Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EditorEric ... you are making wholesale changes to this article with extremely POV and unbalanced editing and little or no sourcing of your claims. Please cease or discuss the changes you wish to make here first. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This an absolute lie. The person to whom 'Insider' refers has not taken part directly in debates in 'numerous Internet Forums' concerning 'Amway' using his own name or any other identity. That said, he has posted an extended article using his own name, explaining the global deception that lurks behind 'Amway's' commercial façade, entitled, 'Freedom is Slavery' (which is widely available on the Net). He has also posted various comments (using his own name) after articles published on 'Timesonline' concerning 'Amway's' legal problems in the UK. At that time, an individual signing himself, David From London, posted a false and defamatory comment: 'For those of you who don't know, ----- ----- is an Anti-Amway obsessive.....'It is very probable that the author of this intentionally damaging statement was 'Insider'. The person in question is, in fact, the author of 'The Universal Identifying Chracteristics of a Cult'. Insider described him on two of his 14 Websites as being 'a well-known member of the anti-Amway cult.' The person in question is also associated with Dr. Edward Lottick (the former Chairman of the Cult Awareness Network) who has written the foreword to another (yet to be published) book by the same author, 'Amway The American Dream made Nightmare'. Unfortunately, for Wikipedia, you cannot have a neutral point of view when it comes to any form of deception. It's either a deception or its not. Casual observers, looking at a deception with misplaced objectivity, risk becoming part of it themselves. 'Insider' is using a covert hypnotic technique, Neuro-Linguistic Programing, to control our perceptions of 'Amway'. The popular phrase, 'American way', from which the neologism 'Amway' has been corrupted is itself an example of this devious technique. All persons challenging the authenticity of the 'Amway' myth (although they are pro-truth), are systematically categorized as 'Anti-Amway' which immediately colours the attitude of a casual observer. On a subconscious level, to many people (particularly in the USA) someone who is 'Anti-Amway', must be 'Anti-American'. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Insider operates 14 websites: http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com http://mlmliberal.blogspot.com http://amwaynorthamerica.blogspot.com http://quixtarbusinessreview.blogspot.com http://amwayaustralia.blogspot.com http://amwayeurope.blogspot.com http://amquixvideo.blogspot.com http://ibofightback.livejournal.com These all pretend to be independent of 'Amway', but their content speaks for itself. One of them, even mimics Wikipedia (needless to say, it cannot actually be edited by its readers). 'Insider' also maintains 79 videos on Youtube.com The person whom 'Insider' is trying to damage, maintains no Website. His article 'Freedom is Slavery' was very kindly posted for him on a website warning people about frauds. It has merely been mirrored by various blogs. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Insider is now convinced that people are obsessed with him. Sadly, whilst he remains under the influence of the Utopian 'Amway' myth, 'Insider' is an irrelevance as an individual. Like a machine, he spews forth a never-ending supply of reality-denying answers. 'Insider' is, however, highly interesting as a cultic case study. We must thank 'Insider' again for his flawless demonstration of the totalitarian mind set. All free thinking individuals challenging the authenticity of the Utopian 'Amway' myth are systematically categorized, denegrated and excluded from the authentic Wikepedia by 'Insider'- the self-appointed guardian of the supreme truth. Imagine what its like trying to post information on his very own counterfeit version of Wikipedia. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
I've blanked out collapsed a thread that had little to do with this article and mostly concerned the editors. Wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox. I recognize that some editors here may have had previous interactions off-site. Please do not bring those conflicts here. Here, we are all Wikipedia editors and must put the aims of this project foremost. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Anything else is disruption. Everyone here should review and follow the policies and guidelines linked in the talk page header at the top of this page. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Web sites affiliated with an organization can be used as sources for what the organization claims to do, but they should be clearly marked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I placed the tag because I found that there is excessive promotional financial information about the company, which almost makes it look like a financial statement. This is in view of the fact that the annual multi billion sales amply demonstrate the success of the company.
There is also excessive promotional information in the products' details. Especially, when some of the products have their own web pages, with links at the bottom of the article. On the other hand, I commend [for what it's worth, :-)], the rest of the article is well written and objectively balanced.Ineuw (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
In the DTI/BERR action in the UK, petitions were made against BWW, N21 and Amway. The first two were dismissed before it ever went to court. The third was dismissed by the court. A problem from a wikipedia perspective is that I can't find an RS either for the fact petitions were made against BWW and N21 nor the fact they were dismissed. As such it appears they should be removed from the section entirely, particularly given they're "accusations" against current organizations. However I'm hesitant to do so, especially since I know both the petitions and the dismissals have occurred. Any thoughts?--Insider201283 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious though, exactly how long do you think Wikipedia policies to delete stuff immediately should be ignored? Clearly for you "immediately" means not for at least 2 weeks, could you give me some specific time frames for "immediately" that you'd be happy with? does this question ring any bells with you? Shot info (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
A citation in Grand Rapids Press: . --Knverma (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
All three of these websites are self-published POV websites. They have no place as sources in the body of a wikipedia article and should be removed. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hassan's Freedom of Mind site is an acknowledged self-published source but has earlier been argued as allowed because he's an acknowledged "cult expert". I notice however that for Self-Published Sources (WP:SPS) the standard is higher - "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article. This particular case is a good case study of why the policy is this way. Reading Hassan's "analysis" it's clear he's actually done very little research into Amway and how it operates and has based his conclusions on a self-selected group, virtually all of whom represent a subsample of the Amway population. Poor research leads to poor conclusions, peer-review makes for more reliable sources and hence self-published sources are frowned upon. It's clear that Hassans is not "an established expert" on Amway (the topic of the article), with no WP:RS publications relating to it, so I propose this opinion be deleted. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I'd add that the cult "claim" remains as it has a WP:RS source in the Butterfield book, however it should be balanced with the Dr Shad Helmstetter opinion deleted earlier. Unlike Hassan, Helmstetter is an "established expert on the topic of the article", having published two books on Amway. The earlier text that was deleted (I've edited slightly) was -
Author and behavioural scientist Shad Helmstetter spent five years in the 1990s researching Amway and published two books on the company. In his book American Victory: The Real Story of Today's Amway, Helmstetter stated "Working in the field of human behavior, I've studied the cults for many years. The Amway business is the opposite of cult psychology." With regard to other allegations of Amway being a cult, he replied in an interview "The old myth that Amway is a cult is supported only by people who are either misinformed or uninformed. I would like to examine their research."[2].
The text was challenged on the basis that Helmstetter was not an acknowledged expert on cults. As made clear above, the standard for opinions is whether they're ackowledged experts on the topic of the article. Clearly he is. The book reference is inherently WP:RS and WP:V and the interview published on his site passes the WP:SPS standard of him being an acknowledged expert on Amway. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the section entitled "Other Issues" is biased against the company and needs to be balanced out. I agree with Insider that Helmstetter is an expert on Amway and his commments should be allowed. Visioneer72.235.11.75 (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Out of interest I dropped a line over at WP:RS/N with regards to the above (see ) and so far it would appear that one commentator has expressed concern that the SPS is applicable. As such, I'm going to (unless there is more input over there) agree with their decision and recommend that Hassan's analysis is probably not applicable for an RS per SPS. Comments? Shot info (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we get some more information about Chapel & Croft Publishing. Google suggests that it has only published books by Shad Helmstetter and by someone named Elise Thomas Helmstetter. In that case these books should be considered self-published. Also here is old discussion on Helmstetter. --Knverma (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The Helmstetter discussion prompted me to search for other reliable sources on the topic. I propose the following items for inclusion.
Proposal for section rewrite:
The cult-wikilink explains the ambiguities of the term. Further the actual characteristics have been listed from the sources to avoid misunderstanding. Amway's response has been included. Helmstetter's book has been excluded due to WP:UNDUE, and further it is struggling to meet WP criteria for sources worth including. --Knverma (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that if we are going to address Amway as being a cult, we need to focus significantly less on the economic/money generating issues, and actually describe how they behave as a cult. To say that they are a cult because they behave like an Evangelical/Christian Revivalist organization, may be valid, but we need to show how that is cult-like-- because I am sure that there are lots of evangelicals out there who would take offense to being called a cult based on how they practice their beliefs. If we want to take the money approach, then show how they brainwash people into believing outlandish tales and promises of great income and all they have to do is believe that it can happen for them and bring people into the cult. If we really want to go the money route on this one, then we absolutely have to elaborate more on the issue. I think the latest statistic shows that the average active distributor makes something like $150/yr. If we want to truthfully present that information, we really need to start describing how they define information like that. To say that they brainwash people with outlandish dreams of making millions of Dollars is not enough, because if you are out there talking about filling people's heads with outlandish ideas with no tangible proof, religion takes the cake on this one folks. And also, we need to stop digging up these income statements from the 80s. --13:14, 12 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337TruthSeeker (talk • contribs)
Given Quixtar has announced they are rebranding and merging back into Amway over the next year, I suggest we merge these two articles and take the opportunity to do a thorough NPOV rewrite. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Old news is old. Someone should merge the articles now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.129.114 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.