Misplaced Pages

Talk:Amway: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:43, 21 March 2016 editHistorik75 (talk | contribs)357 edits →Anonymous Comment← Previous edit Revision as of 00:14, 22 March 2016 edit undoHistorik75 (talk | contribs)357 edits →Threaded DiscussionNext edit →
Line 570: Line 570:
:::::“''The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of ] and ]. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala and charged with violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. In 2014, Pickney was arrested by ] police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail''.” ] (]) 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC) :::::“''The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of ] and ]. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala and charged with violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. In 2014, Pickney was arrested by ] police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail''.” ] (]) 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}May I suggest getting some agreement on the body text for Amway India before we worry about the lede?--] (]) 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC) {{od}}May I suggest getting some agreement on the body text for Amway India before we worry about the lede?--] (]) 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

:Good point. I was just about to answer, but I would only repeat what I had said before. So let's summarize. Has any court (in India or anywhere else) decided that Amway is a pyramid scheme? Yes or no? This was the basic question and the answer should definitely be included in the article body. As the most important are the results, i.e. the court decisions, not the charges or what AP Police said about the court decision, I'd suggest that the overall tone of the paragraph should reflect the outcomes.--] (]) 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


==Anonymous Comment== ==Anonymous Comment==

Revision as of 00:14, 22 March 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amway article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amway article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBrands Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCompanies High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHome Living Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMarketing & Advertising Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMichigan Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRetailing Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Retailing To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
–When a task is completed, please remove it from the list.

Amway India

This subsection should be condensed. Notreallydavid (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, probably should be expanded and broken out in to it's own article. --Icerat (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources modified on Amway

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Amway. I managed to add archive links to 5 sources, out of the total 5 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:


Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 16:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

FTC in lead

I see this talk page hasn't been used recently. In any case, I object to the (present) FTC finding that Amway is not a pyramid scheme being in the lead, because some other countries' judicial or administrative systems have found that Amway to be a pyramid scheme.

In fact, the article on the tax court case could be seen as supporting the statement that many IBOs believe Amway to be a pyramid scheme. That should be in the body, if adequately sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Agreed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I regret to say it, but I do not agree. Contrary to what you believe, the fact is that in no country Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme. In the US it was found NOT to be one. When you wrote about other countries, I believe you were talking about India, where few activists raised charges against Amway being a pyramid scheme based on outdated 38 years old Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which had been created 20 years before direct selling companies entered the market. However, the state High Court issued an injunction against the CID and stated the Act did not prima facie apply; So to imply Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme in India is not only inaccurate, it is completely wrong. Amway India is still running. If you know about any other country where the court said Amway was a pyramid scheme, please be specific (the court decision would be appreciated).--Historik75 (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Also the claim that many IBOs believe Amway to be a pyramid scheme is completely unsubstantiated. What is "many"? Who decides what that means? Do you claim that a large portion (more than 1.5 million) of 3+ million IBOs believe this? Do you have any supporting evidence? Thanks. --Historik75 (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Changes to the lead have been reverted as they were not NPOV and there was no consensus for the edits. In the 1979 FTC ruling Amway was found "guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims". In India, the CEO and two others were arrested and charged with running a pyrmaid scheme. In the class action case, Amway was again accused of running a pyramid and paid out a $56 million settlement. Also, it's inappropriate to use the weasel word "potential" in the line "Amway has been subject to investigation as a potential pyramid scheme". Amway was investigated as "a pyramid scheme", not as a "potential pyramid scheme". The word "investigation" already implies the "potential" aspect. You wouldn't say someone was charged with potential murder; you would simply say they were charged with murder. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Saying Amway was investigated as a pyramid scheme is misleading because without further explanation (court decision) it also can mean that it is really a pyramid scheme. So I will only repeat my question - do you have any court decision which explicitely says that Amway is a pyramid scheme? No. You can't have it for a simple reason - it does not exist. Presumption of innocence tells us that you are innocent until proven guilty. The version as it is now is everything but certainly not NPOV. Only the critical point of view is presented while the facts are hidden and the text is potentially misleading the readers. I wonder why you keep deleting the simple information (backed up with source) that Amway was not found to be a pyramid scheme in the US. Can you tell me the reason? Why hide this simple fact? Why do you consider making this fact public not to be NPOV? If you want to have the information about the investigation in the lead, then the FTC case also belongs here. Or, we can delete both information from the lead and keep it in the Pyramid scheme accusations section. I think that would be sufficient. But keeping one information without the other is certainly not NPOV.
Regarding price fixing and making exaggerated income claims: technically you are right - Amway was found to be guilty - but in the context of our discussion it makes no sense - it does not make Amway a pyramid scheme.
Regarding India: the simple fact that the CEO in India was arrested (and then granted a bail) does not make Amway a pyramid scheme. The court decision would do, but it does not exist (there is, however, a court decision that made it clear that the Act does not prima facie apply). Until the court decides, don't you think that in order to keep the article NPOV we should only present balanced information (i.e. accusations and decisions that were made regarding these accusations) instead of publishing only accusations? I am adding a reference to FTC case again and I am asking you not to delete it until you come with a court decision that would justify a claim that Amway is a pyramid scheme. If you will be able to do that, I will revert it back myself and I will not interfere anymore. I have a great respect regarding Misplaced Pages and I want the article to be as accurate as it could be. I am not deleting negative information but I certainly want the positive information to be presented as well. Isn't this considered NPOV by Misplaced Pages rules?
Last but not least, not being a native speaker, I cannot tell for sure but I really see difference between saying "someone was charged with murder" and "it was investigated as a pyramid scheme". To charge someone with something doesn't mean he did that but being "investigated as" means to me that it is a pyramid scheme and it is investigated as one. Is it just my feeling or is there really this way of explanation?--Historik75 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is straying off the rails. Please focus on specific text proposals rather than theoretical arguments. As for your last question in reference to the issue of using the word "potential", I can, as a native speaker, assure you that adding the word "potential" is unnecessary (as I explained above), which is why it was removed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Before we continue the discussion, would you please answer my questions first? Not sure which part of my arguments you consider to be theoretical. The fact is that there is no court decision which would say that Amway is a pyramid scheme. You didn't present one evidence to support the opposite. Therefore, I do not understand why are you removing the reference to the FTC case. Anyway, here is one proposal: at the end of the paragraph, there should be the following text: "The Federal Trade Commission found that Amway does not qualify as a pyramid scheme." Do you consider this not to be NPOV?--Historik75 (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I am only interested in discussing specific text proposals (as per WP:TPG), not general Q&A. Now you are simply restating the text you originally proposed, to which I already responded. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I may be wrong but my questions were very specific, not general. Do you have any court decision which says that Amway is a pyramid scheme? Yes or no? If not, why hide the fact that FTC ruled Amway was not a pyramid scheme when you state Amway was investigated as one? NPOV is certainly not the reason to hide this simple and verifiable fact - in fact, it is the reason why it should be published. Are you denying FTC ruled that Amway was not a pyramid scheme? Yes or no? Two simple questions and I would like to hear two simple answers. Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear editors, I don't agree with Rhode Island Red - the statement is not adequately sourced. From five sources two do not work and the first one isn't relevant - FTC didn't investigated Amway as pyramid scheme. In the Complaints section there is no mention of the phrase pyramid scheme. United States Federal Trade Commission only concerned the business practices of Amway and then ruled that Amway was not an illegal pyramid scheme in result. The sentence: "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme." is misleading readers and users.--Plantium (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
RIR, Amway has never been found to be a pyramid scheme, anywhere. Yes, it has been investigated as one - and when hearings have occurred it has been cleared every single time. The only way to have that text even remotely "neutral" is to point out it's been cleared every single time. --Icerat (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
By "every single time" you mean once? In 1979? When they weren't actually cleared per se but rather were censured, and than later violated the terms of that censure? Please read the initial post in this thread as it summed up the issue from the onset. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry but this is a total misrepresentation of what FTC case was really all about. The initial post that started this debate claimed something it could not prove or back up with a single evidence. I pointed out the flaws of this argument and asked you to back it up with the source which you totally ignored. Not only you didn't provide a single argument to support AR and your theory, you even deleted the evidence that speaks against it. I am sorry, but I cannot see how this could be considered NPOV.--Historik75 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
RIR, the original post said something that was completely false, other jursidictions have not found Amway to be a pyramid scheme. The closest - often mistated - was the case in one state of India, Andra Pradesh, where the judges said if the allegations are correct then Amway is in violation of Indian laws. That case never went further. In no country has Amway been found to be a pyramid scheme. By contrast it was explictly cleared of the charge in the US, UK and implictly cleared in various other countries, including China, Canada, and Beligum. --Icerat (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It's also rather troubling to see that 3 Amway WP:SPA accounts are suddenly jumping on the bandwagon. Proceed with caution. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
May I ask what are you trying to say?--Historik75 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Was it not clear when I posted the link to WP:SPA? Perhaps try WP:SOCK and WP:SLEEPER next. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Still do not understand. I only use one account here on Misplaced Pages and this fact is easily verifiable by administrators. And I only edit the topic(s) I consider myself to be educated in. Moreover, I am not a native speaker, so editing the articles in English language is very time consuming for me. Therefore, I only edited this single article here. Does this make me somehow a non-reliable person? I hope that the validity of arguments is of the primary importance, not the number of articles I have edited during my short time here on English Misplaced Pages. By the way: would you be so kind and answer my question below (16:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC))? Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Yet you don't find it "troubling" that two editors (yourself and Arthur) with a well-know bias against MLM are editing here? I've made it well known my area of interest and expertise is direct selling and network marketing. I don't apologise in the least for contributing to articles where I actually know something about the field. --Icerat (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a personal bias against anything, WP:SLEEPER. Stick to the content issues please and don't make personal attacks like that again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Let's calm down. Let's say that you are not biased. Can you explain how could you agree with AR's claim without even asking him to back his claim with a reliable source? The claim that Amway has been found to be a pyramid scheme in other (than US) countries was made by AR without a single reference and your answer was: "Good point. Agreed." Based on what? Do you have any evidence that it actually happened? Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what personal attack did I make? Do you disagree that you are "anti-MLM"?? I didn't realise that was something you disagreed with. My apologies if you considered being against MLM an insult. --Icerat (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
You are trying to weasel your way out of a content dispute by taking stupid potshots at my neutrality as an editor (i.e., falsely alleging that I have a well know bias of any kind). It is a personal attack, a distraction from the editorial issues at hand, and extremely unappreciated. Now instead of heeding my warning, you are doubling down on the attack and edit warring. I suggest you stop immediately. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Everybody has biases, Red, including me. Nothing to be ashamed of, just don't let it overly influence your editing. I must say though, I'm a little confused at how I'm trying to "weasle" my way out of a content dispute and simultaneously edit warring! You (and GF) are the ones that's have been deleting tags pointing out the dispute and removing sourced content consistent with the rest of the article, not me. --Icerat (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I regret to admit it but after this lengthy conversation I have come to a conclusion that no consensus regarding the inclusion or omission of the FTC case in the lead can be reached. Therefore, I would like to inform you that I have requested a dispute resolution process. I hope that the validity of arguments based on reliable sources will eventually win so that we can have an unbiased article both with cons and pros and vice versa. Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 07:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Case not related to Amway Corp. deleted

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

NPOV dispute

Hello everyone,

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

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

"Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme."

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

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

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

or

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

or

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

Thank you for your cooperation.

Best regards,

References

  1. "Amway back to business in state". The Times of India. September 30, 2006. Retrieved July 9, 2011.
  2. ^ In the Matter of Amway Corporation, Inc., et al. (93 F.T.C. 618), from FTC website. Accessed 2016-03-08.

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

Actually, it's the text you have been proposing that would create the POV problem, as it fails to balance all of the sources that pertain to the pyrmaid scheme allegations. This was explained at the outset in the previous thread discussing the issue, and it was unnecessary to start another thread to beat the same horse. Be careful about citing WP:SOCK and WP:SLEEPER accounts to support your POV. I already tried to warn you about this preemptively; ignored, unfortunately. You need to build consensus; drive-by tagging doesn't help, and has been reverted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
RIR, there is clearly a dispute and NPOV tags have clear guidelines for removal -
When to remove
This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
This has clearly not occurred in this case, please do not revert. --Icerat (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'd argue NPOV and Balance in particular is an issue with this whole article. A very very large proportion of the article is dedicated to legal disputes, which contribute but a small fraction to actual coverage of the company. Indeed quite a large section is about a dispute in one state of one country! Misplaced Pages articles should reflect the balance of coverage from reliable sources, this article does not do that. --Icerat (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Driveby tag? An editor actively contributing to the article placed the tag, and another editor who has contributed significantly to the article in the past has agreed with the tag. That is not even remotely drive-by tagging RIR. Now, nobody is disputing Amway has been investigated as a pyramid scheme - it's discussed extensively in the body of the article. What makes the statement in the lead unbalanced is that it omits the fact the company has been explicitly cleared of these allegations. --Icerat (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
One single ruling, which was notoriously vague and toothless, and to this day is highly controversial, doesn't explicitly clear Amway of all of the other accusations, both government and non-government. That something is discussed in the body is precisely the reason it should be summarized in the body. That's what a MOS:LEAD is for. Should we mention that the 1979 ruling also told Amway to stop price fixing? Should we go into detail about China and India and Vietnam and all the other places Amway has been investigated? The current wording is short, sweet, and neutral. Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly! Many sources have written about the pyramid scheme allegations against Amway, and there have been some pretty monumental legal actions and commentaries that are inconsistent with the highly unbalanced whitewashed text that was proposed for the lead. Trying to summarize the issue essentially as "the FTC said everything was OK in 1979" is ridiculously non-NPOV. I see no attempt by the POV pusher(s) (or its sock incarnations) to reconcile the issue. It is egregious POV pushing and has crossed the line to WP:DE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about Grayfell? The court In re Amway explicitly stated "It is not a pyramid sales plan", "is not a pyramid distribution scheme", "The Amway Sales and Marketing Plan is not a pyramid plan". How is that even remotely "vague"???? And yes, please go into detail in China, where Amway was the first (or 2nd) company to be licenced, or Vietnam, which is one of it's best markets. --Icerat (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Again Icrerat, any new proposed text would have to balance what other sources have said collectively about the issue, versus simply pushing your own preferred narrow interpretation of one or two sources. I provided a handy list, which you completely ignored in your haste to POV push.
Wow. That's all I've got to say. Clearly this is going to have to be raised as a dispute - except of course, you and RIR are even arguing there is no dispute, removing the POV dispute tag. Hilarious. --Icerat (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you will need to ask answerable questions, otherwise I can't help you. I don't need to go into detail, because the sources have already been provided. The NYT source above is good starting point to explain some of the controversy over the 1979 'Amway rules'. Also, a 120 page OCR scanned WP:PRIMARY court document from 1979 requires secondary sources to interpret, and even if it didn't, picking a couple of positive points to emphasize in the lede, while ignoring the negative is WP:UNDUE, and precisely why secondary sources are needed. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
(1) we're not talking about the "amway rules", we're talking about investigations Amway is a pyramid (2) There's a multitude of secondary sources, the main body of the article already states Amway was cleared in the UK and US. I provided an additional secondary source for the UK claim (3) I not only didn't "ignore" the negative in the Lede, I added in the UK case. Pointing out an additional case, with additional source is in no way "ignoring" it. Are you disputing that Amway was cleared of being a pyramid in the US and UK?
Now, if you want to talk about WP:UNDUE, I'd love to, as already mentioned. Reliable source coverage of Amway that is not about pyramid allegations and related far, far, far exceeds the pyramid coverage. Don't you agree that coverage in the article should be in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources? --Icerat (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
If "wow" is all you truly have to say, Icerat, then you really have no basis for prolonging this tendentious argument. I suggested trying to reconcile the sources I've presented into a coherent and balanced narrative. If you have no interest in doing so, then we're pretty much done here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I provided a clear, coherent and balanced narrative that reflects not onlu reliable sources but what has existed for a long time in the body of the article Grayfell reverted it. --Icerat (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

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

So just to be clear, you think the lede should point out Amway has been investigated as a pyramid scheme, but not that those investigations cleared it, and to do so would be a violation of WP:BALANCE Is that correct? --Icerat (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, you have the right to dispute whatever you want - except that you don't have a single court decision to support your argument, do you? If so, please give it to us. The simple fact that somebody presents their opinion that he thinks Amway is a pyramid scheme does not make Amway one, unless the court decides. And the court decided that Amway was not a pyramid scheme. You may consider it "controversial" but that's all you can do about it. Your have apparently based your opinion on the presumption of guilt. Fortunately, we live in a world where the presumption of innocence is applied. When you delete the FTC case you should have another court decision that would negate the original decision. You do not have it.--Historik75 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
RIR, in the references you provided, there is not a single one that would prove Amway to be a pyramid scheme. Ironically, several of them, cite the FTC case. For example, I can see that one of your sources says: "The federal agency ruled Amway was not an illegal pyramid scheme, but was guilty of price fixing and overstating income potential. The direct selling giant has survived similar investigations in other countries in subsequent years." Can we use this source you quoted and put it at the end of the lead? Thank you. Do you really consider the publishing cons and pros to be POV pushing? I would say - and I hope I am not mistaken - that POV pushing is when you present only your point of view. I admit that my first edit was inaccurate, but the second one was certainly okay and you reverted it.--Historik75 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I regret to admit it but after this lengthy conversation I have come to a conclusion that no consensus regarding the inclusion or omission of the FTC case in the lead can be reached. Therefore, I would like to inform you that I have requested a dispute resolution process. I hope that the validity of arguments based on reliable sources will eventually win so that we can have an unbiased article both with cons and pros and vice versa. Best regards,--Historik75 (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Icerat, that is also a comically loaded question. Amway was not cleared by all investigations. It was conditionally cleared by some, settled/retracted/dismissed/left unresolved in others, and is ongoing in yet more. This not entirely about WP:BALANCE, which is about contradictory sources covering a single issue. I don't think sources are necessarily contradictory, I think your interpretation of them skews towards a specific point of view. Focusing on one aspect of some sources while ignoring others is non-neutral. This is also about multiple events -as we keep saying, there have been a lot of investigations, lawsuits, accusations, etc.- and emphasizing the favorable aspects of the rulings of two cases while downplaying other aspects and cases is not going to fly.
Court decision? Yes, I do. The 1979 and 2008 decisions have indicated that Amway was, in fact, investigated for being a pyramid scheme. What about the multiple lawsuits that Amway and Quixtar have settled? Should we mention those, then? These are more recent, and the courts clearly didn't rule that Amway was immune from the accusation, right? If you think that's an absurd interpretation, then you can see why secondary sources are needed for this kind of thing. All of the accusations, investigations, class-action lawsuits, etc. are pretty clear. Amway is controversial, and has been linked (falsely or not) to pyramid schemes in many reliable sources, including governments, academics, and journalists. Misplaced Pages is not a courtroom, and a court decision (from decades ago, no less) doesn't exclusively dictate the content of this article. Your proposals interpret a slim selection of sources in the most flattering light possible, and give them prominence above and beyond what is reasonable.
The quote from the source is a step in the right direction, but I still don't think it's going to work. "Surviving" is far too open to interpretation here. That the company still exists is obvious, so mentioning in the lede that they haven't been shut down seems more like it's trying to prove a point than anything else. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, do you find it reasonable to accuse somebody of something and not provide a room to present the whole facts? Very interesting interpretation of NPOV. I did not try to delete the content that was already there, I just added the missing information/fact. That cannot be considered slim selection of sources as the other sources were already there (why should I add them the second time?). On the other hand - why don't you consider the current version to be a selection of only negative sources and thus POV? At least we could agree that the quote could be okay. So what is your proposal?--Historik75 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what Grayfell has in mind, or even that any change to the lead is necessary, but if the text in question were to be expanded, it should look something like this, which provides a good balanced cross section of the relevant coverage:
Amway has been described as a pyramid scheme and has been the target of several lawsuits for unfair and deceptive business practices. A 1979 FTC case concluded that while Amway was not a pyramid scheme, the company was guilty of price-fixing, making exaggerated income claims, and selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors. In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Amway claiming that the company was running an illegal pyramid scheme. Amway settled the case, paying out $150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs. The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.
Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
RIR, just three points:
1. why repeat the same points over and over again on the same page when they are already contained in Pyramid scheme accusations section? Shouldn't we keep the lead "encyclopedic" as short as possible and keep these accusations where they belong, i.e. in the Pyramid scheme accusations section?
2. I cannot understand why in your "summary" you omitted the following facts regarding the accusations in India:
a) Commenting on the Amway incident in 2013, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality came about." and he also said: "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible."
I still want to believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?
b) The charges in India were based on an outdated 38 years old Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which had been created 20 years before direct selling companies entered the market.
I still want to believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?
c) The state High Court issued an injunction against the CID and stated the Act did not prima facie apply.
I still want to believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?
d) After the Amway incident, India is now pressured to create the separate regulation for direct selling which is still missing there.
I still want to believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?
Last, but not least, you misspelled the name of William Pinckney.
3. Regarding 2010 class action settlement: Amway did not admit any wrongdoing and denied all the allegations.
I still believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?
Now, if what you wrote is not a selection of only certain things to create overall bad impression on Amway for you, what is?--Historik75 (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I have noticed that you removed the NPOV tag. I would like to ask you to reconsider your action and put it back until the dispute resolution ends. Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
“I still want to believe that you are not biased against MLM. Then, can you explain why did you omit this in your summary?”
Your accusations regarding perceived bias against MLM (a personal attack), which you inexplicably repeated no less than five times, have no place in the discussion. Rather than asking the question of why some point that you regard as important did not appear in my proposed text, simply offer an alternative suggestion. It’s like you have no idea what WP:TALK#USE and WP:CONSENSUS look like. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Historik75 makes many valid points, and I'd like to add more to rebut what RIR says -
1. Contrary to your cliam, in the FTC case Amway was not found guilty of "selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors". That is outright false.
2. Amway did not "$150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs". In fact, nearly half of the cash award went towards the plaintiff's lawyers costs, and the class action administrators struggled to give away the award money as, despite contacting >95% of former IBOs, hardly any made any claims - they couldn't find "victims".
3. Amway India continues to operate and hasn't even been charged with being a pyramid. They continue to work closely with the government to reform outdated and confusing laws. Without going in to details, a single self-appointed consumer advocate has been the source of every single police action affecting Amway in that country. --Icerat (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
RIR, if you read the dispute, I already made three suggestions. I made these same suggestions before. You were the one who ignored them and failed to answer my questions. That's why I filed a dispute resolution request. Even now, you failed to answer a simple question why you omitted the sources I have provided and which put a whole different light on what you presented to be NPOV. Instead, you accuse me of personal attacks. This was not meant as a personal attack, it was a way to stress that there were 5 examples of POV pushing from your side. I regret to say it, but I am starting to think that you are, perhaps unintentionally, abusing the Misplaced Pages rules to accuse everybody who does not agree with you of POV pushing, SAP, etc. and to shut me/us up with fabricated accusations. Some of the readers could see this as your way to draw away one's attention from your negative POV pushing. So please let's calm down. I only would like to see the answers to my questions which you totally (again) ignored. Again I stress that this is not a personal attack. Please see it as a way how I try to show you that your proposal was not NPOV at all. Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

A minor transposition error on my part. The part about "overpriced products and support materials" was actually in reference to the 2010 class action lawsuit and not the 1979 FTC ruling, and it should therefore be moved accordingly in the lead summary. The source referring to the FTC case made the statement below, which would still be included in the revised lead:
“In 1979, the FTC cleared Amway of operating a pyramid scheme but did find it guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims.”

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

According to sources, it was either $150 or $155 million:
“This icon of “direct selling” just announced that it has agreed to pay restitution to consumers and reform costs estimated at over $150 million.”
“Of all the businesses in the world for the Mets to associate themselves with, they chose one that has been sued for being a pyramid scheme…a company that settled a class-action lawsuit for $155 million that claimed it was "a pyramid scheme in which distributors rarely sell products to outside customers, only to other new distributors they bring in, who must bring more recruits in to make money.”
"Inside the Amway Sales Machine (Wall Street Journal, Feb 15, 2012, Dennis K. Berman)
“Amway has agreed to a $155 million class-action settlement with former U.S. reps who alleged the company used deceptive practices and misled them about profits.”
“Amway has agreed to a $155 million class-action” (link no longer active) settlement…”
“Ex-Amway Unit to Pay $155 Million in Suit, Lawyers (link no longer active) Say”

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

That unsourced claim on your part has no bearing on the proposed text for the lead, which was as follows:
“In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.”
Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
ad 2 - According to this source Amway agreed to pay $55 million to former distributors, closely oversee high-level distributors who run training businesses, strengthen refund policies and make other changes estimated to cost an additional $100 million. (link is still active). Now you can see that your claim was not accurate.--Historik75 (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I have misread what you two wrote thinking that RIR claimed that $150 million were for restitution to consumers only. But Icerat was right - the $150 million were not paid in cash (the cash was $34 million out of which up to $20 million went to pay plaintiffs' attorneys, plus $22 million in products) - see the links here --Historik75 (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I wonder why you keep pushing all these information into the lead when they are already in the corresponding section where they are presented along with all the details. If you want to extend the lead to contain information about India then you also have to say that commenting on the Amway incident in 2013, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality came about." and he also said: "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible." I have pointed that out before and still you ignore it. Why?--Historik75 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
RIR. 1. Amway wasn't found guilty of it in the class action lawsuit either. Now you appear to just be making stuff up 2. Read what Historik75 wrote on that case. 3. Why on earth would that go in WP:LEDE? As per WP guidelines the Lede is for "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Someone being arrested and released (in one state of one country the company operates in) resulting is no further consequences is not even close to "most important contents" regarding a 56 yr old $10b global multinational. Sure, it's (arguably) notable enough for the body of the article, as is much the same thing happening i Amway Korea's early years, but it's not for the Lede. --Icerat (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd also ad that - as your own sources indicate - Pinckney wasn't arrested for "for operating an illegal pyramid scheme", he was arrested in response to allegations of this. There is a significant difference you probably should be aware of. --Icerat (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Since you and the other Amway WP:SPA Historik are both intransigent and not making any constructive proposals, I see little point in continuing this discussion. I'm now inclined to simply agree with Ed Johnston and Grayfell that the text should stand as is. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Amway UK

That Sri Lankan times source is wrong, Amway's operations were never halted. At the request of distributors Amway suspended sponsoring, but otherwise remained in full operation. I'll see if I can find additional sources.--Icerat (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Page 12 of Amway's Amagram explains the situation . I'll let you correct your edit appropriately, Rhode Island Red. --Icerat (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Updated with better and more accurate sourcing --Icerat (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
You would need a WP:RS to back up your assertion that a WP:RS is wrong in their reporting. Furthermore, Amwaywiki.com is not a WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't provide or use AmwayWiki as a source either here or in the article, so what's your point? --Icerat (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
What? You do realize that you linked to it above, right? Amwaywiki is not even close to a reliable source. The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) is reliable, but since other, more exhaustive sources don't mention this, and it seems like it would be a big deal, it would be nice to find additional coverage. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No, I did not link to AmwayWiki, I linked to a PDF copy of the source stored there, and only for the purposes of the talk page. The magazine is the source, not amwaywiki. Furthermore for the article content I used a RS published book, which you chose to ignore and delete. The Sunday Times column is an opinion editorial by anti-mlm campaigner Robert FitzPatrick, not a news source. --Icerat (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you most certainly linked to Amway wiki. The URL you provided was www.amwaywiki.com/images/d/d5/amagram_uk_102007.pdf. Amway wiki is not a WP:RS and the Amway magazine that they have posted there (the PDF you cited) is most definitely not WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
(1) Clearly you do not understand how the internet works. AmwayWiki is a mediawiki, like wikipedia. PDFs are not a part of the mediawiki standard. If the "amwaywiki" part offends you for some reason, use this link to access the source instead - (2) Your RS comments are moot anyway, the PDF was not used as a source in the article, it was merely provided in the talk for your own edification while I found better sourcing. I did so, but you deleted it anyway. --Icerat (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
If we didn't trust the wiki, and we don't trust the magazine, why would we trust a pdf of the magazine hosted from an anonymous IP address? How do we know you didn't just upload that yourself? I'm not averse to removing the line about Amway UK being shut down. Lacking any other mention, I think it was likely a mistake from the Sri Lanka Times, but these sources... Wow. Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
(1)Why wouldn't we trust the magazine. It's verifiable and often found in libraries (2) why are we arguing about it, nobody is trying to use it as a source? (3) "but these sources wow"? The two sources I used in the deleted text was an independently written, Wiley published hardcover and an article in the Times UK. "Wow?" Why? What's your objection to them? --Icerat (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
How many ways do we need to explain that primary sources aren't trustworthy? On your talk you said that you were not trying to use this source in the article, so why do you keep trying to defend it here on the talk page? What's the point? The magazine was rejected for being hosted by a wiki, so your proposal for a replacement is an anonymous IP domain? It's frankly bizarre, and completely and totally misses the point. Do you understand why a an Amway fan-wiki is not a reliable host? Why would some random domain be any more reliable? This indicates that you don't actually understand what the problem is. If you don't understand why it's a problem, how are you going to fix it?
There is another possibility. The IP hosting the file is owned by TribeTech, an obscure Swedish company, and you've linked to the Swedish version of Google. Is this a coincidence? You don't have to answer that, but I've formed an opinion anyway. I think you just uploaded it yourself, copied from the amwaywiki. If that's what's going on, that you would think we would accept such a ruse suggest that you're either completely and catastrophically unclear on how Misplaced Pages works, or you think we are total idiots. I think Rhode Island Red is right. This is intended to be a war of attrition, and you're just playing games to waste our time until we give up. I'm not interested in humoring you any further. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Grayfell, leaving aside your utter misunderstanding of the use of primary sources on WP, I have pointed out NUMEROUS times that it's irrelevant! Who cares? NOBODY EVER SUGGESTED USING IT AS A WP SOURCE. It's you that keep beating that straw man. How about instead you address why you are rejecting an independently written, Wiley published hardcover and an article in the Times UK claiming the sources are somehow "wow" which I imply means you think they're unacceptable? --Icerat (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Canadia Class Action

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

What on earth does using Misplaced Pages markup have to do with anything? Who cares about that? It's the sources themselves that are the problem, not the way they're formatted. The lawblogs aren't reliable sources, and Misplaced Pages favors WP:SECONDARY sources, especially for legal issues. Court documents are only usable as WP:PRIMARY sources, such as supplementing a reliable secondary source. A company as large as Amway is going to go through hundreds of legal actions, many of which are going to be totally trivial or irrelevant. Reliable, secondary analysis is required to establish WP:DUE weight. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
(1) Your blanket dismissal of "law blogs" is incorrect. (2) As you state secondary sources are "favoured", but they're not necessary. Yours and RIRs actions today are clear edit-warring, deleting and reverting sourced text without any commentary in talk first. I've requested the article go to formal dispute resolution. --Icerat (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Your actions are once again disruptive. WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTRS spells out WP policy on the matter. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY clearly states a primary source may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further". That was done. WP:NOTRSclearly states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Well-established large Canadian law firms are clearly established experts on the subject matter. --Icerat (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Again? Still? Not every lawyer is an expert, and even if they were, their statements would need to be clearly attributed. That is why we rely on academic or journalistic sources which have a history of fact-checking, and a reputation for accuracy. Otherwise it's only usable for opinion, not for fact. Here's one of the blogs' description of the case: The Court of Appeal’s decision in Murphy v. Amway Canada Corporation deals with the difficult issue of federal and provincial court jurisdiction where the parties have chosen to incorporate a statutory regime to govern arbitrations in an arbitration agreement. The decision also grapples with the controversial issue of the validity of class action waiver provisions. So this is straightforward and important enough to mention as a clear victory for Amway? It was about arbitration agreements in Canada, I don't see how this reflects on the entire multinational corporation in any meaningful way. It certainly doesn't need its own lengthy paragraph. Grayfell (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, and given that no reliable secondary sources (e.g. media) have covered the case, notability is questionable and inclusion would arguably be WP:UNDUE. It strikes me as obscure poorly sourced trivia. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
(1) Lexology has a reputation for accuracy, as I noted on RSN it's regularly cited in academic literature (2) The PS is enough given no interpretation anyway (3) the case was well-covered in trade literature, with google reporting over 600 hits--Icerat (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
So let's finish this at RSN, then, right? Spreading this out over multiple places is a waste of time. Oh, but first, click on the last page number on the bottom of that google link. That gives a far lower number than 600. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
"About 631 results (0,32 seconds)", but as always google does its "omitting" thing. There's no disputing it was covered by multiple trade sources. --Icerat (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
After clicking on page 10 while logged out of google, I get "Page 3 of about 26 results (0.28 seconds)". That the case was covered by multiple trade sources is certainly disputable, because those sources need to be reliable, and so far they aren't. Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Google hits do not constitute a reliable source. This is vindictive disruption. Stop it! Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
What's disruptive is you constantly accusing me of being disruptive because you WP:DONTLIKEIT. --Icerat (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Distributors"

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

For the last time, stop being being disruptive or you will be banned. The number of sources that refer to Amway's IBO's as "distributors" is voluminous enough to make your assertion ridiculous. It takes all of 30 seconds on Google to confirm. It's time for you to take a long overdue break. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
So now disagreeing with you on a talk page is being disruptive? Who do you think you are? Amway IBOs were referred to officially as distributors but aren't any longer. Just because people still do is not an argument for how to word a wikipedia article. "Amway distributor" is as much jargon as "Amway IBO" (of which there are also huge numbers of sources). Non-jargon terms should be used to introduce jargon terms. Using one bit of jargon to help define another is pointless. --Icerat (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Stop already. You are shooting yourself in the foot. It is supported by a plethora of reliable sources. Pick your battles more wisely and stop wasting WP resources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Stop what? I made a simple edit to improve the article by removing jargon, and you reverted it, not me. --Icerat (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
False. I added the term distributors and you reverted my edit, despite the fact that I have presented 11 sources that use the exact same term. Your position is indefensible. Like I said, give it a rest. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
False. I did not revert your edit. I thought overall it was an improvement to what was there. I also thought that changing "Amway distributors" a jargon term that while common "parlance in MLM" is meaningless to someone new to the field, with the more generic "Amway agents" would be a further improvement. You took objection to this simple change and accused me of being disruptive and threatened me with banning! --Icerat (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Wording of Lede Paragraph

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There have been several proposals as to how a paragraph in the lede section as to whether Amway has been said to be a pyramid scheme. In the Survey, select A, or B, or C, or provide another proposal. (If there is no consensus, then this RFC may be relisted by choosing only two options.) Robert McClenon (talk)

Proposal A: Amway has been subject to several investigations whether it runs a pyramid scheme. The investigations took place in the United States, the United Kingdom, and two states in India.. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom cleared the company of the charges.

Proposal B.: Amway has been examined by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States, the High Court in United Kingdom, and governments of two states in India for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States and by the High Court in the United Kingdom cleared the company of charges.

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

Specify which option you want in the Survey. Do not engage in threaded discussion. Threaded discussion may be in the Threaded Discussion section. Be civil and concise in both the Survey and the Threaded Discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Well, option C (or a variant thereof) obviously, since it is the only version that comes close to meeting the requirements for WP:LEAD; i.e., specifically to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies...mention of significant criticism", appearing in the body text. Not sure what a straight up vote accomplishes though (especially with 3 WP:SPAs representing the entire opposing side of the dispute). It's the details that matter. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • If the authors are permitted to leave their opinion too (and as per the previous commentary I assume we can), I prefer version B as it is the most accurate one. The prominent controversy around Amway (according to the coverage in the published sources around the world) is clearly only one issue, i.e. a pyramid scheme accusation, as it is a global controversy that was raised in several countries. One-time issue such as price fixing which occurred 40 years ago in one country is clearly not a prominent controversy given that Amway now operates in 100+ countries and territories. The settled case doesn't tell us anything because there was "no admission of guilt" clause (which is ommitted in the version C). All these other issues can be found in the article body. If they were considered prominent, then where is the information about $830M Vioxx case in the Merck_&_Co. lead? Or €211M price fixing case in Procter_&_Gamble lead? Or Microsoft? Or Apple_Inc.? Why should we treat Amway differently?
Moreover, the version C is misleading as it is presenting the half-truths by using inaccurate and misleading quotes about what the media really said about the India case, which makes the version C non-NPOV and non balanced. (Where is the information about the reaction of Minister of Corporate Affairs? Where is the court's decision that said the Act did not prima facie apply, etc.?). FTC found that Amway had been selling overpriced products? How can we say this when the fact is that the FTC found the opposite?! The version C would only serve one purpose - to create a bad impression on Amway by using misleading statements and to disseminate even more misinformation about the company. It's been five years already that this article has been under a strong negative POV pushing attack and I am sure that this is not what Misplaced Pages was meant to be. I hope that the truth (not half-truths) is what really matters and that it eventually wins.--Historik75 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Version B is probably the best, though I'm doubtful "allegations" in a couple of Indian states that never went to court deserve a place in the lede. As mentioned in the earlier discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard, version C is not only factually incorrect and unsupported by RS, it does not remotely reflect the prominence of coverage in reliable sources.--Icerat (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, per Rhode Island Red, since WP:LEAD is pretty clear, and the multiple cases are all significant and well documented, C is the best choice. A isn't too bad, but B is far, far too whitewashed to be usable. Trying to downplay this complex issue in order to exonerate Amway is unacceptable. Grayfell (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • A or B as C is argumentative in esse. The clear summary is that no court has found Amway to be a "pyramid scheme" operating contrary to law. The snark that it is "overpriced" could easily apply to many companies, and "overpricing" is not specifically a violation of law with regard to Amway. The goal of any Misplaced Pages article is neutrality in point of view, and the fact that editors "know" how horrid Amway is, is something Misplaced Pages policy states is not to be used as a factor in editing any article. The arrest of Pinckney is of very marginal value to Misplaced Pages readers "While Kerala police have perhaps have taken the fight against MLMs to a new level by publicly placing a CEO in handcuffs, it’s another matter whether they can outlaw MLMs altogether." is clear in tenor - other companies have, in the past, had people arrested in India without convictions. Coca Cola was "ordered" to hand over its formula in the past and have an India company control the formula with Coke having to hand over 60% control <g>. So Coca Cola was illegal in India for close to two decades. There is a slim possibility that arrests might have been made on the basis of commercial interests in some regions of this world. (multiple business sources available elaborating thereon) Collect (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue at hand is not simply whether a court has or has not found Amway to be a pyrmaid scheme. The issue is that the current version of the lead fails to adequately summarize controversy and criticism covered in the body text of the article as required by WP:LEAD. The pyramid scheme detail is but one aspect of the controversy and criticism that Amway has been the subject of. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to include text in the lead that simply says the FTC found Amway to not be a period scheme, since the second part of the FTC ruling was that Amway was "guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims" and that these transgressions were "false and misleading". Furthermore, Amway received a court order to stop making such claims, but they subsequently violated the CDO and were fined as a result. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Clue: Arguing in a section which is specifically designed to not hold extended colloquies is unlikely to either be read by anyone, sway anyone's opinions here, or elicit any extended response from me. Collect (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Both of the SPAs that have commented in the survey so far have made virtually identical hyperbolic claims -- i.e., "Version C is misleading as it is presenting the half-truths by using inaccurate and misleading quotes" and "version C is not only factually incorrect and unsupported by RS, it does not remotely reflect the prominence of coverage in reliable sources" -- but in neither case did these editors make any attempt to provide one iota of evidence to support such an assertion (thus bypassing the ultimate purpose of Talk page discussion, which is to reach a valid WP:CONSENSUS -- not simply to take a straight up/down vote vote). Nor have they addressed the fact that Versions A and B (their preferred whitewashed versions) do not even remotely satisfy the requirements of WP:LEAD with respect to coverage of controversies and criticism contained in the body text of the article, while Version C does so quite fittingly.

I already provided the evidence to show that the Version C (or perhaps a slight variant thereof) is well supported by a plethora of sources with respect to Amway India -- the evidence was simply ignored. If there were any inaccuracies of NPOV problems in Version C, they could have been pointed out by now, in detail, so that they could be corrected. In no scenario would it be valid to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater, and especially not in the absence of a counter-proposal for a version that adequately sums up the body text of the article (which happens to contain a significant amount of controversy/criticism as reflected by scores of WP:RS).

In addition to the content previously proposed in Version C, and in keeping with the retirements of WP:LEAD, the Canadian tax fraud case would also merit inclusion in the lead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages goes by WP:DUE per coverage in sources, which may not directly match assumptions about significance. Comparisons to price fixing at Microsoft (a company at least ten-times as large under a hundred times the scrutiny) falls under other stuff. Including mention of the anti-trust accusations in the lede seems like a valid idea, actually, but that would have to be decided based at that article's talk page, based on other problems, other sources, and other details. Trying to compare Amway to other popular but controversial companies is transparently misleading and pure distraction. Amway isn't the same as Apple Inc and its labor problems, or Microsoft and antitrust, or whatever. This needs to be judged on its own merits. Reliable sources about Amway tend to mention this, a lot, and so should the article. Grayfell (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The examples I used were there to demonstrate one important point - that the Amway article is treated differently and based on the opinion of relatively small number of people who back up their edits with invalid arguments. Remember that this dispute arose because of one edit that deleted the information about FTC case because according to the editor, some other countries found Amway to be a pyramid scheme. The other editor, apparently without any verification, agreed and the change was allowed. When I questioned the information upon which the edit had been made and requested a source that would prove it, I was ignored. I suggested the article to be reverted to its original form or changed to the version that would include FTC case. This is well documented on the Talk page and this is also the reason why we are now here.
Re India: in no way the version C can be considered NPOV and balanced, as it fails to mention the facts that put a whole different light on what this case is really all about:
a) In fact, none of the sources cited ever said that "Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act." or "Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway." Instead, they said: "Pinckney and the two other directors were arrested in connection with a case filed by a certain Visalakshi of Kozhikode" and "he was arrested by Andhra Police in connection with criminal cases against the firm in the state".
To say "Being arrested for violating PCMCS Act" is an offense as it implies that he actually did it which was not confirmed by the court. Moreover, there is much information missing from the Proposal C, which put a whole different light on what this case was really all about, such as:
b) Commenting on the Amway incident in 2013, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality came about." and he also said: "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible."
c) The charges in India were based on an outdated 38 years old Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which had been created 20 years before direct selling companies entered the market.
d) The state High Court issued an injunction against the CID and stated the Act did not prima facie apply.
e) After the Amway incident, India is now pressured to create the separate regulation for direct selling which is still missing there.
In short, according to the sources above (and others ), including the Indian official, the case is clearly a misuse of the Act that could only take place because of absolutely no regulation for direct selling in India. India promised to create it years and years ago, but nothing happened. Amway, in its statement regarding this issue stated: "It is pertinent to note here that content of all the recently filed FIRs is identical to each other and have been filed by advocates or activists." So all of these events appear to be one person's activity.
In the light of these facts this incident could hardly be called "a controversy" (unless we want to call the outdated Act controversial) and thus it is not worth mentioning in the lead. But I am willing to make a compromise and mention that there was some investigation in India, based on the fact that it got some coverage in the newspapers, if the much more important, relevant and landmark FTC case is also mentioned.
While I've mentioned these facts for several times, any of the opponents ever addressed these issues, they were simply ignored. So, the question is: do we really consider the harassment of Amway India by police to be called a controversy that should be in the lead? Nobody has ever answered my questions.--Historik75 (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate however, that you wrote that the version A was not too bad. Would you be willing to make a compromise and change the current version to this one?--Historik75 (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red claims I provided no evidence to support the claim Version C "does not remotely reflect the prominence of coverage in reliable sources", however the reality is I provided examples of 4 different RS - include 2 independent books entirely devoted to Amway, one by a well-respected business academic - that devote significant coverage to the FTC case that virtually ignore the price fixing and income claim issues (and make no mention of his product pricing and business support materials claims) . Professor Charles King Book on network marketing , The New Professionals, references Amway and the FTC on some 20 pages. The price fixing and income claims findings are not mentioned. Professor Nicole Woolsey Biggart's well regarded book on the Direct Selling Industry in America, Charismatic Capitalism discusses Amway on 19 pages and the FTC on three. The price fixing and income claims findings are not mentioned. Even Amway critic Steve Butterfield's off-cited self-published book, Amway: The Cult of Free Enterprise doesn't mention these findings .. I can provide many many such references. While I'm open to being corrected I suspect Rhode Island Red and Grayfell have never even read any of these seminal works on the topic. These two issues clearly barely even deserve mention in the body of the article, let alone the lede.
Rhode Island Red also claims I provide no evidence to support the claim Version C is factually incorrect. This is because Historik75 had already done that, with a direct quote from the FTC case that contradicted his claim about "over-priced products". His claim regard business support materials is proved by simply reading the decision - the topic is not even mentioned once.. To put even more emphasis on this, the wikipedia article entirely devoted to the case doesn't mention these claims at all, let alone in it's lede. Why? Because they simply don't exist. Furthermore, he provides four "sources" to back up his claim - two of which are non-RS opinion piece and one of which is a non-RS review of a self-published book - and none of them actually support his(or her?) claim --Icerat (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. Xardel, Dominique (1993). The Direct Selling Revolution. Understanding the Growth of the Amway Corporation. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-0-631-19229-9.
  2. Smith, Rodney K. (1984). Multilevel Marketing. A lawyer looks at Amway, Shaklee, and other direct sales organisations. Baker Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8010-8243-9.
  3. Clothier, Peter (1990). Multi-level Marketing. Kogan Page. ISBN 0-7494-0079-X.
  4. Jones, Kathryn A. (2011). Amway Forever. The amazing story of a global business phenomenon. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-48821-8.
  5. 1 King, James W.; Robinson, Charles W. (2000). The New Professionals. Prima Publishing. ISBN 0-7615-1966-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  6. Woolsey Biggart, Nicole (1988). Charismatic Capitalism. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-04785-7.
  7. Butterfield, Steve (1985). Amway: The Cult of Free Enterprise. South End Press.
  8. In the Matter of Amway Corporation, Inc., et al. (93 F.T.C. 618), from FTC website. Accessed 2016-03-17.
I would add that the direct quote proving that FTC did not find the Amway products to be overpriced has appeared in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and it went like this:
"On a cost per use basis, in 1967, SA8 was less than 3 cents and Tide was about 7 cents. At this time, SA8 use direction was 5/32 cup per washload and Tide was 1.75 cup. The cost per use drew close in 1968 when the use direction was changed: SA8 1/4 cup and Tide 1.25 cup. In 1972, Tide again changed its use direction to 1 cup per washload, in response to 'phosphate down the drain' legislation. (CX 561­ Z­11­12) Since then SA8 has cost about 1 cents to 2 cents per use more than Tide and the other leading laundry detergents. Sold in the large size (100 1bs.), however, SA8 has a lower per use cost than any laundry detergent. (CX 561­Z­14) In 1973, Amway introduced SA8 Plus, selling at retail for about the same as SA8, but apparently superior in cleaning power to either SA8 or Tide. (CX 561­Z, Z­3 to Z­4) And, unlike detergent purchased at the grocery store, Amway's products are delivered to the consumer's home. (Max, Tr. 6045)"
I surely would like any editor to explain here how this can be seen as a proof for the claim that Amway sells "overpriced products".--Historik75 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Re: "2 independent books entirely devoted to Amway, one by a well-respected business academic - that devote significant coverage to the FTC case that virtually ignore the price fixing and income claim issues."
This is one of the weirder arguments presented so far: i.e., essentially saying that it doesn't matter if a statement (about price fixing for instance) is supported by reliable sources if other sources exist (2 books about Amway in this case) that don't mention that same detail. That's simply not how WP works. If necessary we can go through every line of proposed version C and discuss in detail whether the WP:RS presented do or do not support the proposed text. I have already presented a plethora of valid sources that discuss the legal issues with Amway India, for instance, and the response has basically been "no you're wrong" without specifying clearly why it's wrong, and if it is wrong, how it should be modified for accuracy. Again, WP:LEAD requires that significant controversies/criticism discussed in the article be summarized in the lead. There have been no specific proposals coming from the 2 WP:SPAs that come close to doing so. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
So I will ask again: Would you please answer my questions? Why you ommitted the details re Indian case? Do you consider the above mentioned statement to be proof that Amway sells overpriced products? Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
That is a pointless question. If you feel that some significant detail has been omitted and have an alternate version to propose, then simply make the proposal. That's how this process works. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I of course already have proposed an alternate version. In fact, I proposed several of them with two of them being here as Proposals A and B. Pointless question? The point is very simple and I am sure everybody understands - your version is clearly non-NPOV and non-balanced and incorrect and I gave you a chance to back it up with some explanation as to why you ommitted the most important points. Silence is an answer too.--Historik75 (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
au contraire, Red, that's precisely how WP is supposed to work. WP:WEIGHT - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". In this specific case you are wishing to give undue weight to a minor event, as evidenced by it's lack of prominence in RS. Indeed this entire article fails the test of proportionality, which also needs to be addressed. --Icerat (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
If you continue to insist that the information presented in Version C gives “undue weight to a minor event” with respect to Amway India, then it is clear that you understand neither the meaning of “a minor event” nor “undue weight”. I have already presented roughly a dozen sources that support Version C (or a close variant thereof). They cannot be arbitrarily dismissed in such a manner, and if that’s the approach you’re going to take with this discussion then I am afraid the chances of this being a fruitful exercise are roughly zero. Having no interest in wasting still more time re-explaining the obvious to a brick wall, the next logical step will likely be a user conduct RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I was about to point out I wasn't even talking about Amway India, and then you respond below by making it very clear you knew I wasn't talking about Amway India. --Icerat (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Version C -- 1979 FTC decree: "Price fixing" and "exaggerated income claims"

Re: Proposed Version C, sentence #2 – “A 1979 FTC case concluded that while Amway was not a pyramid scheme, the company was guilty of price-fixing, making exaggerated income claims, and selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors.”

Countering the inexplicable objections to this proposed text raised by the two WP:SPAs, the simple fact is that the details about price fixing and exaggerated income claims in this sentence are unambiguously and overwhelmingly supported by WP:RS, including both the FTC court docket (the primary source) and follow-up statement by the FTC, as well as by 4 other reliable secondary sources. It is an airtight slam dunk and their objections carry no merit whatsoever.

  • “In 1979, the FTC cleared Amway of operating a pyramid scheme but did find it guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims.”
  • “Amway's tie to the phrase "pyramid scheme" dates back decades to when the company was investigated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in the late 1970s. The federal agency ruled Amway was not an illegal pyramid scheme, but was guilty of price fixing and overstating income potential.”
  • The Federal Trade Commission found Amway guilty of price fixing in 1979 and ordered the firm to stop misrepresenting potential earnings to new salespeople.
  • "Conclusions: We conclude that respondents have agreed and combined with each other and/or Amway distributors to fix the resale prices of Amway products, at both wholesale and retail levels, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Respondents have also made earnings and sales claims which have the capacity to deceive the potential distributors to whom they have been made; this too is in violation of Section 5. We have decided that it is appropriate and necessary to order respondents to cease and desist from these violations, and from certain offenses reasonably related to them.
  • "The Commission held that, although Amway had made false and misleading earnings claims when recruiting new distributors, the company's sales plan was not an illegal pyramid scheme.
  • “The FTC in 1979 found that Amway was not a pyramid scheme but ordered the company to stop making misleading earnings claims and fixing prices and to disclose information on the average income for its salespeople.”

Furthermore, Amway was found to have subsequently violated the 1979 FTC consent decree and was ordered to pay a $100,000 penalty, which is also noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in the lead:

  • “In 1986, Amway agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty in a consent decree for violating the 1979 ruling, after Amway placed ads that represented higher-than-average distributor earnings without stating the actual average results or percentage of distributors who actually met the represented claims.”

Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You're arguing a straw man here, Red. Nobody has denied they are supported by RS, indeed the contrary. The issue is with balance and prominence, particularly with regard to the lede. I can probably provide you 1000 RS talking about Amway that don't mention these issues, or if they do, spend exactly one or two phrases on them within a much much larger article. Indeed, your very examples support my case, with not a single one of them devoting anything more than this to the issue. As it happens I believe the price-fixing issue deserves more coverage in RS, and this is something I've raised in other forums. Amway being found guilty on this -and why - has a direct influence on the manner in which MLMs can track independent agents retail customer sales, a matter of some controversy in recent years (eg HLF and Bill Ackman). It's a topic that deserves discussion. Misplaced Pages however is about reflecting what has been said in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. In the meantime, how about answering Historik75's questions?--Icerat (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Your argument is purely WP:TE. The text is supported by both the FTCs documents (primary sources) and various secondary sources. It doesn't matter if other sources fail to mention the facts -- and these are facts because they are explicitly stated verbatim in the FTC documents. Arguing about this is ridiculous and will get us nowhere. If you cannot cede even the most obvious points and continue to eat up resources like this, we will have to pursue alternate avenues of DR. A user conduct report for WP:DE, WP:COI, and WP:SOAP is warranted at this point, especially in light of potential WP:SOCK issues at play here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Again you fail to address the concerns and issues I (and Historik75) have raised, instead simply spouting threats. If your "resources" are unable to actually participate sensibly in the discussion, then may I suggest you take a break from editing wikipedia? --Icerat (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps if you answered the questions about India you wouldn't need to hide behind warnings for disruptive editing. And of course how you could reach consensus with Arthur Rubin when there was absolutely no way how you could verify that in some countries Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme. It didn't happen. Yet, you agreed and allowed the FTC case to be deleted from the lead. I only wanted to add it back or revert it to the original version - i.e. improve the article. You were the one who not only engaged in WP:DE but refused to communicate. Sorry.--Historik75 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
This thread is not about Amway India. It is conspicuously labeled as referring to specific text in Proposal C regarding the FTC's ruling on "price fixing" and "exaggerated income claims". Your comment is off topic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, haven't noticed it. Copied the message below.--Historik75 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Version C -- India non-balanced irrelevant text + pyramid issue

RIR, perhaps if you answered the questions about India you wouldn't need to hide behind warnings for disruptive editing (see the preceding section). And of course how you could reach consensus with Arthur Rubin when there was absolutely no way how you could verify that in some countries Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme. It didn't happen. Yet, you agreed and allowed the FTC case to be deleted from the lead. I only wanted to add it back or revert it to the original version - i.e. improve the article. You were the one who not only engaged in WP:DE but refused to communicate. Sorry.--Historik75 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that nonconstructive comment pertains to content regarding Amway India in the lead or why it was necessary to post it twice. Also, not interested in re-ligating your account of how we got here; only goal here is to come up with suitable text that satisfies the requirements of WP:LEAD regarding summary of criticism and controversy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
In other words you are saying that Arthur Rubin is allowed to make any change he wants regardless the fact that he backed it up with an invalid argument and no source and you will not allow me to revert such an unjustified edit and you will not explain anything to me. Instead you will propose another biased lead containing the half-truths to present the company in the worst light and will not accept the arguments that would explain to the readers that according to the published sources (e.g. ), including the Indian official, the case is clearly a misuse of the PCMCS Act that could only take place because there is absolutely no regulation for direct selling in India.
Okay, I understand. This is certainly not the way to reach consensus. I hope the other editors will read the whole discussusion and will make their opinion based on the validity of arguments.--Historik75 (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Amway India in Lead

According to WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies...and significant criticism". Towards that end, I proposed the following text (c.f., Version C) in regard to legal cases against Amway and its executives in India, which unarguably represents a “prominent controversy”:

“The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.

The proposed text above is well supported by numerous sources that have covered the Amway India cases, as detailed below:

  • "Amway India Chairman and Chief Executive William S Pinckney has been arrested by Andhra Pradesh Police in connection with a criminal case registered against the direct-selling company. The CEO has been booked under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, besides charges of cheating as well as extortion under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This is the second time that the Amway India CEO has been taken into custody. Kerala police had arrested Pinckney as well as two Amway directors last year for alleged financial irregularities. The AP police, in a statement, said in 2006, the CID Police of the state, on a complaint, had registered a criminal case against Amway which in turn approached High Court of AP requesting to declare that its scheme does not fall under the provisions of "The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978…However, a division bench of the High Court held that the scheme of Amway is illegal Money Circulation Scheme and falls within the "mischief of definition of Money Circulation Scheme" Subsequently, the Supreme Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Amway, the AP police statement said."
  • “Pinckney was arrested on May 26 from Amway India’s headquarters at Gurgaon… He was subsequently arrested in other criminal cases registered against him in the state on allegations of financial irregularities by Amway.”
  • “William S Pinckney, the chief executive officer of Amway India, was arrested yesterday by the crime branch of Kerala Police along with two other directors of the company...The company is said to have been violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.”
  • “Kerala Police on Monday arrested William Scott Pinckney, managing director and chief executive of direct selling consumer products company Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, for allegedly duping members of its direct sales network in Wayanad district. The police also arrested two of his Indian colleagues, Sanjay Malhotra and Anshu Budhiraja, vice-president and director, and chief financial officer, respectively, at Amway India. The accused face similar charges of overpricing products and fraudulent practices in nearby Kozhikode district, too, police said… Also, they were involved in money chain, which is prohibited under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978.”
  • "This is not the first time that Amway India has come under scrutiny. In 2006, Amway offices in Andhra Pradesh were shut on allegations that the company was running a pyramid scheme. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also observed that company's business model was identical to money circulation schemes and termed its operation as illegal."
  • “Last year, Kerala Police had arrested Pinckney and two company directors on charges of cheating. Although Pinckney was released the next day, the other executives were booked under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.”
  • “William S Pinckney, Amway's India CEO was arrested on Monday on charges of cheating and other financial fraud and jailed in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh where he has been remanded to custody till June 7. Charges were framed against him under section 420 of IPC (cheating) and sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978. This is not the first time Amway has courted controversy in India. It has been in news intermittently since 2006 when its offices in Andhra Pradesh were shuttered on allegations that Amway was running a pyramid scheme. A chargesheet was also filed. In 2013 as well, Pinckney and two India directors were arrested by the Kerala police after a case was filed against Amway for alleged unethical practices of money circulation.”
  • “The legal pursuit of Amway in India goes at least back to September 2006. After a public complaint from the Reserve Bank of India, the company’s business practices came into question. Police in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh raided the offices of various Amway distributors. Officials said Amway had violated the "Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act of 1979," which outlaws pyramid schemes and similar money circulation scams. Distributor offices were shut down and the company’s Indian headquarters were forced to cease operations.”
  • “The police said charges had been filed against Pinckney under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. This was the second time Pinckney has been arrested in this country. The Kerala police arrested him last year on similar charges.”
  • "Amway India CEO William S Pinckney has been released on bail, two months after he was arrested by Andhra Police in connection with criminal cases against the firm in the state."

Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


RIR, you are apparently missing the point. He was not arrested for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, he was arrested because there were allegations that he did so (which were not confirmed). And that is a big difference! So no, the text is not supported - none of your sources mentioned that Pinckney was guilty which is what you say in your proposal. Understand?
Your interpretation is clearly negative POV pushing and it is certainly not balanced because it fails to mention these sources:
Amway chief’s arrest comes exactly a year after Kerala police took him into custody
  • Last year’s arrests had attracted a lot of attention and several business and industry organisations had criticised the arrests as, they argued, would send out a wrong signal to international investors. The then Union Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot was incensed by the arrests. He publicly criticised the Kerala police for the way it had handled the arrests of the top brass of the Indian subsidiary of an American multinational corporation.
Probe ordered into Amway India Chairman’s arrest
  • State Home Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan directed North Zone Additional Director General of Police (ADGPA) Shankar Reddy to probe the circumstances that led to the arrest of the three key officials Pinckney, Sanjay Malhotra and Anshu Budhraja by the Crime Branch. The order for inquiry followed widespread criticism from various quarters about the need for arresting top officials in cases that involved only a small sum and the manner in which the arrests were made. Union Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot had on Thursday termed the arrest unwarranted and argued that such incidents would ‘adversely affect the country’s prospects as an investment destination’. He said the arrest may have been due to ambiguities in the rules governing direct selling and added that the federal government would remove them as “early as possible”.
Clearer laws on tackling fraud schemes soon: Sachin Pilot on Amway issue
  • Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot today said the government will remove as early as possible the ambiguities in laws aimed at tackling fraudulent investment schemes. "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible," Pilot said. "While steps should be taken to crack down on fraudulent companies running dubious investment schemes, companies that are reputed and abiding by the law must be delineated," the Minister said. "Such events (like Amway) might negatively affect the prospects of our country as an attractive investment destination," he noted. "While we take strong actions against ponzi schemes, we need to be careful not to create a vitiating atmosphere for reputed and law abiding companies," Pilot said.
Corporate Minister Sachin Pilot pitches for distinction between ponzi, genuine schemes
  • "While steps should be taken to crack down on fraudulent companies running dubious investment schemes, companies that are reputed and abiding by the law must be delineated," the Minister said. Commenting on the Amway incident, he said that "it is disappointing that such an eventuality came about. Such events (like Amway) might negatively affect the prospects of our country as an attractive investment destination". "While we take strong actions against ponzi schemes, we need to be careful not to create a vitiating atmosphere for reputed and law abiding companies," Pilot said.
Government to work on preventing a Amway repeat
  • "We will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law as soon as possible," corporate affairs minister Sachin Pilot said. "While steps should be taken to crack down on fraudulent companies running dubious investment schemes, companies that are reputed and law- abiding must be delineated," he said. Commenting on the Amway incident, Pilot said that "it is disappointing that such an eventuality came about. Such events might negatively affect the prospects of our country as an attractive investment destination". "While we take strong actions against ponzi schemes, we need to be careful not to create a vitiating atmosphere for reputed and law-abiding companies," he added. Amway's business model involves direct selling of various consumer products to their customers, who in turn get incentives for bringing more clients and further expanding the network. While ponzi schemes also follow a kind of network marketing model, these businesses lack any real products in many cases.
Kerala government orders probe in Amway India head William S Pinckney's arrest
  • In the backdrop of police action against Amway, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot had stated in Delhi yesterday that the government is looking to remove the legal ambiguities to differentiate between fraudulent ponzi schemes and genuine businesses run by "reputed and law-abiding" entities. "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible," he had stated.
US body seeks amendment of Act
  • The contention of the Amcham-India, a trade body of American companies operating in India, supported by American Embassy, is that the PCMCS was a law enacted much before the direct selling companies came into existence and could not distinguish the direct selling industry and the pyramid schemes. The body said that Amway is a direct selling company that uses multi-level marketing to sell its high quality products through independent distributors instead of from a shop or a mall. The distributors earn income from the sale of products and not by recruiting members as in pyramid schemes, it said.
Post Amway, Hindustan Unilever reviewing strategy for direct selling venture
  • According to Chavi Hemant, General Secretary of Indian Direct Selling Association, a body representing the direct selling companies, the PCMC Act is a major hurdle for the industry and should be amended at the earliest. “The Act was implemented at a time when there were no direct selling companies in India. This Act is detrimental to the industry and India is losing out on huge investments from several international direct selling companies.”
Amway back to business in state
  • HYDERABAD: Amway India dealers will now resume their business operations in the state after the Andhra Pradesh high court on Friday granted injunction to the company against CID proceedings. The court, in its order, ruled that prima facie the provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (banning) Act of 1978 does not apply to Amway and ordered police not to interfere with the lawful business of Amway and its distributors, Amway's corporate communications head Rajat Banerji said speaking to reporters on Friday.
Post Amway, direct sellers seek separate policy
  • Mohan R. Lavi, Member, Ficci Sub-Committee on Direct Selling, said direct selling has not been defined in any Act. Because of this, other Acts (such as the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Act) are being misinterpreted and applied to such cases. This, he said, is unfortunate as the PCMC Act is primarily concerned with distribution of monies while in the case of Amway there are underlying products involved. I do not see money being circulated amongst Amway members without the sale of an underlying product, he said.
India pressured to change laws after Amway leader jailed for alleged pyramid scheme
  • Business groups are pressuring the government to update its 35-year-old the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978 (PCMCS), enacted against illegal lottery and money circulation schemes 20 years before legitimate direct sellers entered the market in 1998. Direct sellers shouldn't be grouped under this law, say business groups. "The Act in its present form is unable to distinguish genuine direct selling companies from pyramid or Ponzi schemes. Like other countries, India needs to amend this act and create a conducive legal environment for the Industry," Amcham India Executive Director Ajay Singha told the Hindu Business Line.
IDSA wants govt to stop harassment of direct selling industry
  • Hyderabad, Jun 4: Indian Direct Selling Association (IDSA) said on Wednesday that it wanted the state government to amend the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act of 1978 and provide a clear policy in the wake of arrest of Amway India head William Pinckney.
Other available sources:
You can see that the case is clearly a misuse of the Act that could only take place because of absolutely no regulation for direct selling in India. India promised to create it years and years ago, but nothing happened. Amway, in its statement regarding this issue stated: "It is pertinent to note here that content of all the recently filed FIRs is identical to each other and have been filed by advocates or activists." So all of these events appear to be one person's activity.
In the light of these facts this incident could hardly be called "a controversy" (unless we want to call the outdated Act controversial) and thus it is not worth mentioning in the lead.
If you'll (again) fail to understand, I am willing to explain this as many times as you want.--Historik75 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Historik75: "none of your sources mentioned that Pinckney was guilty which is what you say in your proposal. Understand?"
No, I don't understand. My proposal did not include the word "guilty" anywhere -- the accusation is a straw man. Secondly, I see that most of the sources you are quoting above are either canned responses/opinions from Amway or from the International Direct Selling Association (which represents Amway's interests), both of which are highly partisan sources, objecting to the outcomes. It's not even clear from your comment what those sources are supposed to be rebutting or what text you would propose as an alternative to the well supported text I proposed above. To say that the events involving Amway India do not represent a prominent controversy is patently absurd and violates WP:NPOV. The details are exactly what WP:LEAD refers to when it says that the lead should summarize controversies and criticism. If there are any details in my proposed text that you think are factually inaccurate, present the evidence in a clear and concise manner and it can be modified accordingly if necessary. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Historik 75: "He was not arrested for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, he was arrested because there were allegations that he did so"
I think I finally see what you're getting at with this line of reasoning. The fix is simple enough. Instead of saying he was "arrested for violating...", the text should read "he was arrested on charges of violating...". Not a big deal. It would have saved time if you had simply suggested making that simple change instead of arguing around the point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hooray!!! I appreciate that you finally see what I have been trying to explain for several days. Now, the second part - the problem cannot be fixed simply by saing that he was arrested on charges. Although it would be accurate, it would not provide BALANCE to show the context, i.e. that the law is outdated, the police actions were criticised by both Minister and IDSA and finally, that the court decided that the Act did not prima facie apply. Your objection about IDSA representing Amway interests is irrelevant as it is covered by reliable sources and thus deserves mentioning. Moreover, neither Minister Sachin Pilot, nor the court are in any way connected with Amway. All of this is documented in the sources I have provided. These facts cannot be ommitted when you say Pinckney was arrested. But when we mention all these details, the only message would be that India have not implemented the rules re direct selling. It then raises the very basic question, whether Indian case is really of the same importance as the FTC case, i.e. to be considered a prominent controversy that would be worth mentioning in the lead. I doubt it.
Second, if we add all these details to make this information balanced, it will become so long that it would certainly not be proportional to the article body content. We would have to include many other details from the other parts of the article. The question is: isn't it better to only mention those investigations that resulted in the court decisions? All the other cases deserve their own paragraph in the article, but this is the lead and it should meet the following criteria:
  • The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.
  • A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows.
This is why I recommend the Proposals B or A. They mention FTC, UK and India while briefly informing the readers about the most important decisions regarding this pyramid issue. It is NPOV, though I would doubt it is well balanced as it mentions only the accusation and not the result in the case of India. But I am willing to make that compromise.--Historik75 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Your position on this untenable. Versions A and B fail to even remotely summarize prominent criticism and controversy as required by WP:LEAD. The events that took place with regard to Amway India, as described in my proposed text, are facts on the record. What you are saying is that Amway's and the ISDA's complaints about the charges somehow negate them. They don't. WP:LEAD says to summarize controversy and criticism. Amway's complaints about getting busted repeatedly in India, and the ISDA efforts to get the laws changed, are neither controversy nor criticism and not notable enough for the lead, except arguably, perhaps through inclusion of maybe one sentence saying that Amway and the ISDA protested that the charges were unfounded, or something along those lines. Space is not a critical issue. The lead can be up to 4 paragraphs. It is currently one paragraph in length and one additional paragraph has been proposed to summarize criticism and controversy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Again you are missing the point. It's neither the reaction of Amway nor IDSA which negates your arguments, it's the reaction of the court and Minister of corporate affairs and the lack of any other decision which would prove Pinckney or Amway were guilty which does so. Amway's and IDSA's reaction explain why it happened (the activity of one consumer advocate, not the activity of government officials, in combination with lack of regulation). All of this information is required for the reader to understand the specific situation in India. I can see no legitimate reason for this situation to be included among prominent controversies of the same importance as FTC case. And for those who care enough there are details in the article body.
Now, the text you proposed contains 166 words (without the details about India, such as reaction of court, Minister, Amway and IDSA) while the rest of the lead contains only 129 words. That is unproportional to the article body (2318 for controversies vs. 2882 words for the rest). Your proposal reduces the information to 7.1% while the rest is reduced to 4.5%, so your version already contains 58% more text. Including the details about India would only result in a more unproportional text. My proposals, on the other hand, reduce the controversy to 63 words (B) or 52 words (A). Then we can include something like: "In India, the court said that the Act did not prima facie apply and the state issued an order stating that genuine direct marketing should not be disturbed while investigating cases against money chain frauds. India is now pressured to amend the Act and create the regulation for direct selling sector." (which would add 51 words) That would be 114 words (4.9%) for B or 103 words (4.4%) for A which is perfectly proportional to the rest of the text (4.5%). This will make my versions balanced regarding India and they will be self-explaining as to what happened there and also proportionally reduced in comparison with the rest of the lead. And I am willing to leave out the reaction of the Minister provided the text will contain the above mentioned sentences.--Historik75 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Historik 75: “Then we can include something like: "In India, the court said that the Act did not prima facie apply and the state issued an order stating that genuine direct marketing should not be disturbed while investigating cases against money chain frauds...."

What you are suggesting is that the well-supported purely factual text in Version C, which is as follows:

  • “The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala and charged with violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.”

…should be amended to include your proposed sentence suggesting that a court decision was shot down. The first article you linked to (#146, Amway Back to Business In State) in support of your suggestion was published in 2006, prior to Pinckney’s two arrests (in 2013 and 2014), and it therefore obviously has no bearing on those events. Additionally, it is superseded by a news article published in 2014 ("Amway India CEO arrested, remanded in judicial custody"), which discusses Pinckney’s arrests and contradicts your 2006 source, as it says:

  • “The AP police, in a statement, said in 2006, the CID Police of the state, on a complaint, had registered a criminal case against Amway which in turn approached High Court of AP requesting to declare that its scheme does not fall under the provisions of "The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. However, a division bench of the High Court held that the scheme of Amway is illegal Money Circulation Scheme and falls within the "mischief of definition of Money Circulation Scheme". Subsequently, the Supreme Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Amway, the AP police statement said.”

Secondly, citation number #147 in your proposed text was published in 2011 and does not even mention Pinckney (it was published prior to his arrests in 2013/2014); and the only reference it makes to Amway is stating that there were 1,000 charges registered against the company (a point which, incidentally, should probably be included in the body text of the article). It mentions nothing about the courts shooting down any legal decisions. In other words, it too is a spurious source as it has no direct bearing on the controversy under discussion.

Historik 75: “''Then we can include something like..."India is now pressured to amend the Act and create the regulation for direct selling sector..''"

The article numbered #148 in your reply is simply irrelevant: it merely contains a quote from the former chair of a lobbying group (the Consumer Coordination Council) and a rep from the International Direct Selling Assoc (an Amway lobbying group) saying that they thought Pinckney’s arrest was unfair (so what!) and that they were seeking greater legal protection for MLMs (again, so what!). Similarly, the other 2 articles you cited merely contain after-the-fact reactions/protests from partisan sources like Amway, the IDSA, and business trade organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce who have a vested self-interest in the matter. The fact that Amway and the IDSA don’t like one of the laws (Banning Act) under which Pinckney/Amway were charged, and that they subsequently complained that that particular law should be changed, does not negate the preceding legal events nor exonerate any of the parties involved. It might not be entirely out of line to suggest including such partisan responses in the body text of the article, although even there the value would be questionable, but they certainly don’t merit inclusion in the lead, unlike the factual details of the events in India.

In summary, your proposal falls flat, whereas the text I proposed meets the requirements of WP:LEAD to summarize prominent controversy and criticism. It does so concisely, factually, and with widespread support from WP:RS.

Historik75: “That would be 114 words (4.9%) for B or 103 words (4.4%) for A which is perfectly proportional to the rest of the text (4.5%). This will make my versions balanced regarding India and they will be self-explaining as to what happened there and also proportionally reduced in comparison with the rest of the lead.”

It's not clear what you’re trying to say here. The current version of the lead is very short – far less than the 4 paragraph maximum specified in WP:LEAD. If your feel that additional general information about the company in the lead would help to balance the proposed text summarizing criticism/controversies in the lead, then have at it. That's not an issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

RIR, first let me clarify that my previous post was not meant to be a proposed modification to version C as you mentioned in your edit summary. It was a proposal of changes to the versions B and A.
Now, I must say, I am a little confused. You haven't found it necessary to expand the lead when it was reduced here: - in fact you even supported the reduction when you immediatelly agreed, even though the argument upon which the edit was made had been invalid. Even more recently you haven't objected against keeping the lead as it is now, i.e. "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme." (10 words)
Yet, now you somehow suddenly imply that the lead should have 4 paragraphs. May I ask how is this consistent with your previous attempt to keep the reduced version?
Back to the point: all the articles I have cited are relevant as they were published in WP:RS and cannot be ommitted in order to keep the lead NPOV. They explain what the result of the very first accusation in India was, i.e. ZERO. I assume you want a balanced lead, so it is necessary to mention the India case from the very beginning, not just the most recent event. You apparently haven't noticed it, but in my proposals there is a reference to that 2006 case. Therefore, both 2006 and 2011 articles are of course relevant. You mistakingly thought that it was meant to be an amendment to version C. No, it was meant to be an amendment to the versions B and A. Understand?
The reaction of the industry is very relevant as it puts light on where the problem was. It mentions the fact that there is a need to amend the Act as it is 38 years old and it was instituted before direct selling companies came to India. And it has to be noted that nothing has changed with regards to the operation of Amway India. It still operates in all of these states, it was not expelled from India and no court found Pinckney nor Amway guilty. So again, do you really consider this incident to be of the same importance as the FTC case where FTC itself accused Amway of being a pyramid scheme and then concluded that it was not? I can't see how the charges of one activist/group that resulted in an inevitable action of the police (yes, in India, they have to arrest you if you are charged with running a pyramid scheme) can be compared to the FTC case.
Anyway, that was only suggestion just in case you really wanted to expand the lead (which is something I am not sure about based on your posts here and here where you supported a short version.
Moreover, there is no direction which would order that the lead has to have 4 paragraphs. WP:LEAD only says: "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs", i.e. a sentence which limits the length to 4 paragraphs or less. One paragraph (or two as we certainly can divide it to two paragraphs if you want) is certainly less than four, so my proposals perfectly meet this condition.
If you want to expand the lead, we can expand it proportionally to the article body as I suggested (keeping the % of reduction same), but if you don't like it, I am okay with the proposal B or A as it is.--Historik75 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I explained in painstaking detail why the text you are proposing would not be suitable for inclusion in the lead. The 2006 source you cited (#146) has no bearing on events that happened in 2013 and 2014 and was directly contradicted by a later source (#160) that explained the legal outcome in detail. The other source you cited (#147) to support your proposed text did not actually support the proposed text. Hopefully, you can see why, on that basis, your proposed text would be unacceptable based on logic and WP policy.
I also pointed out that the fact that Amway and the IDSA complained about the outcome and how they think the law is unfair/unclear has no bearing on the facts surrounding the events that were described in my proposed text for the lead (Version C). Their self-serving partisan comments in reaction to the cases might arguably be worthy of inclusion in the body text (maybe) but they are relatively trivial and certainly not lead worthy (i.e., it wouldn’t make sense to include something like “Pinckney was arrested...and Amway and the IDSA complained that (one of the two) laws under which he was charged was unclear and should be changed” (especially given the concerns you have expressed about keeping the lead concise).
It is also of critical importance that the specific law that Amway and the IDSA were complaining about (The Banning Act) was not the only statute under which Pinckney was charged. He was also charged criminally with “cheating and extortion” under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which is completely distinct from the Banning Act and received no specific comment from either Amway or the IDSA.
As for the length of the lead, I have stated from the outset that WP:LEAD specifies that the length can be up to 4 paragraphs. The current version is short at only one paragraph, so inclusion of details about controversy and criticism, as required by WP:LEAD would not be a problem with respect to overall length of the lead. I also suggested that you could expand the lead to include additional general details about the company that do not pertain to criticism/controversy, which would obviate any concerns about balance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Re your source #155. Amway petitioned the High Court and an injunction was issued against the CID, allowing Amway to reopen. Amway then went further and asked the High Court to dismiss the CID case completely. The High Court rejected that request, stating:

41. The complaint submitted to the CID Police, Hyderabad in this case is exhaustive. The complainant graphically described how the scheme run by petitioner No.1 through the other petitioners and various distributors in the country constitutes money circulation scheme. The gist of the complaint has already been extracted herein before. From the conclusion arrived at by us on the analysis of the admitted material available before us concerning the scheme, we have no doubt whatsoever that if the allegations contained in the report of C.No.1474/C-27/CiD/2006 dated 24-9-2006 are taken on their face value they make out an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.

As you can see, your source cited Andhra Pradesh police statement which misrepresented what the court really had said (you can compare their statement directly to the High Court judgement). Such misrepresentation should not be allowed on Misplaced Pages.
What the High Court judgement really says is if what the Police claim is true, then Amway is in violation of this act, so the case shouldn’t be dismissed and the allegations should be investigated. In August, 2007 the Indian Supreme Court ordered the Police to complete their investigation within 6 months, so the case could proceed. After 9 years it still has not been completed which says pretty clear how valid the complaint was.
So no, the High Court never said that Amway was a pyramid scheme. Understand?--Historik75 (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Historik 75: "the High Court never said that Amway was a pyramid scheme".
You are now invoking a straw man, as no one has proposed including text saying that the High Court found Amway to be a pyramid scheme. To recap, you had proposed including the following text:
"In India, the court said that the Act did not prima facie apply and the state issued an order stating that genuine direct marketing should not be disturbed while investigating cases against money chain frauds....""
I pointed out that one of the sources you provided (#147) did not support the proposed text, and the other, which was vague at best, presented details that were contradicted by later reports, as follows:
"The AP police, in a statement, said in 2006, the CID Police of the state, on a complaint, had registered a criminal case against Amway which in turn approached High Court of AP requesting to declare that its scheme does not fall under the provisions of "The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978." However, a division bench of the High Court held that the scheme of Amway is illegal Money Circulation Scheme and falls within the "mischief of definition of Money Circulation Scheme". Subsequently, the Supreme Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Amway, the AP police statement said." (Source: Zee News -- Amway India CEO arrested, remanded in judicial custody -- May 27, 2014)
"The Andhra Pradesh CID, under IPS officer V.C. Sajjanar had filed a chargesheet against Amway in 2006. They went to Andhra Pradesh High Court but a division bench ruled that the business model is illegal. The company then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court in 2007 but the top court upheld the decision of the High Court. The state government also issued a government order (GO) in 2008, saying advertising products of Amway is illegal." (Source: NDTV -- Amway India CEO Arrested by Andhra Police – May 27, 2014)
This is cut and dried. The text you proposed clearly is unsupportable and does not merit inclusion in the lead. Kindly concede the point and refrain from making any further tendentious arguments. In contrast, the text I proposed below (Version C) is well supported and merits inclusion in the lead as it adequately summarizes controversy/criticism relating to Amway India, as per the specifications of WP:LEAD, and is well supported by sources that are both reliable and secondary.
“The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala and charged with violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.” Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest getting some agreement on the body text for Amway India before we worry about the lede?--Icerat (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I was just about to answer, but I would only repeat what I had said before. So let's summarize. Has any court (in India or anywhere else) decided that Amway is a pyramid scheme? Yes or no? This was the basic question and the answer should definitely be included in the article body. As the most important are the results, i.e. the court decisions, not the charges or what AP Police said about the court decision, I'd suggest that the overall tone of the paragraph should reflect the outcomes.--Historik75 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous Comment

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

Hello, just to explain couple of things. I am neither Amway PR employee, nor a fanatic pro MLM. I am just a regular user of Misplaced Pages who wants it to be accurate and reliable. Anonymous had previously made some non-NPOV edits to Czech Misplaced Pages using non reliable sources and I reverted them and explained why. For example, the last of his edits cited Timi Ogunjobi's book which he took from the English version of Misplaced Pages. I found out that Tee Publishing which published Timi Ogunjobi's book is actually owned by him, i.e. it was a self published book, so I removed it in compliance with WP:RS from both Czech and English Misplaced Pages. My edit on English Misplaced Pages was first reverted by another user but after I proved that Timi Ogunjobi's book is self published, it was reverted back to my version by the very same user. I would consider it a consensus.
I'd suggest anonymous to verify each information before he posts it on Misplaced Pages instead of making WP:PA against myself - they usually won't help the discussion very much. I won't comment on any WP:PA anymore. Let's just focus on facts and the validity of arguments and present them as accurately as we can. Agreed?--Historik75 (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Historik75, thank you for confirming my points by reacting within couple of minutes... No ordinary wikipedist reacts like you - constantly checking the pages for pro MLM "accuracy". Do not forget please, that almost 2 years ago in your weak moment you claimed on Wiki, that you have several Gigabytes of data about Amway... I am asking other "ordinary" wikipedists - Do you also have several GB of data about Amway as Historik 75 has? (Anonymous)

May I ask how the amount of materials I have about the topic I am interested in relates to the fact that you used non-reliable self-published book as a source? Re the amount of material I have about MLMs: ask any Misplaced Pages editor who is (not who considers him or herself to be, but who actually is) an expert on any subject (be it biology, physics or medicine or whatever) about the amount of materials he/she has regarding his/her topic of interest and you will find literally thousands of ordinary Wikipedians who meet these criteria. Would you like all of them to be silenced? I ordinarily use Misplaced Pages as a source of information and when I come accross the misrepresentation, I try to improve the article. I believe that the amount of material I have should not be a reason to silence me. Rather, you should be glad that I am willing to share this material with the public for free. So please stop these personal attacks commenting on who you think I am or am not or where I live or don't live and let's focus on the arguments and on what I believe is our common goal, i.e. to have an unbiased, NPOV and balanced article. That's all I want.--Historik75 (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Historik75, you know, these days, with internet, it is quite unusual that someone gathers such an info for years on one company, but what is quite usual is, that the client at the beginning of PR contract provides data to the PR executive... But lets put that aside for now. We both probably agree, that MLM in general and Amway too, are very controversial topics. What if myself or someone else wants to post the critique of Amway here? I know you studied critics hard, so lets discuss it and you can pick one to be cited, ok? I propose: Robert Fitzpatrick, Tracy Coenen, Jon Taylor, Bruce Craig, Ethan Vanderbuilt, what do you think? Or you can propose one I have not mentioned. I am asking first, as I do not want to add something and have it deleted in 3 minutes. If you do not agree with none of them, as you did on czech version of Wiki, what if I cite Amway Diamond? Would it be ok? I want to cite Roman Hassmann: "Anybody who joins the system should meet the criteria - show plans, have a list of contacts, join the educational system, and do points (buy goods). There is no point in someone joining the business, where we all buy, and do not buy. It does not make sence to register someone to buying business and tell him, that buying is not the condition. So if you recruit someone, buying Amway goods is essential condition." I believe that you will not discredit this Diamond, right? Just want to post this here, as it is well documented, that he said it and it is also in violation with essential FTC rules. Hope you will not tell me, that they are discredited all... (Unsigned comment by 2a00:1028:9941:eb32:e16c:74cf:c015:fe5b, 17:00, 21 March 2016)
First, you have not answered my question, i.e. how the amount of materials I have about the topic I am interested in relates to the fact that you used non-reliable self-published book as a source. Second, I would say that the problem with your edits is simply defined by what you just said. You are apparently not interested in NPOV and balanced article. Why do you want to only add criticism, i.e. engage in negative POV pushing? That's not how Misplaced Pages should work. Shouldn't we try to add balanced and NPOV text? I suggest you go through the history of changes to find out whether you are not trying to add something that was rejected as an unreliable source in the past, e.g. self-published books, youtube videos, blogs, etc. (which was exactly what you tried to do on Czech Misplaced Pages). You can also go through the Archives on the Talk page and find out if there was some discussion about the topic you want to add. Then, if the source is reliable and your post will meet the criteria of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE, I have no problem with you mentioning them. But let me ask you first: are you willing to share both cons and pros?--Historik75 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Anonymous, Fitzpatrick and Taylor' works are self-published, and as such are not considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages usage. Coenen has I think one book that is considered RS. AFAIK Craig has not published anything except some web commentary. Vanderbuilt and Hassman I'm unfamiliar with. Oh, and "several GB" of data would be quite easy to reach with digitized versions of some of the video out there, in particular the PBS documentary. Having copies of reliable sources is not a bad thing! Too many people edit wikipedia based on what the can google. --Icerat (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A quick explanation - Ethan Vanderbuilt is a person who made some Youtube videos in which he basically says that Amway is a scam. Anonymous tried to add his quotes to Czech Misplaced Pages. I deleted them as Vanderbuilt's Youtube videos are not reliable sources. You can google him. Hassmann is an Executive Diamond and his quotes are read out of context and twisted. Of course there is nothing wrong with buying and, according to the FTC, personal consumption of reasonable amount of products is okay unless the inventory loading takes place. Amway does not require its distributors to buy any amount of products in order to be eligible for a bonus. The suggestion Hassmann made was merely a suggestion of how to qualify people who are willing to work the business correctly, i.e. to try the products first and then recommend them to other people. In other words, if you register someone and he is not even willing to accept the fact that he has to know the product in order to be able to succeed in the business, then what's the sense in trying to build the business with such a person? That was the message. Reading it out of context Anonymous wants to imply that Amway is just like Vemma where the inventory loading occurred as it was the only way for distributors to earn the bonus, a totally different situation. Simple as that.--Historik75 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Amway: Difference between revisions Add topic