Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-30 Primerica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-30 Primerica 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-30 Primerica

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Anazgnos 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Primerica article

Who's involved?

Myself and a user by the name of Gnarlyocelot

What's going on?

I took on this article a week or so ago in an attempt to mitigate blatant NPOV violations. Some progress has been made and I've gone out of my way to incorporate changes added or suggested by some other editors, but right now there's a problem with this Gnarlyocelot continually reverting to a previous version of the article...My objection is the constant insertion of "some" to qualify and ghettoize all criticism as coming from a few bad eggs or loose screws...my assertion is that as the criticisms are being drawn from cited sources, and those sources characterize the criticisms as being general, and directed against the company proper and not at just a handful or "some" agents, and that therefore it is not the place of the editor to qualify or characterize the cited criticisms in that manner.

What would you like to change about that?

This looks like it's turning into an edit war. I'd like to have somebody more experienced than myself confirm whether I'm misreading NPOV policy in this instance. I'm new at this wikipedia thing and learning, if I'm in the wrong I'll gladly opt out of this...there's nothing at stake here. The previous article seemed like pretty blatant corporate-speak gladhanding and I found it out of place.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I'm fine with going through the discussion page for the article in question.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Maybe in a little while...I don't feel I'm any kind of expert on this stuff yet...

[edit] Mediator response

Hi there! I am Cowman109^Talk and I have volunteered to mediate this case. Before we jump into the details I'd just like to make some suggestions.

• The edit history for the page is a tad confusing if you look at it, so making use of edit summaries may help make things more clear. When I was looking through the edit history I felt it very difficult to look at each individual difference to see exactly what was going on.

• Just a small nitpicky suggestion is that you create some sort of user page (the page is at User:Anazgnos). Your edits all appear in red because you don't have a user page, which also makes the edit history a bit hard to read.

Basically, your edits are much more likely to be interpreted in a positive light if you make efforts to use edit summaries and if your name is not in red as it would be for an IP address or a new user.

Right, then. Onto the matter.

From what I've seen, this incident involves you and User:Gnarlyocelot both making changes to the Primerica article that are in conflict with one another. You have made attempts to fix the situation by [posting on the talk page. Looking for consensus is a very beneficial thing to do in Wikipedia, so you have taken the right steps in going to the talk page there to settle the dispute.

I feel that both you and User:Gnarlyocelot are both editing in good faith, though this conflict is clearly making some tension. While you have posted in the talk page of the article in question, it may be a good idea to also request that User:Gnarlyocelot sees the discussion by speaking to him on his talk page. Just remember to state the contents of this disagreement in a calm, thoughtful manner so he does not feel that you are being hostile in any way.

The thing is, without having Gnarlyocelot's input on the matter little progress will be done, so the first step would be to get him involved in the talk discussion. Once that happens mediation should be able to proceed. Could you do this and then we can see where things go from there?

Feel free to reply to my comments right after this one by simply adding a colon ( : )before your comment to indent it. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 22:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions...done and done! I notice that the history page for Primerica links to "edit user" rather than my rudimentary user page...is there a way to change that?Anazgnos 22:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That would probably just be an issue with your cache. I understand if you use mozilla that if you shift click on the refresh button then the cache will be cleared. Otherwise any change in the edit history should automatically update the cache so you will see the effects of having a user page. Cowman109^Talk 22:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

GnarlyOcelot has jumped in over on the Primerica discussion page...I've asked him to pop on over here. Honestly, if possible, I'd just like to get a call on which version of the criticism paragraph - his or mine - more closely adheres to NPOV policy. I'm not on any kind of crusade here and if I'm in the wrong I'll be happy to concede. Anazgnos 07:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Update 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here to give your view on the matter, Gnarlyocelot. I have looked over the source of conflict and in my opinion, it would indeed be a good idea to mention who, specifically, criticizes this company. While sources are given in all cases, it should be made clear that these views are not necessarily a wide viewpoint. The majority of the negative criticism of the company appears to be from that one webpage, so saying 'some' people may be incorrect unless more, possibly neutral sources are given. It is for reasons like this that it is usually best to get information from multiple sources on papers, for example, so that the information recieved can be confirmed in other sources.

The only thing that seems slightly odd about the paragraph, as I stated above, is that all the criticism comes from one person. So, I think that Gnarly's version may adhere more to a neutral point of view because otherwise readers of the article will imply that it is a wide belief that Primerica has these specific problems. Unless more sources are given to explain these viewpoints, it would seem most appropriate to have the particular person who criticizes it mentioned.

So, in conclusion, would you be alright with keeping Gnarly's version of the paragraph, Anazgnos? There is nothing wrong with your paragraph either, it's just that it should be made clear who, whether it is a single person or a group of people, who believe these certain things about the company. Cowman109^Talk 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it appears that I misunderstood the paragraph changes a bit. There are some parts of each paragraph that appear to be worded more properly, so I will make a compromise paragraph shortly. Cowman109^Talk 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise paragraph

Ken Young, a former insurance executive, has accused Primerica of "false, misleading and deceptive sales inducement presentations communicated to the public for the purpose of enticing and luring the public to engage into a business relationship with the company." [1]

Some Primerica offices are reported to "hire anyone" who passes their background check and pays the $199 fee for state licensing, regardless of experience, education, or competency.

Recruitment of new agents is not compulsory but strongly promoted as a means to increase earnings, and this has led some to speculate that the organization is more focused on recruitment of agents than the sale of financial products. [2]

Some have also charged Primerica with being a cult [3].

There is my compromise paragraph. It doesn't include as many 'somes', but it clarifies that the viewpoint is held by certain people, and not necessarily a wide audience. I also removed the part, Primerica recruiting agents contact potential recruits through online resume listings and other resources, and some identify themselves as representatives of Citigroup. Some potential recruits have reported being offered a management or salaried position when in fact essentially all applicants enter the company at a bottom-level, commission only sales position. [4] New hires are a required to pay a $199 fee for state licensing, regardless of state. This seems to contradict itself, so I removed it as it doesn't appear to add much to the criticism section if it also says that it is not true.

I also removed The average Primerica sales representative is reported to earn about $15,000 a year. [5] Primerica resembles Multi-Level Marketing in structure. There is a tiered commission structure or broker-agent relationship and commissions are paid only when products are sold. Proceeds from a given agent's sales flow upwards to their recruiter, and to their recruiter, and so on.. I personally don't see how the contents of this quote add to the idea of criticism against the company, and it is very confusing in itself and does not, in my opinion, clearly state why it is negative criticism of the company.

Also removed is Primerica has been referred to by some as "the Amway of the insurance industry". [6]. This sentence does not make much sense to the average reader (or at least myself), so unless it is expanded as to why this is criticism, I don't feel it needs to be mentioned.

How does this new version look to the both of you? Cowman109^Talk 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with that. It's considerably cut down, but I can understand your reasoning on what you took out. It does read much better than G's previous version, in my opinion. I'd suggest the following change, though:

Primerica requires a $199 fee for state licensing courses from all new hires, and some Primerica offices are reported to "hire anyone" who passes their background check and pays the fee, regardless of experience, education, or competency.

I might look to expand the content later on, for instance with some of Primerica's own acknowledgements (on their sites) of their critics (and criticisms). Anazgnos 23:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise 2

GNARLY OCELOT: To be honest, i think Anazgnos covered some fair points that shouldnt be left out. Most who research Primerica do so in response to an invitation to a recruiting opportunity meeting. They do so because generally they are invited to a big dog Citigroup company and the inviter hardly knows anything about the invitee, much less his qualifications. It understandably sounds fishy and researchers visit wikipedia to find otu whats going on. Primerily the "pyramid" and "multilevel" critique belong. The Ken Young quote, however, does not belong (for reasons explained in the "compromise offer" earlier). Although i would rename the heading to "Common Misunderstandings" (or something of the sort), this is my new resolution:

"Most questions concerning Primerica are in response to it's unorthodox recruiting structure and methods. Primerica is the only entrepreneurally driven entity of Citigroup. As usual with most companies, the Regional Vice President owns the office of business and overrides, to different degrees, the sales of all downlines. However, those downline agents who wish to promote to RVP themselves have the unconventional opportunity to recruit, train, and permenantly override future business of their own trainees. When certain structure and production requirements are met, those agents may open an office of their own. This is how Primerica builds distribution. Offices "hire anyone" who pass their background check regardless of experience or education. As a result, many mistakenly consider Primerica to be an illegal "pyramid", where commissions are paid for the actual recruiting itself and no products are actually sold. Recruits must be submitt 199$ with their "Independant Business Application" to contribute to licensing cost and the 2 day cram course and materials Primerica provides, preparing agents for the first state exam (Group 1- Life and Health). Primerica is also frequently mistaken for Multi-Level Marketing (defined as any organization where money is made internally, recruiting consumers who recruit consumers). Primerica only pays commissions on regulated business transactions done with clients; agents must be state-licensed in their respective field of business (Securities Series 6 license, Mortgage Broker License, Long Term Care etc.). Very few clients are also recruits."

We have yet to find a legitimate critique (aside from perhaps the limited ability of the company to fully prevent recruiters from misleading invitees into believing they are attending to hear about a salaried position).

I agree that the views of a single disgruntled employee are not necessarily encyclopedic. Your paragraph clearly takes that into account. What is your view on Gnarlyocelot's paragraph, Anazgnos? Cowman109^Talk 02:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, I haven't heard any responses from Anazgnos, have you? As long a.s it's ok with you, im going to go ahead and use the new compromise paragraph, if you have any suggestions to make it better- feel free.

Oh! Sorry for not responding. The page got lost in my watchlist. I see you already put in the paragraph, thanks. By changing the content of the disputed paragraph it seems the problem should be solved. I will close this case in a few days if no further trouble arises, though it will remain in my watchlist (and hopefully won't get lost this time). If further trouble arises, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talk page and we can continue here. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 15:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Here reprinted are my preferred edition of the "criticism" section, followed by Gnarlyocelot's current revision.

My version:

Primerica has been criticised for engaging in "false, misleading and deceptive sales inducement presentations communicated to the public for the purpose of enticing and luring the public to engage into a business relationship with the company." [7]

Primerica recruiting agents contact potential recruits through online resume listings and other resources, and generally identify themselves as representatives of Citigroup. Potential recruits have reported being offered a management or salaried position when in fact essentially all applicants enter the company at a bottom-level, commission only sales position. [8] New hires are a required to pay a $199 fee for "state licensing", regardless of state. Primerica offices are reported to "hire anyone" who passes their background check (and pays the $199 fee), regardless of experience, education, or competency. The average Primerica sales rep is reported earn $15,000 a year. [9] Primerica resembles Multi-Level Marketing in structure. There is a tiered commission structure or broker-agent relationship and commissions are paid only when products are sold. Proceeds from a given agent's sales flow upwards to their recruiter, and to their recruiter, and so on. Recruitment of new agents is not compulsory but strongly promoted as a means to increase earnings, and this has led to speculation that the organization is more focused on recruitment of agents than the sale of financial products. [10] Primerica has been referred to as "the Amway of the insurance industry". [11] Primerica has also been charged with being a cult [12].

Gnarlyocelot's version:

Ken Young, a former insurance executive, has accused Primerica of "false, misleading and deceptive sales inducement presentations communicated to the public for the purpose of enticing and luring the public to engage into a business relationship with the company." [13] Some Primerica recruiting agents contact potential recruits through online resume listings and other resources, and some identify themselves as representatives of Citigroup. Some potential recruits have reported being offered a management or salaried position when in fact essentially all applicants enter the company at a bottom-level, commission only sales position. [14] New hires are a required to pay a $199 fee for state licensing, regardless of state. Some Primerica offices are reported to "hire anyone" who passes their background check (and pays the $199 fee), regardless of experience, education, or competency. The average Primerica sales rep is reported earn $15,000 a year. [15] Primerica resembles Multi-Level Marketing in structure. There is a tiered commission structure or broker-agent relationship and commissions are paid only when products are sold. Proceeds from a given agent's sales flow upwards to their recruiter, and to their recruiter, and so on. Recruitment of new agents is not compulsory but strongly promoted as a means to increase earnings, and this has led some to speculate that the organization is more focused on recruitment of agents than the sale of financial products. [16] Primerica has been referred to by some as "the Amway of the insurance industry". [17] Some have also charged Primerica with being a cult [18].

[edit] Compromise offers

1. I think the purpose of Wikipedia is to be a credible resource for learning. Efficient learning requires articles to be pertinent. Would it be pertinent to state "there are redheads working in the government" or would that just be a waste of space? I think the latter, because everyone knows it already. Likewise, unless useful information is given, the "primerica has been criticised" quote is really a waste of space that everyone knows is true of every company. In other words, I dont know why you stopped at Ken Young (a nobody). Primerica has also been "accused of" harboring aliens by Ned Hamlett (a nobody) on Myspace.com and its been accused of being in cahoots with the government to take over the world by Sarah Jackson (a nobody) at her website. Primerica, along with every other large company, has been "accused of" just about anything the human mind can imagine, and people already know this so "why would a prestigious website like Wikipedia go through the trouble of explaning it unless there were sufficient evidence to merit debate". People aren't interested in checking your ridiculous link out to learn that this ornate quote is simply coming from a competetor sitting at his computer, they rightly expect Wikipedia to have done that "screening for pertinence" work for them, and thats what im calling us to do now. Otherwise, under criticisms, we need to include quotes from Ned Hamlett and Sarah Jackson and link readers to their Myspace and personal website; Wikipedia will have officially gone down the toilet.

2. I think the rest of those accusates do belong in the criticism section. Enough people wonder if Primerica is a cult, or if its a Multi-Level to merit discussion. However, avoid the links unless you are willing to qualify their credibilty by putting a "Ken Young" in front of them. I prefer us to be honest a say "some Primerica agents" because that is the truth, not what you are (perhaps ignorantly) portraying.

I felt that Ken Young's quote effectively summarized the general tenor of complaints against the company and was therefore pertinent. I object to the tendency of pro-Primerica persons to dismiss all criticism as coming from disgruntled competitors. Such statements inevitably sound like they're coming from a corporate sock-puppet. Not you personally, but I keep seeing that mindset crop up again and again as I've been reading about the company. The original article was a horrendously egregious example of this which basically amounted to "people only hate Primerica 'cause they're jealous". Anazgnos 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

GnarlyOcelot: True, i dont deny they are out there. I wouldnt dare dismiss criticism, however, aside from rogue agents characterizing Primerica as a salaried job, no legitimate criticism has yet been brought up (only misconceptions which, admittely, are not discussed on any official primerica site. Agents get canned for that stuff, they cant even communicate through e-mail.) Anyways, I have no problem including worthy and accurate criques.

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Discussion

Here is a reprinting of the relevant discussion thread, to which I am the only contributor to date.

These criticisms exist, and are being reported on fairly and neutrally. This portion of the article should not be treated as an opportunity to defend the company or discredit criticisms as they are stated. If needed, a seperate paragraph or section regarding responses to criticisms may be entered. 70.183.63.108 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gnarlyocelot - if you're going to edit the article please be sure to copy the code and not just the text...you removed all the citations and external links in the criticism section...which I'm certain was unintentional. I don't really object to the bulk of your changes, but you need to avoid the appearance of the whole "here's the criticism...and here's why it's bullshit" defensive tone. Anazgnos 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK...at this point I don't think there's anything to do but seperate "criticism" into a seperate section from "defense against criticism", if that's what you guys insist on doing. Constant qualifiers and "here's why it's not MLM" (etc.) is overly defensive and non-neutral in the context of a basic list of fully referenced criticisms. For example the phrase "disqualifying pyramid scheme accusations", or other such qualifying statements, violates NPOV. I will work on parsing the two when I get a chance and then you can add to the "defense" section to yr heart's content, at which point I expect the "criticism" section can be left well enough alone. Anazgnos 16:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the bulk of the new section, but non-neutral comments (such as: "speculations are in error" - Who says so...you? The "speculations" are a given via a published reference. see NPOV) will continue to be pruned. YOU (the writer) cannot classify or qualify statements. If you want to present an opinion or characterize a statement or suggest conclusions, you MUST provide a reference to a credible, previously published source. Anazgnos 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Some, some, some...no no no. The citations don't characterize those actions as being limited, they refer to them as being general. You can't qualify cited statements according to your own opinions. Anazgnos 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gnarlyocelot - effectively every statement in the current "criticism" paragraph is cited. You cannot change the intent of the cited statements by adding the qualifier "some", as in "some say" or "some agents", etc, to each of them. That serves to contradict or editorialize the content and intent of the cited statements, which is not permissisble according to NPOV guidelines. If you wish to put a slant on/discredit the cited criticisms, do so in the "discussing/addressing" section, and do so with your own cited references - not with your own opinion. Anazgnos 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)