Talk:Melaleuca, Inc/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

References

I have no problem using any link to established sources. 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.--Chaser T 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Please check for factual accuracy:
"Melaleuca CEO Frank L. VanderSloot appeared on the Forbes 400 list of 400 richest Americans for the year 2004."
Mr. VanderSloot does not appear on the Forbes 400 list of 400 richest Americans for the year 2004. There's a chatty, opinionated tabloid piece by a Forbes contributor that talks about him on the web page that links to the list data. But he's not, as far as I could see, on the list itself. dkbrklyn 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I double checked this today, and deleted the statement. He's not on the 2004 list. Please see note, above. dkbrklyn 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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.--Chaser T 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Are we both satisfied with the current version, then? Let's hope it doesn't get deleted.--Chaser 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)

Removal of content

- 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.--Chaser 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) - - Publius777 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)I also found removal of criticism I posted citing A) the fact that the FDA doesn't regulate dietary supplements (which is a huge current issue in the medical community) and several sites from the National Institute of Health and other very reputable college research labs showing some negative effects of dietary supplements. I restored the criticism because I believe it maintains NPOV but points while pointing out current dietary supplement controversy as well as solid, recent, medical research. Publius777 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC) - - Publius777 appear to be targeted to negative POV towards the subject. Looking into the links the information is not accuratly presented in the statments written in the article. Sparklefaceness 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) - - :Publius777 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)The dietary supplement industry does indeed have critics, many from very established and highly respected consumer and medical associations. I believe the comments included in the criticism section accurately reflect the viewpoint of the critics, with accurate, copious citations. The POV isn't negative, it is rather an accurate reflection of the critics of dietary supplements and of their efforts to regulate the dietary supplement industry (which could, among other things, impact the profitibility of the industry and should indeed be included in a balanced discussion05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Publius777It should be noted that most of the article on Melaleuca is lifted wholesale from sales and marketing materials, and the views of industry critics and serious scientific research studies are regularly removed in toto. In fairness, perhaps editors might disclose if they have a direct financial relationship with the company (as is standard practice in newspaper and research publications). It certainly seems the level of sales puffery in much of the article violates an objective POVPublius777 - - ::user:Publius777 - The only edits you have made are on this page, and haven't added the referenced information to other (and sometimes more relevant) wikipedia pages, (i.e. you have not added the referenced information on Saint Johns Wort on the Saint Johns Wort wikipedia page.) - - ::Although supplements do not appear to be the major marketplace for this company, I am in agreement with having information about the regulation of the products sold by a company. I have posted what should be an acceptable resolution to the silent dispute that you and others have have been involved in, and have included reference to a lack of FDA regulation with nutritional supplements and have posted a link to the Herbal Remedies which has a wealth of additional information on the topic. Jjquin - - :::Publius777Since the vast majority of this article is comprised of press release/promotional material directly written by Melaleuca, I believe it is entirely fair to question the neutral POV. The controversy surrounding multi-level marketing of dietary supplements is indeed large, and growing, which is not reflected in the article's recent edits. As it stands, the article comes across as a fluff sales/promotional piece. The "awards" section is typical of corporate PR: it has accolades from questionable sources (the "environmental" award was in fact given to the company by a local *industry lobbying group* that has in the past lobbied against wind energy and against a Renewable Portfolio Standard on behalf of Idaho's local coal industry). Remaining awards are primarily the kind of fluff that typically graces a embellished mid-level corporate resume: local Chamber of Commerce/Better Business stuff. The cites I used in the critics section are from major, world respected neutral research institutes. Melaleuca often refers to itself in promotional literature as a "pharmaceutical company," and the pharmaceutical line is indeed touted at the forefront of the companies' sales presentations. Becuase regulation would place those sales presentations under federal pervue for misstatements and hyberbole, the regulatory issue is indeed paramount in a neutral analytical piece on a business. Removing all citations to the major consumer groups lobbying for increased regulation of multi-level marketers is at best disingenuous., at worst in violation of the neutral POV. Again, I believe it's fair to ask is user Jjquin affiliated with Melaleuca. While a business relationship may well not preclude a neutral POV, in the case where an article is almost entirely composed of company promotional materials, it would be fair to disclose a financial relationship, if indeed one exists. Wikipedia has, in the past, suffered from a lack of complete disclosure in articles on business (including a very publicized dispute involving WalMart).Publius777 - ::::Jjquinn: long time satisfied customer with melaleuca (over three years now) though am not a marketing executive and do not purchase from them every month - (I invite others to chime in as well). I find it very interesting that user:Publius777 has not attempted to submit his information on other related pages. The arguments would hold a lot more water with me (and likely others as well) if he had not added information to the Saint Johns Wort page - or the ginseng page - or the herbal supplements page - all related to what he is writing about but don't seem to care to much about them. That added to the fact that another someone said he is linking to products made in SOUTH ASIA - Unless someone states they are manufactured in South Asia, I don't understand what the relationship is other than vandalism. Adding to the fact that he has stated that the company's sales have declined which is obviously contrary to fact. It looks like Publius777 has an agenda. Some of what has been posted just doesn't hold water. Other parts have completely unrelated links, and the pattern here just doesn't make sense. If you have additional research or information on Melaluca's specific products, please feel free to add or contribute to the article. Industry targeted information would probably be best served on industry related pages. Jjquin 05:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC) - - :I'll stay neutral (for now) on the immediate discussion above, but echo the concerns that this is not a neutral article. Awards do not need to be (and should not be) mentioned in the opening para, particularly if they're over 10 years ago. - :I also find the text about multi-level marketing disturbing: the phrase "methinks he doth protest too much" comes to mind. There are several paragraphs about what the company has done to reduce the evils of multi-level marketing, but no concise description of the company's sales model. Is it MLM or not? If it's not MLM (or not similar), why is this text relevant?--Gregalton 08:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC) - - ::After reflection, I've added a POV flag. It's clear that the neutrality is disputed, as documented in the talk page. I believe it should stay and not be deleted until there is more consensus on this.--Gregalton 10:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC) - - Jjquinn, tip-- Publius777 = Anonymous user 72.75.98.68 = = = Gregalton --0bserver1776 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC) - - :Interesting. I see what you mean (I think I just found what you are referring to). Thanks for the tip.Jjquin 20:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC) - - :Ah, the old sockpuppet/meatpuppet accusation. I invite you to either a) substantiate or b) respond on content.--Gregalton 06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC) - - Some thoughts. - - Article feels neutral - neither pro nor con, however I am open to the question of neutrality since it is something to keep in mind for every article. - - There are questions of reliability to the edits by Publius777 and the related Gregalton's involvement on the wikiarticle. - - Information provided includes references to the pharmaceutical industry and nutrition industry in general - which appears to be a small part of what this company does. The products marketed related to the company – cleaning products, makeup products, herbal products, shampoo products, etc - appear to be fully published, the benefits and risks of each of those categories could be explored. A link to the product-group of herbal supplements (one of the industries this company is related to) is also included. The facts on those pages also are able to spell out in great detail both the benefits and risks. - - It appears as though the alias Publius777 wants to move away from the NPOV from the article with edits. He has consistently targeted risks which is fine to do, but does not appear to want to include the benefits - which is what should happen if he were to want to maintain a NPOV. If we were to include ingredient after ingredient of an entire product line of a company this size, we I anticipate we would end up with an unacceptably long article. - - To resolve the dispute, a link to the Herbal supplements page was included which will include both the risks and benefits. - - In addition, in places he seems to be making statements and posting random links to the information he has added (links to products from Asia); and other times making statements that are contrary to fact. What he has been posting almost looks like some strange type of linkspam or lobbying effort. - - All in all - his edits are kind of like posting on the Toyota's corporate website: "Toyota uses tires on their cars and tires have been known to be a major environmental problem throughout the world. They produce harmful chemicals when they are burned and have been responsible for countless deaths when they fail.(ref link to tires) They also use gasoline which is harmful to the ozone layer and can have an effect on global warming(ref link to global warming) Toyota has recently been purchased by Kia. (ref link to something completely unrelated)" - - For all wikipedia, lets #1 – keep accurate information, and #2 maintain the NPOV of the article. Jjquin 22:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC) - - :Just to make it clear, I have no 'link' of any kind with Publius777, and would appreciate this allegation being retracted. I made a specific point about the link with Multi-level marketing - on which there is a long paragraph detailing how this company is a Good Corporate Citizen (tm) that is better than other MLMs - but without any explanatory text explaining how this is relevant or related. Including this info without any context or facts is biased. - :I also continue to believe that this reads like advertising copy; for example, the sentence "They also have developed products using natural ingredients that support healthy vision, healthy prostate, healthy urinary tract, as well as other nutritional supplements." This is very nice sounding, and almost completely content-free: at minimum, the text should read "claims to...". I also think the list of awards earned by the company - in the opening section - is not neutral.--Gregalton 05:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC) - - I believe this article is not perfect, but maintains a neutral point of view. The article references a failed company, previous exaggerated claims, previous Multi-level type company - none of which I think bode well for Melaleuca's history in my opinion. - - It looks like the MLM discussion has taken place before. I'm no MLM expert, but I think typically in an MLM people are required to buy lots of product and resell or distribute to others (at least that's how it was with Amway). I don't think Melaleuca's people distribute any products (I could be wrong.)Not LTD 23:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC) - - None of my business really, but looks neutral to me. 12.14.174.162 04:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC) - - :If the company is not involved in MLM, why is there a discussion here of MLM at all? At present, the MLM text reads as if - unrelated to its actual business or business model - the company undertakes charity activity to 'confront the abuses of MLM.' An implied, positive POV. This text should be removed unless it is relevant somehow.--Gregalton 05:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC) - - :Article - neutral. My impression to the MLM question is the distinction between two similar items that are different - veggie burger vs. hamburger.208.54.95.129 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC) - - I've seen a lot of Multi Level companies, and Melaleuca is not anything like those. 216.43.101.219 14:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Removed POV flag. New here, but over a month of discussion and looks cleaned up. - - Regarding a particular paragraph ("Melaleuca has been outspoken against the abuses inherent to multi-level marketing..."), I strongly feel that this is an advert for the company as it comprises the same pitch used by Melaleuca "marketing executives" when explaining the company to newcomers. Unfortunately I have no citation other than personal experience (though others may). - - A stronger point is that this paragraph offers no encyclopedic insight, but instead starts an implied argument ("Melaleuca is not MLM") then offers only one side of the debate. This feels very straw man-esque in that they are proposing charges laid against them without citation, then proceed to knock them down. It just feels like marketing to me. A debate or "Controversies" section may be better suited for such a discussion, but regardless I feel this paragraph should be edited or removed. Finally, including such info as percentage discounts and product points appears completely out of context with the rest of the information and tastes like a sales pitch to me. - - My two cents for other editors to consider. Please don't bite the newbie! --Gferley 06:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC) - - == Semi-protection and POV flag == - - I've applied permanent semiprotection to this article and re-added the POV flag. This article has chronic problems with WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, and WP:ADVERT. At this investigation I also uncovered chronic WP:COI violations. Since the editor who had the conflict of interest refused to acknowledge it, there's reason to suspect that COI problems continue. DurovaCharge! 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC) - - == Organically Certified? == - - The statement about ", many of their products are certified organic." is not true. I personally called the product information line at Melaleuca and the rep said that although many of their products have organic sources they are not "Certified Organic". I think that statment should be removed because it is false.Nostalgia30 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC) - - == Suggestions for balance == - As the administrator who protected this page I will not implement these prospective changes to the article, but I'd like to point out the following: - *A sourced section of criticism from an earlier version of this article no longer appears. - *This National Geographic Page discusses the company's animal testing policy. - The article as it stands is glowing, and nobody except Mother Theresa is really perfect - probably not even her. DurovaCharge! 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC) - - : A recent article suggested that she was agnostic. [1] - Jehochman Talk 02:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - - == MLM or not? == - - Someone's listed Melaleuca in List of multi-level marketing companies. Reading this article, I cannot tell if it belongs. There's a section which never quite describes how Melaleuca markets its products, though it's full of MLMish jargon mixed with protestations that it's not an abusive MLM company. Issues like "inventory loading" and "breakaway" aren't inherent to the MLM model; it's possible for a company to be an MLM without them. - - So: How does Melaleuca get distributors/salespeople? Do they hire them, or do existing distributors/salespeople reccruit new ones? If the latter, do the salespeople who did the recruiting actually earn any commission off the sales of people they recruited? This information is missing, and makes the article look rather spammy, as if someone had something to hide. Argyriou (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC) - :The article appears to confirm it's an MLM, but there appears claims that it operates without many of the criticized elements that give the term Multi-Level Marketing a bad connotation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC) - - == Re section: Awards and Public Recognition == - - This section, at best, is a trivia section, and at worse is simply advertising/marketing material. Either way, the section should be purged from the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)