Talk:Melaleuca (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 References 2 Lawsuits 3 POV dispute 4 Removal of criticism 5 Framing

[edit] References

I have no problem using any link to established sources like Quackwatch. However, I've removed a link to a message board thread as message boards are not really reliable or established sources. Have also added references to Melaleuca found in Inc. Magazine and Forbes. The Crow 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added criticisms and sourced them to their websites. I also modified the section about the BBB to make it more NPOV, deleting the paraphrase from their website. If people want to read more about the standard, they can follow the link.--Kchase02 T 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuits

Are there any lawsuits that were actually decided against Melaleuca? I note that the examples given here either were decided in Melaleuca's favor, or do not list the outcome. How notable are failed lawsuits against a company? Should every corporate article contain examples of failed lawsuits against it? The Crow 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, but many corporate articles are for huge companies that have been sued dozens of times, not minor companies that barely meet WP:CORP. In any case, they were sued by fourteen of their distributors. I added a paranthetical reference about Melaleuca winning the suit.--Kchase02 T 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You want to include information about every meritless lawsuit you can find, but eliminate the objective, factual statement that the Better Business Bureau understands and has no complaints about the company's marketplace conduct, there are no government actions against the company, and has properly addressed matters referred by the BBB? Is that really a balanced perspective? The Crow 11:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the statements about criticisms I inserted are any less factual or objective than the statements about the BBB's rating.--Kchase02 T 18:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not less factual or objective. The problem I am observing is that you deleted factual, objective statements favorable to the company and then immediately added factual, objective, third-party statements that were unfavorable to the company. (And I further note that your statements about lawsuits, while factual, are in my view trivial because not only are lawsuits common for companies in business for 20+ years, but the lawsuits were not successful). This has the appearance of a POV edit. The Crow 20:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I found another source and added to the controversy section. If you think that "satisfactory" ought to be defined, the place to do so is on WP's page for the BBB, not in the article for this company. In any case, if you think something I've done is POV, make your case with reference to WP:NPOV. I won't argue that claim unless you give it substance.--Kchase02 T 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the Holten vs. Melaleuca lawsuit is notable because it concerns misrepresenting retention numbers and thus the core business practice. However I have a concern regarding the FreeLife lawsuit. After reading over the letters, it appears to me that this is not a lawsuit concerning marketing methods or business practices, but regarding cybersquatting by distributors unethically registering Melaleuca internet domain names and then demanding money from Melaleuca to quit the claim. This is a problem that plagues a number of companies, and they are right to defend their interests in this case, so I don't think it really belongs here. The Crow 01:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any information in that source about a suit involving an entity named Holten. As to the other lawsuits, I fleshed out in the article what they were about. Whether they are right to defend our interests is not for us to say, for in wikipedia, our objective is "verifiability, not truth" WP:V. I don't like all this fluff about their products or business methods. It's hardly unique or interesting enough to be added to an encyclopedia entry about them, and the business methods stuff should be covered in the article on MLMs.--Kchase02 T 01:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I had an error (now corrected) in my above concerning the Holten vs. Melaleuca action, it's from the link at the bottom of the link presently labeled as "Melaleuca Distributors Sue their Upline and the Company". Even though the lawsuit was determined to be meritless, I don't contest that it's notable here. MLM's by their nature are prone to this sort of thing, so it's relevant to the article. By contrast, the FreeLife suit, regardless of merits, is a routine type of suit for companies of all sizes and industries. What "controversy" does it bear upon? I feel that including lawsuits regardless of relevance or merit constitutes FUD and negative padding. As to what you call "fluff" about products; it's entirely appropriate to describe the business in a business article. It's possible to go overboard but I don't plan to include any more. As to the business methods, we have an entire section on MLM-related controversy, so it's entirely appropriate to devote space to the particulars of this company and why they claim to be different. I don't have any objection to merging the sections however. 02:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Further comment Yikes. The site you've linked with the FreeLife letter, www.mlmwatchdog.com is not a watchdog site at all. It's an MLM promotion site. Go to the main page and check for yourself, read all the way down the page. Sure you want to be directing traffic their way? The Crow 02:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I added back the link to the letters regarding the Holten v. Melaleuca suit. While I see the usefulness of the pleadings, the letters are a far quicker way to get a gist of the case. WP is intended for a general audience. As to the FreeLife suit, the article doesn't indicate how it was decided because we have no verifiable information about the result. As it stands now, the reader is permitted to pursue other avenues of research and learn more. Mentioning a suit over the attacks is hardly FUD. It's not even evident what the substance of the attacks are. The Freelife suit should stay in the interest of informing the reader.Kchase02 T

If the substance of the attacks is not even evident, how does this serve to inform the reader? And what justifies it being listed as any sort of "controversy?" This suit appears to be nothing more than dealing with a normal nuisance of normal businesses, and including it serves no function other than to increase the number of references to lawsuits in the article. It really needs to be removed. The Crow 16:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're right. If people really want to find out that level of specificity of information about the company, they'll just find it in the first twenty google results like I did.--Kchase02 T 16:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm not saying readers should be expected to google everything. If you still feel the controversy and lawsuits are underrepresented, I'd disagree, but would have no problem with someone adding references to a few more legitimately controversial suits like the Holden action or even non-legal disputes noted in mainstream press. The Crow 17:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no concern about directing traffic to an MLM promotion site. No worse than an anti-site as long as it has relevant info about the subject.--Kchase02 T 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a relevant response about this contentious discussion on his user talk.--Kchase02 T 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My skin is thick, I would categorize this grade of contention as minor and I haven't taken any serious affront; I hope you feel the same way. I created this article so perhaps I had too great a sense of ownership in it. The Crow 18:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV dispute

OK... well, first I need to point out that you made an implicit assertion that the article was not NPOV in the references section without explaining why. But anyway. From: WP:NPOV

"Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section."

You've chosen to remove only facts favorable to the company's image, and added only facts unfavorable to the company's image. This has the appearance of biased editing.

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

I feel that it promotes undue weight to remove sourced fact from one perspective while continuing to add fact from another perspective. It drives the article in a particular direction. The Crow 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the article's history. The only thing I've removed is the BBB's definition of a "satisfactory" rating. I didn't remove the fact that it got that rating. I've inserted the information as I've found it, including that the company has had "consistently increasing sales and revenues and expanded internationally". Your argument is unpersuasive at this point.--Kchase02 T 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we both satisfied with the current version, then? Let's hope it doesn't get deleted.--Kchase02 T 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the balance of the controversy section itself. I think it outweighs the non-controversial sections, but expanding the rest of the article is the solution to that problem. The Crow 00:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Removal of criticism

User:Eldoog has been removing valid, verifiable, and undisputed information concerning misconduct in the company's early days. I do not think this is appropriate and I have restored the information. Also of concern is the insertion of corporate POV language "business builders" for associates, "consumer direct" marketing rather than MLM. I note that this user also has recently registered and has only edited this article. User should discuss here on the talk page to talk about the direction and get consensus before restoring these dubious edits. The Crow 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with The Crow's sentiment. We went through quite a process to produce an article we thought was NPOV. If someone wants to change the content, please bring it up here. Frankly, I'm not sure whether the company should be described as MLM or "consumer direct" (this isn't my field), but I'm happy to discuss it.--Kchase T 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here, but in my opinion any company where you have a downline and an upline (levels) ought be described as MLM. Also, when reading the article I got the impression that it was PRO Melaleuca... that's why I thought to check the talk page. I can't tell which way folks think it's leaning now. Alexa411 04:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, though it might not be my preferred term, I think 'Consumer Direct' is more descriptive and much better than 'MLM'. 'MLM' has been used to describe such a wide range of companies now with such a wide range of business models that it has pretty much lost its meaning. It reminds me of the 1980's (and much earlier) in that when someone said they 'worked with computers', that actually still meant something. Now that could mean so many things to the point that it's meaningless. There are some other companies like Amway that I just naturally associate with MLM though (nothing against Amyway).

As for the POV of the page, it seems pretty balanced to me--I see things that most would consider negative as well as positive. If it was a company like Enron it would probably seem 'anti-Enron'. If it's a company like Disney, it would seem more 'pro-Disney'. This doesn't mean they're not a neutral point of view though. I think it's important for the article not be one of those tabloid anti-company sites where anyone whose ever lost their job or didn't like a company's product gets on to rant (as opposed to the more legitimate consumer-oriented sites). We're talking about an existing company that employs a lot of people but that doesn't mean it should be just a commercial for the company either, but rather a good resource for information with NPOV. After reading the discussion board here for the past couple months, these issues are very well discussed (which is refreshing!).

I'm ok with a company wanting to distance themselves from a term that has a negative connotation (that other companies are much more responsible for) as long as they have actually taken significant steps to distance themselves from the practices that cause such a negative connotation. Regarding labels, a cousin of mine prefers to be called 'black' instead of 'African-American'. As long as what she wants to be called is descriptive and not something ridiculous that no grown adult should be expected to say, then I have no problem respecting what she wants to be called. Siraj88 22:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Framing

Like other companies selling naturally based products, Melaleuca has drawn criticism from others. Caveat removed as editorial framing: the implication is that the criticism is worth less because it's part of a general bias against companies selling naturally based products. Tearlach 09:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)