Will Beback · † · 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Why only count logged in users? Anonymous users are also providing valuable information

There's no easy way of telling whether they are one user on many IPs or many users on a few IPs. I would say that a very large percentage of the edits appear to have been made by just three users: yourself, "DjZoNe", and "70.119.38.113". -Will Beback · † · 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, what information does it have that isn't already in the article? -Will Beback · † · 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical sales data, information on different Quixtar support companies, and increasingly large amounts of information on prominent Quixtar IBOs. --Insider201283 02:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the information is relevant and verifiable why can't we include it here? -Will Beback · † · 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(a) it doesn't have as high a standard of sourcing, but then, neither does WP:EL so one would assume that's been considered in the guidelnes (b) if it did, do you really want to list the more than 4000 people that have qualified Diamond here? It's absolutely relevant information, even verifiable if you can track down 40 years of Amagrams from 60 or more countries. Frankly it's not that big a deal for me. I've given my reasons and opinion and why, it's not something I'm going to bust my gut to include. --Insider201283 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the information is not verfiable then we shouldn't link to it. That's a point you've made repeatedly. The guidelines say to avoid linking to Wikis. Thre's no clear reason to do otherwise, especially since we are holding links and sources to high standards. -Will Beback · † · 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a note should be put in the external links section about the consensus "high standards" as people are constantly adding POV links (myself for example when i first started!). Perhaps something along the lines of -

"Editorial consensus on this article is that external links will be kept to a minimum and include only sites valid under WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If you would like to include a link, please discuss it on Talk first" --Insider201283 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The guideline covering external links is WP:EL, not WP:RS or WP:NPOV. -Will Beback · † · 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, however the consensus here in talk seems to have been not to use WP:EL. For example, links that fit WP:EL include various Quixtar published sites (ie "official sites") that provide additional statistics and information, such as www.thisbiznow.com, www.quixtarfacts.com, www.quixtarnewsroom.com. The IBO Association websites, www.iboai.com and www.ibofacts.com sites would also I believe fit WP:EL. --Insider201283 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

<- I don't see that consensus, but this is a large talk page. There is a concern over too many links that all go to the same company. For example the IBO Association links, just one of which would suffice. All of the others you list are official Quixtar sites. We already link to their main site. Adding the others would just appear to be link-farming. -Will Beback · † · 06:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that for such a small artile there should not be masses of external links. Especially to sites that exhibit POV's from the perspective of critics or adherents. Anything worth reading in an external link should be discussed in the text of the article and referenced as a note. It is not the role of the encyclopedia to give an exhaustive collection of links on the topic. David D. (Talk) 19:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Another issue with adding some of those sites is that they have many videos, and articles talking about the critics of this business who have sites and blogs. Yet since the critics are either one person or a small team of writers with a blog or a site they are considered POV sites and are not put on here while Quixtar sites get a free pass since they are part of a corporation even though they have POV material on their site as well. Much of which has been refuted by critics. I also agree that we don't need a link to every critic or supporter who sets up a blog on this subject. I think there should be a standard set for critics who have been around for a while, and have solid search engine rankings. I would say if sites like quixtarfacts.com, iboai.com, ibofacts.com are going to be allowed then a couple of critic sites at minimum should be allowed. The two most popular are amquix.info and Quixtar Blog. While I agree that amquix is slanted quite a bit at times there is still good information on that site. Quixtar Blog has a team of authors, one being a Quixtar IBO. Many stories have broke on that site and has allowed IBOs to post with it's "March of Perceptions" and "Backbone" projects. Also, many IBOs and supporters post comments to any of the posts made there. If we are going to allow Quixtar sites that use some of their space to take shots at their critics, then it is in the interests of balance that some critic sites be included. Independent patriot 02:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this site really need to be referenced in this article? I have gone to the site and it seems this site google bombs anything that the author percieves has to do with the Republican party. Seems to me this addition has been made simply to try and imply that critics are Google Bombing while Quixtar and the leaders only allegedly did it. Sounds quite a bit one-sided to me. Especially considering this is a blog which has been the reason for deleting other sites with good information about Quixtar's Google bombing (webraw.com/quixtar). That site by the way has listed all the 42 sites that were figured to be part of the Google Bombing campaign. Not to mention that I hardly feel this belongs in the promotion area, but rather in some sort of controversy area. I am proposing that either the Google Bomb Project is removed, or we allow blogs as references to this subject which means adding in the articles from webraw. Thoughts? Independent patriot 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are allowed as primary sources for facts about that blog, which is what this is in this case. The "leaders" did only allegedly do it. The main problem with the whole "google bombing" thing isn't actually that, it's that the original source - a blog - provides evidence that the "leaders" did it - and then claims Quixtar did it, which is a completly different thing all together. It only makes it into Wikipedia at all because the blogger told a journalist friend/acquantince about it and he wrote an article with the same misunderstanding. The journalist in question has not responded to any emails on the matter from myself or others, which imo is not very professional. In any case I have no objection to removing the google-bombing project sentence, the way the original googlebombing allegations are worded is pretty NPOV now. --Insider201283 19:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well from what I am reading so far it appears that most of those 42 blogs/sites I referenced above have the names of Quixtar LOA leaders in them, which would pretty much put the Quixtar LOA leaders on the hot seat as far as those who did the Google Bombing campaign. Also, this Margaret Ross who is said to be helping has a relationship with the IBOAI and is only an IBO with Quixtar (at least at the date of that OJR article), again putting the LOA leaders on the spot. Also, there is a post on that blog attributing comments to a Quixtar LOA leader Greg Duncan about Google Bombing. Granted, a verified audio clip would be better, but then in another post there is an audio clip by a leader clearly talking about "pushing down negative" on the search engine results. Now it is agreed that Quixtar and the LOA leaders are not the same thing from a corporation standpoint, and Quixtar admitting they Google bombed, and an LOA leader admitting it are two different sets of events in my mind. So, with all that I believe we have two options here.

One would be to leave the Google Bombing on the Quixtar page at nothing more then admitting Quixtar has various sites including employee blogs that have not been linked to any Google Bomb campaign, and explaining that there have been accusations and certain quotes attributed to Quixtar that were actually made by IBO leadership, which does not officially speak for the Quixtar Corporation. This option would leave at least the link to the OJR article as a reference since it gives quotes from both sides and I think explains it well enough as long as this page informs the reader of the difference between official Quixtar corporation PR and IBO leadership and the IBOAI.

The second option would be to lay it out in it's entire detail with all the links to the posts at webraw for reference as well as the OJR article and the Google Bomb Project. Topped off with a heavy dose of explanation on this page helping the reader sort out the details between Quixtar Corporation, IBO leaders, and the IBOAI. Personally I like the 1st option, but am open to discussion and any other suggestions. I just really don't see the relevance of some blog that appears to just have a Google Bombing fetish being linked on this page. Independent patriot 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Went through all this on the google bombing page. I was unable to explain to the mediator or the other editor the difference between "Quixtar" and "Quixtar IBOs". In any case Glaser of OJR claims he spoke to the IBO who heard the Duncan quote. It's still hearsay but good enough for Wikipedia cause a journalist said it (though in my view as a columnist on a university website it doesn't actually pass WP:RS). That really is nitpicking though, looks to me like some "Quixtar leaders" probably engaged in a type of googlebombing. My problem isn't really with those allegations against "quixtar leaders", it's that Janssen, and then Glaser, both take that claim and all those "leader" blogs you mention and claim that "Quixtar admits to googlebombing". There's no evidence of that at all and Quixtar explicity denied it. I also didn't think it was notable enough for the googlebombing article, particularly with that false conclusion, but I have no argument about it being included here. ScoobieDavis by the way is claiming his anti-amway/quixtar googlebomb was wildly successful, leading to all the critic sites moving up the rankings. He also thinks thetruthaboutquixtar.com is an official company blog. Kind of flattering I guess. :-/ --Insider201283 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well considering you and I are on other sides of the fence about Quixtar and both agree that it was the Quixtar LOA leaders and possibly the IBOAI who engaged in some type of google bombing campaign and not the Quixtar corporate HQ (although I believe they knew what was going on and were silently on board, I just can't prove it) maybe an admin will see the difference. Also no offense but by Scoobie's claim of your site being an official site shows how little he really knows and just throws more fuel on the flame of why his site really shouldn't be here. So since you are the only one discussing so far which of the previous options I mentioned would you be more on board with? Narrowing it down to the basic explanation with the OJR article added, or laying it all out in all it's glory trying to make sense of the mess for the reader? Independent patriot 02:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a former Amway distibutor that was recently approached to go to a Quixtar seminar. I decided to research Quixtar by reading the Wikipedia entry. The introduction seems to be written in a very positve view. Even though the subsection "Business Support Materials & Controversy" gives the other view, the intro doesn't even summarize the other POV and the rest of the article is very positive. Since I'm not really neutral in this subject, I would appreciate it if another neutral editor would challenge the NPOV of the Quixtar article. Crocoite 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the lack of active editors (neutral or otherwise), I went ahead and added a line in the introduction. --Knverma 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

wasn't that line in their before? It should remain. Knverma, are you a former or current IBO? --Insider201283 19:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To make things clear: I was never an IBO in any sense, except on paper.

Which is the case for the great majority of IBOs :-)

To be even more clear, I never showed the plan, never invited anyone for a meeting .... --Knverma 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is the case for the great majority of IBOs! That's the whole thing about network marketing - lots of people sign the paperwork, hardly anyone actually *does* it. --Insider201283 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you plan to work on these articles, I have some suggestions. I wanted to add info about things like pin levels, compensation (and more) but have been postponing it indefinitely. --Knverma 19:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I find working on wikipedia exhausting, so I can understand that! Your edits indicate you're more on the "critic" side of things, I'm obviously on the other side. I'm sincerely interested in achieving a factual balanced articles. Just to be clear, IMO there's absolutely no way that the "critics" POV should *not* be in the articles, but there is a real problem with false or misleading "internet echo chamber" stuff ending up here. Unfortunately what happens is once it's on wikipedia it then gets repeated elsewhere, even the MSM, and becomes accepted truth even when false or misleading. I've read stuff on the 'net and believed it and then gone and researched myself and found that the "true" story was actually quite different to the impression given on the 'net. Personally I put the blame at A/Q's door for this, they've done an absolutely terrible job of working with the media in the past, and in censoring IBOs who want to show their perspective. In short though, I'm more than happy to work with you to make this a good article, but I'd ask you to be balanced and NPOV in your efforts also. Linking to scheibler's and larsen's entirely POV sites and disagreeing with linking to TTAQ is not IMO a balanced perspective - it's double standards. I have no problem at all with links to larsen's pdf files, I think it's sensible and easy, but as 64.34.215.67 pointed out, exactly the same situation was "disallowed" on this article with TTAQ. That's also a double standard. Linking to the sites themselves, well, IMO best to leave them all out. MoD is entire self-published POV, with no way to check the truth or otherwise. Larsen has some useful materials, but too much of it is opinion or factually incorrect (took him 8 years before he learned how the 4% worked!). On my site TTAQ at least it is cleary dilineated what is fact and what is opinion, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to not link to that site if the other sites aren't listed either. It's not perfectly reasonable to do it the other way, and I can see no justification for that other than sheer bias. --Insider201283 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There are of course more topics that deserve mention. Quixtar's rules regarding arbitration, BSMAA etc are some topics that come to my mind at the moment. --Knverma 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

BSMAA is a non-topic. Janssen tried to make it a topic, but he was wrong. Despite his claims, it's not mandatory, see TTAQ. Arbitration I'm not sure about - do you actually have WP:RS valid sources to know what the arbitration procedure actually is? I don't. Critics put one spin on it, but when you look into it, it appears that both parties, and the original courts, have to agree to the arbitration panels conclusions. So it too seems a non-story. Problem is by it's very nature the parties themselves can't talk about it. I don't talk about it because I don't know how it works. Folk like larsen and janssen write articles without actually knowing how it works. So until we can get some WP:RS stuff then it's problematic. Pin levels might be interesting. The Quixtar compendium is online and describes these. Note, regarding the "merger" proposal, Quixtar pin level qualifications are not the same as for most of the Amway world. Quixtar goes to 25% at 7500PV for Silver, Oceania Amway to 21% at 7500PV and Amway Europe to 21% at 10000PV. --Insider201283 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I also partly got involved in other articles, but these articles remain on my agenda.

I am happy to cooperate with you, and actually look forward to some active editors who at least add some content, irrespective of their POV. My edits may appear to have a critic's POV because there has been most vandalism here from the other side of the POV. And you should particularly thank me for this.

Regarding links, you can check the history to see the number of times I deleted links to Larsen, Touretzky etc. At some point, I decided to keep links to court documents etc, as a temporary measure till they are copied to wikisource. As I said, I also retained the link to Brian Zima's affidavit on TTAQ, see Network 21.

Also I have no interest in including Larsen's or Scheibeler's allegations in this article. As I said, citing them was a response to another IP who first cited Quixtar's response to Larsen and others. Citing Quixtar's response to critics makes no sense without citing critics.

Yes, pin levels etc are the obvious things to add. Regarding arbitration etc, we could start with the official rules which are probably stated in the Quixtar compendium. This is relevant because it helps understand many of the court cases. Because of all the BSM controversy, it is interesting to understand at least what Quixtar's official rules are.

Merger is not a big issue for me. But concerning you reasoning, Amway's rules actually seem somewhat different in each country --Knverma 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole larsen/scheibeler/quixtar/iboai stuff is all "he said/she said" type of stuff, I vote to leave it out for now - both sides. Re Brian Zima, I got an email about that - what was the problem again? A spelling error or typo or something? Thanks for fixing JoeCools edit and the other POV stuff. Unbelievable, particularly since he spent a great deal of effort on the various blogs he contributes to claiming I was spamming wikipedia with my site. :-/ --Insider201283 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no problem regarding Zima, I just suggested correcting spelling in the filename, it just makes Wikipedia look nicer. See Talk:Network TwentyOne. We can remove the "he said/she said" stories. Scheibeler comes into the picture because we are talking of the lawsuits filed by former distributors. Of course we are not going to list all lawsuits, but the ones involving him are among the relevant ones. But we can delete links to his website. I guess that's what is "unbalanced" about the article? --Knverma 07:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot more lawsuits filed against Quixtar. Why are they not listed here? What is your criteria to choose some critic as relevant and others as not relevant? Moreover I do not see any attempt from anyone ( including myself) to bring here what was the outcome of the lawsuit. Anyone can file a lawsuit and most of big companies have open lawsuits but what people need to know is if some action was taken against the company or the fault was proven ? 12.104.244.6 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Scheibeler is relevant among all the critics for several reasons like 1) he formerly attained a significant enough pin level, 2) Quixtar has noted and responded to him on their websites, 3) he has also received some media coverage. Of course, there might be some missing information as you said, and all editors have time constraints. --Knverma 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Amway Sued as Pyramid Scheme Fraud

As this lawsuit is a new event, I do not see this listed in the article.

In a crucial development that could rock the entire multi-level marketing business, a class action lawsuit has been filed this month against Quixtar (Amway) charging that the company is running an illegal pyramid scheme. (filed in US District court in the northern district of California on January 10, 2007, case number 3:07-cv-00201-EMC.) http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/PSAMain/news/AmwayPyramidSuit.pdf

The charges against Amway/Quixtar go to the very heart of the company's business practices and most other multi-level marketing (MLM) schemes', that there is no retail "direct selling" opportunity, only an endless chain recruitment program.

The charges are being brought by one of America's most prestigious law firms, Boies, Schiller and Flexner.

The suit is based on the very same charges that the Federal Trade Commission has brought against Equinox, SkyBiz and other MLMs that regulators shut down. The suit charges that the Quixtar program – based upon selling products to recruits "for personal use", then authorizing them to recruit others to do the same while requiring or incentivizing them to maintain quota levels of monthly purchases, and then rewarding them in a multi-level compensation system – is a fraud. The suit also attacks Quixtar's infamous "tools" business as a second pyramid scheme perpetrated on new recruits. The "tools" scheme was exposed in a 2004 special report on NBC Dateline.

http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/PSAMain/news/AmwaySuedasPyramidScheme.html

This lawsuit challenges the non-pyramid scheme arguments in the "Business model" subsection and gives further info for the subsection "Business Support Materials & Controversy". I would appreciate it if another neutral editor would add the appropriate links to this lawsuit. Crocoite 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This page used to have a "litigation" section. What happened to it? It seems like a good place for things like the 1986 FTC fine and this new suit in California. Steve8675309 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pyramid Scheme Alert is not a valid source, but this is a valid topic. --Insider201283 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a book "Amway Motivational Organizations: Behind the Smoke and Mirrors" http://www.amazon.com/Amway-Motivational-Organizations-Behind-Mirrors/dp/0967107024 that is missing from the Quixtar article. I would appreciate it if another neutral editor would add the appropriate links to this book. Crocoite 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

it's in the book list on the amway article --Insider201283 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The material about the DeVos tapes requires much modification I think in terms of reliable sourcing and neutrality of tone. --Knverma 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text I deleted from the article:

Although the exact level has historically been a carefully guarded secret, and many groups even claimed no profit was made on tools, the lifestyles displayed could only be explained if the vast majority of income (greater than 2/3) came from the tools.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} This is especially true since the somewhat recent (sometime in the 1990's) advent of the Founders pin, requiring the applicable volume for a 12 month period rather than a 6 month period. If the founders level is not reached, there is a very good chance the original pin level is not being maintained, and therefore the income level from Quixtar is not being maintained. However, the lifestyle of many Emeralds and above indicate the tool money must be making up for this "shortfall".‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Some of the issues were addressed, such as the cross-selling of the system tools. However, there have been a number of lawsuits over the years among the higher level IBO's where the upline alledgedly "went around" or cut the "middle" high level IBO out of tool profits.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Also, and most significantly for the vast majority of IBO's who are not getting paid for tool consumption, the level of tool profit has not been addressed.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}

This has led to many IBO's losing tens of thousands of dollars in high priced tools (tapes/CD's, books, and functions) that make up the majority, and often the vast majority, of many Emerald and above income in many major lines of sponsorship.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} The easiest way to determine whether a given line of affiliation is making the majority of money from tools is to review the prices. The groups that generate a large amount of tool profit charge about $6-7 for tapes/CD's, full retail for the books, about $25 for monthly functions and about $100-150 for major functions. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} --Knverma 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And should all this be put in the Amway article or the in the Quixtar article (or both)? These events of course occurred before Quixtar was created. --Knverma 13:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue. As far as I can tell, "Quixtar" is just "Amway North America" renamed and moved online. The personnel and product lines are mostly the same. The injunctions on FTC Amway apply to Quixtar. So, unless we merge the article we'll have to repeat a certain amount of Amway history in order to give the Quixtar article its proper context. That said, this material is entirely unsourced and so shouldn't be re-aded until sources can be found. -Will Beback · † · 21:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is apprarently a blog by employees. It carries a disclaimer that says:

• The authors of these blogs are Quixtar employees. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily reviewed in advance by anyone but the individual author. These opinions do not necessarily reflect the view of Quixtar or any other person or company.

If it did represent the official views of the company it would be appropriate to include. But an employee blog is no more relevant than a critic's blog, or any other blog. Per WP:EL, I don't see any reason to include it. -Will Beback · † · 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

opportunityzone blogs are now the subject of media articles, which means they are notable, there's a link in the media area. --Insider201283 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)