Talk:Quixtar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quixtar article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Critics and Response

The point is that the statements made by ibofightback are not officially endorsed by Quixtar. If Quixtar officially states that they support whatever is stated on his site then we can include this site. --Knverma 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Larsen from external links is no problem. Other than that, let's just stick to the criticism against Quixtar and the response of Quixtar. Also feel free to provide response of important IBOs like Yager, Dornan. --Knverma 16:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if ibofightback's name appears on some PR's blog. It doesn't mean Quixtar supports his statements. See also above discussion about opportunityzone.com which is even run by Quixtar employees. --Knverma 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
ahh, back to the battleground. I see "critics" blogs are happily linked to and others are not. It's quite simple, wikipedia should be about appropriate balance if there are different point of views. To link to two critics websites, and not allow any from another site with a different perspective does not provide that balance. The "corporate" viewpoint is another perspective altogether, and is not the same as the IBO perspective. It is entirely unbalanced to highlight the websites of two former IBOs, when there are millions of IBOs, and refuse to allow an IBOs perspective. Pretty obvious I would think. What exactly is the problem with linking to ttaq? --Insider201283 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
First, welcome back :)
Let me also provide some of the history, if you haven't been keeping track of it. I was consistently avoiding all links to critics and critics' critics. At one point, one IP added those Quixtar's response to web critics, so I decided to also cite the web critics.
Now those critics being cited has nothing to do with their being former IBOs. They are just critics of a company so we are citing the critics and the company's official response. To cite website set up by any IBO among the millions wouldn't make sense.
Now the funny thing about opportunityzone.com is that it is even linked from some Quixtar sites, still the blog itself says that the views are not endorsed by Quixtar. So it seems like Quixtar wants to encourage these blogs but not take responsibility if any wrong things are said there. But if the site gets too much media attention then it could be mentioned. --Knverma 19:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
just got media attention, see MiBiz article. Blogs by there nature will have disclaimers, just smart business. Re TTAQ, as I mentioned, the company and IBOs are not the same thing. An IBO response site is in itself notable IMO. Though obviously I have a COI here, I can 110% honestly say I would say the same thing if I had nothing to do with it. There used to be other sites, eg amwayfacts.com, but Amway stupidly made IBOs shut them down. They've admitted this was dumb, but it's part of the source of the problem of "balance". A/Q has actually shut down far more pro-sites than anti-sites. --Insider201283 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I would have liked some response site from IBOs like Britt, Yager, Dornan and others, because that makes it an "official" response.
I have the following suggestion. We can keep citations to TTAQ and Larsen's site out from this article, except temporarily linking to court documents on these sites until they are copied to wikisource (In that case, Quixtar'e response to Larsen would also have to be deleted). MoD and opportunityzone.com both have been somewhat mentioned in the media, so the article could just name them somewhere. --Knverma 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to include my tidbit. I came to this page for information and I didn't get what I came for. I beleive that information does not have an opinion. While I don't have a problem with critics and the likes being cited, I do have a problem with what I see on this page. I think that Wikipedia is first and foremost an informational tool, not a promotional tool or a place where peoples should openly voice their opinions. In short, keeping to the facts should be the priority. Critics either from blogs or from Quixtar IBOs should not occupy the majority of an article as it does now. I also think that there should be more material as to what Quixtar actually is. 70.82.157.228 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TEAM, Google bombing

The text

  • Woodward has also been accused of google bombing so that web searches list his multiple websites instead of sites maintained by his critics.[1]

was deleted with the edit summary

  • this was sourced from a mirror of an old version of wikipedia, invalid sourcing.

Is there any evidence of the source used by this article? --Knverma 12:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thisbiznow is not a blog site

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


There is no advertising link added by me. What is the use of Wiki if the websites created by corporation about which the page is, are also not allowed to be on the page.

At the same time, I see a lot of blogs and other irrelevant sites listed on the page.

e.g. www.thisbiznow.com and www.ibofacts.com are valid websites. Moreover I see a lot of links related to Dateline and other blogs still listed on this page even though Wiki guidelines suggest not to put blogs.

Thisbiznow is a corporate spam site with no reason to be linked. Dateline's not a blog. Please stop adding links if you don't understand our policies about external links. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the definition of spam site? How can a corporate site giving news updates about the business be a spam site? I do not see any explaination on Wiki guidelines regarding that.

What is the definition of spam site?

And what about following site?

  1. ^ http://amquix.info/pdfs/quixtar_class_action/quixtar_class_action.pdf
  2. ^ http://media.alticorblogs.com/2007/01/25/ordering-the-courts/

Are they not voilating Wiki policies?

The class-action PDF is a source being used to cite a fact in the article. I think you may be right about the other link - I'll take a look. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The blog looks OK too in this case, since it's an official company outlet being cited to support the fact that the company recognized the lawsuit. I wouldn't support its being included in the "External links" section since on the whole it probably can't be trusted to bring our readers unbiased information. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, How is it that if I remove blog sites, which violate wikipedia guidelines, it is vandalism and when Eskog deletes corporate website it is not? The reference deleted was http://www.thisbiznow.com/quixtar/statistics.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.188.53 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 16 June 2007

Sorry for the late response, I was away last weekend.
  • amquix.info is a critic's site and thetruthaboutquixtar.com (added by 75.73.188.53) is a pro-Quixtar site by an anonymous IBO. The past consensus was not to use commentary from these sites, but only to link to publicly available documents (court cases etc) on these sites.
  • thisbiznow.com alticorblogs.com is of course an official site, though I don't see any purpose in quoting it just to say that the filing of some court case has been acknowledged by Quixtar. This is not some secret that requires an acknowledgement. This sentence can be deleted. --Knverma 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why are you so keen on deleting anything which you don't like. Also its not clear which sentence you are talking about? 75.73.188.53 04:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was talking of the part of a sentence (added not by you) which says that Quixtar acknowledged the filing of a class action lawsuit. There is nothing to like or not like about it, it is simply not a significant enough fact. Filing of a lawsuit is a publicly known fact, what's the point of noting Quixtar's acknowledgement? --Knverma 07:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various small changes

Seeing the edit-warring, I am discussing changes here first.

  • IBOAI. This is an important topic and I was also planning to add material about it. As the main topic of the article is Quixtar instead of IBOAI, this material can be moved from the intro to another section. --Knverma 09:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Section ordering. The move of the promotion section to the beginning of the article should be undone. Products and corporate info are more basic material in an article on a company and should come before the promotion and lawsuits info. If anyone wishes to highlight the promotion section then it can be put before the controversy section. --Knverma 21:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Could someone point out where Quixtar has published statistics to support this kind of statement:
The business model primarily focuses on sale of products and services through word of mouth advertising and not on paying commission for recruiting people. The majority of bonus income at higher level is from sale generated by downlines as against personal sales. This is evident in the fact that Quixtar has a very minimal budget on media advertising.
Please check WIkipedia policies on original research. Words like "this is evident in ..." are best avoided. --Knverma 22:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
At the website which you deleted earlier 12.104.244.6 23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The link you provided does not talk about whether the majority of income comes from personal sales or downlines' sales. At most there was the following passage which says that some IBOs may focus more on donwlines's sales:
Some IBOs focus more of their efforts on building large organizations of downline IBOs who each will commit to smaller monthly sales volumes, knowing that Quixtar's compensation plan rewards both the movement of product by the IBO as well as the movement of product by those he or she develops.
BTW, colons (":", "::", ":::") allow you to properly indent your messages, according to talk page conventions. Also bold and italic fonts for emphasis (in the main article) are discouraged, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). --Knverma 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I have added the reference also but unfortunately for you it is the document from Quixtar site and not the blogs you support. I hope you will not call it unreliable source just because it is published by Quixtar. If you have any factual evidence that Quixtar does not pay bonuses as published please feel free to bring that information here. 75.73.188.53 20:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You can also refer http://www.quixtarfacts.com/digitalassets/pdfs/us-en/SA4400.pdf from the redundant site / spam site if you are not offended by reading it. 75.73.188.53 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The source is reliable but doesn't support your edit. In theory, a diamond can have unlimited personal sales and the bonus on that may exceed bonus on sales of donwlines. Most likely it doesn't happen so often, but that's just our guess, not a published survey result. --Knverma 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Quixtar income of a diamond is $150K. According to controversy section Diamond make much more income from Tools and BSMs than they receive from Quixtar. Lets say, its $151K. So according to Knverma, if a diamond has to make more in personal sale than from downline sales, they should earn $301K as retail profit. Taking published figures of 30-33% profit, it is theoritically possible for a diamond to make $1million personal sales so that 30% of 301K is profit from their sales. I wish Quixtar sells something for brain health too. 12.104.244.6 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I already said that it is unlikely to happen in practice (the large personal sales I mean, not the brain health products). --Knverma 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
So what I understand is that most of the income will be from downline sales as against personal sales but this is not a fact according to Wikipedia guidelines because it is not written verbatim in Quixtar documentation. I presume that everything else written in this article or other articles are not interpretations but facts from company documentation only. e.g. In busines model section its written The structure of a Quixtar organization is hierarchical, but an individual can earn more than those who bring them into the organization I am sure this is something which is extracted from Quixtar documentation? 12.104.244.6 20:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See, the bonus calculation is arithematic. Some things are possible and some things are not possible. It is possible for bonus on personal sales to exceed bonus on downlines' sales. You know that it is allowed by the Quixtar business model. The material I deleted made it appear that bonus on downlines' sales must always be more than bonus on personal sales. That is incorrect. And one can earn more than one's uplines. You again know that it is also allowed by the Quixtar business model. This is not explicitly written by Quixtar, but can be deduced from the Quixtar rules. This is somewhat original reserach so I don't insist on keeping that material also. But at least it is correct, and was added by another IBO I think, to show something positive. I suggest just adding a brief discussion of the Quixtar bonus calculation rules, and let the readers figure out what is possible and what is not possible. That would be more in the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. --Knverma 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr Knverma,

Looks like you are quite knowledgeable in formatting etc. Why don't you take care of cleaning up the formatting and let people who have knowledge about the subject take care of the contents 75.73.188.53 02:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave some information to 12.104.244.6, which I hope was not in anyway offensive. Being knowledgeable or not is usually not a big issue on Wikipedia as long as policies and guidelines are followed. --Knverma 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Knverma, Thanx for the knowledge. I am not offended by your information. I am sure policies and guidelines are for everyone and you will follow them too. If you are good in formatting etc. why not volunteer for that. you can focus your energy on formating and let those people who have knowledge about content take care of that.

By the way I noticed that you removed reference to www.thetruthaboutquixtar.com link while reformatting. I have added that link in the External links section. 12.104.244.6 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove that site without first explaining. See above section. There was past consensus not to include critics' and supporters' sites, except for linking to court documents etc. --Knverma 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quixtar and neutral point of view

It is clearly visible that there are some elements trying to hijack this page. When I came to Wipedia first time, I thought I will get some neutral point of view here but after reading this article, it is very evident that some critics are trying to promote their point of view here. I will appeal to all editiors to cleanup this article ( not for the benefit of Quixtar only but ) for the benefit of Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia should be a source of information and not blog run by some critics.

12.104.244.6 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Criticism should be welcome as long as it is constructive and based on facts 75.73.188.53 02:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Constructive and factual criticism is a good policy in real life. On Wikipedia the guidelines need to be interpreted somewhat differently, and that is where I think the misunderstanding lies.
  • If by "constructive criticism" you mean helping Quixtar to solve its problems, then no, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Here we just record the info.
  • Factual criticism is of course important. But on Wikipedia, you or I are not supposed to define what is true. Especially in a controversy section, there will be more than one points of view, perhaps not all correct, and Wikipedia's job is just to cite various sources with different points of view.
Don't take my word for it, check out the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Knverma 11:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are not here to solve Quixtar's problem. What I mean was to keep the Wikipedia as source of information and not a forum for critics ( or supporters) to promote their point of view. And it is clearly visible from change log on the history tab that Knverma has been attempting to distort the article by removing facts. 12.104.244.6 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long controversy section

Hi 12.104.244.6, you have put a tag calling the controversy section very long. Could you please explain what do you think is unnecessary there. Interestingly, you first moved the FTC investigation material from another section into the controversy section to make that section look even longer. FTC cleared pyramid charges so that is actually positive information. Also the accreditation program is not a controversy and can be moved to another section. --Knverma 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the pyramid section to controversy because I do not want to delete things without having consensus with other (neutral) editors. In my personal opinion just a line mentioning that "there were some pyramid accusitions which FTC have clarified" with a link to FTC website would be enough 12.104.244.6 22:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Knverma,
I am not saying anything unnecessary here. The tag is to indicate that the section is too long and makes the total article out of proportion. Almost half of the page is only about controversies. I was trying to reorganize the article earlier and have not removed anything to avoid any conflict with other editors who may feel one POV is purposefully removed.
I am requesting everyone to contribute in a constructive way so that Wikipedia can maintain its standard and a credible and useful souce for people to easily navigate and understand the information they come here for. Somehow, it appears that the only relevant information about Quixtar is the controversies. I am not advocating against highlighting controversies, if they exist, but to make sure that the section is concise and to the point. It should summarise all the different controversies here but in right proportion to the total information.
Which other article has more than half of it containing only controversies? 12.104.244.6 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that there is any other information left on the page. There are more details of Dateline and blogs on the page than about Quixtar itself. May be we should rename the page to Amway Quixtar Controversies rather than Quixtar. 75.73.188.53 04:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You must be aware that the article reflects reality. There is an enormous amount of controversy about the company. Whether they are justified or not is not Wikipedia's job to worry about, as long as we are following Wikipedia guidelines in presenting them. Regarding the FTC material, there is following other information:
  • Info about 70% rule and 10 customer rule. This is a very important rule for distinguishing between MLMs and pyramids and deserves a mention. Also it is a positive information about the company and not negative.
  • One line about payment of fine. This is an accurate fact.
  • Statistics about bonuses. This is again accurate statistics, just like the ranking and sales info.
As I said some material can be moved outside the section. Also, instead of deleting controversy material, the best strategy for removing any feeling of "imbalance" would be to add other well-sourced info about the company. In the past I have suggested talking about pin levels and compensation at least, but I never had enough time to do it. --Knverma 05:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not see an enormous amount of controversy about the company outside this page or on the blogs which you are trying to promote here. And reality does not mean what you beleive is true but reality means get the facts on plate and let the reader of the article have their own opinion.
Its surprising that you say you do not have enough time to add factual information but have enough time to remove facts which other editors are providing. If you really want to put infomation I can help you get the facts and you can organize them on this page. 12.104.244.6 18:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I will suggest to keep this page for Quixtar only and move details of BWW, TEAM, MLM, Amway, critics etc. on their pages only. We can always provide link to those articles. 12.104.244.6 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be considered a POV fork and is not appropriate. Clearly this is a controversial company and this article should reflect that this is the case. David D. (Talk) 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
controversial company? why? 12.104.244.6 22:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You think Dateline would bother reporting on something not controversial? If Quixtar is on their radar screen then it is clearly controversial.Thats how dateline draws in it's viewers. David D. (Talk) 16:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Dateline itself is a controversial company by your definition because that article also has a controversy section. Dateline_NBC#Controversy75.73.188.53 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Refer WP:NPOV#Undue weight for handling this issue 75.73.188.53 04:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It says that all points of view should be presented. Let's see what is in the controversy section.
  • FTC cleared the pyramid charges, that and the relevant Quixtar rules are mentioned. Statistics published by Quixtar are mentioned.
  • For the Dateline controversy, Quixtar came up with a response site, which we talk about.
  • Quixtar's buyback policy regarding BSMs and BSMs being optional is also mentioned.
  • The response of Bill Britt's lawyer is mentioned.
  • The directly speaking tapes is anyway from an Amway cofounder himself.
  • The whole accreditation subsection is actually Quixtar's response, and we talk about it.
Please point out what other point of view is missing? Also, contrary to what is being claimed, there is zero material taken from critics' blogs, except linking to court documents and to an Amway cofounder's statements.
BTW, 75.73.188.5, 12.104.244.6 and 12.40.180.17, are you IBOs? --Knverma 07:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not talking about removing controversies but just summarizing them. The question is not to criticize or support the company but to see that Wikipedia is a genuine source of information. If you want to publicize or criticize Quixtar please find other forum. Already there is a discussion going on that Quixtar do not adverstise but I am sure they will not choose Wikipedia as medium of advertising. Same applies for critics too. Dateline has its own infrastructure to brioadcast programs. If they are so keen they can re-bradcast the program or publish it on their website. Why Wikipedia for that? 75.73.188.53 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
For example? What kind of summarizing you propose? 12.104.244.6 suggested that the FTC material should be restricted to just mentioning that it is not a pyramid. That is not summarizing, it is deleting relevant information as I pointed out above. Do you have some other suggestions? --Knverma 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure I can volunteer for that. But after there is consensus that we need to summarize without removing information completely. 75.73.188.53 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


I just stumbled on following page George W. Bush#Criticism and public perception and found something similar to what I was talking about. I am sure that is not against guidelines. Summarizing the controversies and linking them to detailed articles. Any suggestions? 75.73.188.53 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a recommended procedure if the article gets too long. See WP:LENGTH. That article is 90 KB even with all that summarizing (you know that by clicking on the "edit this article" button). Far from the situation of this article. --Knverma 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not understand how to see the size. But I will trust you. Can we all agree then that we will not delete any information here and will contribute only by bringing more facts to add. Even though I personally feel that the article can be organized better but I am willing to compromise as long as basic information is not deleted e.g. corporate websites, facts from the company etc. 75.73.188.53 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything that requires deletion, only some of the most recent changes require discussion and are being discussed, and the external links need to be gone through once, as suggested by David D. New material can of course be added.
If there is no notice about size of Quixtar article, it means it is not too large. The George Bush article gives a warning on clicking the "edit this page" button. --Knverma 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

This article is continually increasing the external links. I have just removed three. All those sites are in the references where they should be. David D. (Talk) 16:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Same goes for many of the media articles although I don't have time to sort through them at present. Most of the links should be referenced from the text not presented as external links. David D. (Talk) 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Its better to discuss before deleting anything. I also deleted by mistake but have corrected it again. Please do not selectively delete information as it violates NPOV guidelines If you are really intresting in cleaning up you can volunteer in summarizing the controversy section. 75.73.188.53 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree its better to discuss, although I had not thought the removal of those sites was particularly controversial since they are all cited in the text. Why do you consider they should all be external links too? David D. (Talk) 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not? 75.73.188.53 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
For starters, they are redundant and wikipedia is not a link farm. David D. (Talk) 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So why not start removing links which do not support your POV first? You say you do not have time to sort media articles but have time to delete corporate sites 75.73.188.53 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Because we have been through this before. You are not the first IBO to come through pushing this POV of we must have external links to every Quixtar site that exists. If you can determine which of the media links are already cited in the text feel free to remove them too. David D. (Talk) 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW I just saw, first five of the eight links in media artciles section don't seem to be critical. Yes, I too wanted to discuss the external links, but I had decided to discuss the NPOV issue first. --Knverma 17:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Then shall we keep all eight ? Or delete these 5 which are not critical? 75.73.188.53 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither of the two proposals are mine. --Knverma 17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
We've seen this type POV whitewashing attempt before. There is no doubt this article can be improved, but deleting critical information and adding many quixtar sites and blogs does not improve the article at all. David D. (Talk) 17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way 75.73.188.53, what is my POV? Why would I make edits like this removal of links or this improvement to citations if I had the POV you think I do? David D. (Talk) 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me reiterate I am not here to promote one or another POV. What I am requesting again and again ids that lets keep Wikipedia as a clean place which is reliable source of complete information. Currently the first impression a person gets on visiting this page is that it is written by some critics who have some grudges against the company.
I am not promoting any POV here but requesting all of us to compile what is useful for the readers. e.g. if I have never heard of Quixtar and come here to find out what is Quixtar, the first thing which I would like to know is what kind of company it is? what product and services it offers? Which other companies are associated with it? What kind of bonuses and incomes I can expect from Quixtar if I get involved in it? What is the history of the company? How are its financial records? Are there any controversies I need to know about? But do I need to know all the details of what litigations were filed? Which TV programs were about it? And what were the contents of the program? How IBOs make income other than Quixtar business?
Hence I suggest there should be a summary of controversies with links to Dateline,court litigation records, Quixtar Partners etc. in one or two paragraph. 75.73.188.53 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So why so keen on the link farm? And don't accuse others of POV if you don't wish to be categorised in a similar light. Especially given some of the dubious deletions you have been making. If it walks like a duck is the phrase here. Edit warring is one of the hallmarks. David D. (Talk) 17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The items you suggested for addition can definitely be added, I myself suggested that earlier. You think it is not important to talk about tool income? That's why Rich DeVos talked about it? That's not summarizing, it's deletion. --Knverma 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said don't mention tool income if it is controversial. I am not talking of deleting it but summarizing it to keep the article in reasonable size. If there are details about the controversy on Dateline site there can be a link to details. e.g. if Walmart has an issue with Employee salaries, or may be litigations an product recalls, does it deserve half page on Walmart article in Wikipedia. Or will we just mention that it has these many litigations and so many product recalls and leave it there. 75.73.188.53 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be only two one line about the contents of the Dateline criticism. The following two paragraphs read like a response to the criticism. --Knverma 17:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are three catagory of readers who will come to this page

  1. People who want to know what Quixtar is?
  2. People who are investigating details about Quixtar before getting involved with Quixtar either
    1. as Customer
    2. or as IBO/distributor
  3. People who have some knowledge about Quixtar and want to share their knowledge

I already said what #1 will be looking for. I will defer my comments on #3 because some people will claim that nobody is more knowledgable on this subject than themself.

For #2.1 as customer I need to know how good and cost effective the products are and what gurantee/warrantee they contain?

For #2 second part I will ask only one question, if I am considering joining as Quixtar IBO will I be more interested in knowing that I have to pay some fees and join IBOAI also ( and what I will get in return ) or will I be interested in knowing how much income I will make 5 or 10 years from now on top of USD 150,000 which Quixtar shows as Diamond income. and will it increase my chances if I learn that the income from tools and BSM is much more than than USD 150,000? And will I be interested in knowing if it is illegal or not? 75.73.188.53 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You now want to do an analysis of what users might be looking for? Let's just follow Wikipedia guidelines about organizing the article. You want people to use this for joining the business or not? Remember Wikipedia is not an instructional manual, Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, .... --Knverma 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That is not what I mean. I never said that we should not follow guideline. Nor did I suggest this should be an instruction manual. I also used my analogy of Walmart to explain my point. What I mean is do not delete information which will be informative for the readers. And in my opinion, readers are looking for details of company not which TV channels created programs on it. 75.73.188.53 21:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quixtar name change

75.73.188.53, apparently you think all my edits have a malicious intent. You misunderstood my reasoning for that shortening. I said the details shouldn't be in intro. That same material would be fine in another section. We can put them in a separate history section if you like. Intro section is not the place to give quotes, it is only to summarize the whole article. --Knverma 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not given that quotes there. It was some other contributor. My point is that you have enogh time to delete things which you want but for other things you say "I do not have time" but I agree. If you think the contents can be organized better go ahead and do it. But do not delete or reword accordingf to your likings. e.g. Alticor has not said that they will scrap Quixtar brand. They have said that it will phase out Quixtar name and bring it under Amway brand name. Now you will say both are same. But if both are same why not quote what Alticor has said. Why not put the link http://www.iboai.com/MediaCenter-QuixtarAmway.asp in place of some other link which has their own wordings.
Don't justify one problem by another problem. Firstly the link you gave is not Alticor's words, but IBOAI's which seems to be surprised by the name change. And the word "scrap" was taken from the media article which is cited. --Knverma 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
And you want that citation to be there or not? 75.73.188.53 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please be more clear? That text was previously uncited, and we should have a citation. --Knverma 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What can be more clear than Please DO NOT DELETE CONTENTS just because you think they are not useful. I know you are an intelligent person but every person ( including myself ) has a limited perception of things. So just if I feel something is not useful or relevant, I do not delete it. Of course everyone is free to discuss and give suggestions for improvement. But deleting contents and blocking users who correct it is not ethical (even if it is justified by 3RR rule) I understand that you may have an agenda but this is not a place for that. In my opinion most of the IBOs who are paid by Quixtar because of the sales generated by them because Quixtar is not able to sell their products by themself, thanx to people who are committed to call it as controversial company ( see above discussion ) And I am not sure if you are one of those benefited by harming Quixtar. Let me clarify I am not accusing you of the same I am just saying I think you may be one. Because you are the one I notice who is most frequent vandal on this page. No citation needed - refer to history page for past few months. 75.73.188.53 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I clarify that I don't benefit by editing any articles on Wikipedia, unless you get into issues like editing itself being a psychological benifit. On the other hand, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflict of interest. IBOs get money from Quixtar and have a conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you are forbidden from editing, but are asked to be cautious. --Knverma 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Then why are you so desperate in removing authentic information from this article and blocking users who provide that info? 75.73.188.53 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Please, these vague comments are not helping in any way. Let's just discuss the content disputes one by one. --Knverma 22:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing Article

I see last two para in promotion subsection to be more suitable to go in controversy section or be removed if they are not controversial what do you other editors think? I am talking about Google bombing and litigation on Nutilite. May be Nutrilite litigation can be moved to Nutrilite article. 75.73.188.53 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That section could be renamed something to mean that it is about recommendations by other parties. Then I find it ok to move the google bombing material to the controversy section. I am not so sure of the McGraw material because it is also connected to promotion.
The FTC material should be moved back to business model section because the 70% rule, 10 percent rule, the ruling that it is not a pyramid is very much about the business model.
The accreditation section can also be moved to a separate section as there is nothing controversial about it. --Knverma 22:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Income from Tools and Business Support Materials

There is an irrelevant section which I was about to suggest to be removed. It was recently removed by someone and then reverted by someone also. Let us discuss it here first if it really makes sense to quote some comments by a person here. Is it adding any value? Recently I met one Quixtar IBO who told me that "those who succeed in quixtar business are able to quit there profession and retire much before 65 yesrs of age". It may be the actual quote and I may be able to prove it but is it worth occupying one paragraph in this article? 75.73.188.53 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am currently unable to be active on Wikipedia for a few days, and will just make some brief comments. We had already agreed not to delete anything from the controversy section. If you have other well-sourced material for addition, that can of course be discussed. --Knverma 14:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Controversy does not mean "agreed to keep it". It means will no delete temporarily till disputes between editors are discussed. 75.73.188.53 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Edits made for TEAM

Recently one editor added the link which was branded by some as unrelated because they think they are the owners of the page and anybody who contributes should take their permission. Earlier same user has removed some information contributed by me too ( Quixtar corporate website was called spam). If the link is appropriate at this place or not can be debated but calling it unrelated is not NPOV 75.73.188.53 05:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some other related sites ( like WWDB,BWW,etc. ) which we can discuss where is the most appropriate place to keep. 75.73.188.53 05:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] corporate links

Why do we need six different links? As I said above, "so why so keen on the link farm?" The three I removed are ALL cited multiple times in the reference section. It is redundant to list them in the final section again. Same for the media section. Nothing cited in the references needs given as an external link unless it is very very relevant. i.e. their corporate web site. David D. (Talk) 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So you just added back the three links without any discussion.

Your edit summary was "These are corporate sites of the company about which the article is all about". What does this mean? You want every site that is hosted by this company linked in the corporate section? We already cite all these business fronts throughout the article. You have still not answered the question. "so why so keen on the link farm?". If you have a good rationale for link farming this article then I will leave your links. David D. (Talk) 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. There's no need for a ton of links selling a product. That's not what we're about. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
And what is meant by very very relevant? Any person with common sense will make out that the websites you have deleted are relevant source of information about the company (Quixtar) which is the subject of this article. Just because something on that website was also made reference to some stement does not make this redundant. Dont you agree ( if you keep your personal agenda on side and think without bias ) that these websites are more informative about the subject than "TEAM" or "Dateline" or ex-IBO's website selling books about Amway. 75.73.188.53 03:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You write "Just because something on that website was also made reference to some stement does not make this redundant. ". This does not nake sense. If the web sites are linked to and mentioned multiple times in the article of course there is redundancy. You implications here are that we are trying to censor these sites. Whereas what is really occuring is editorial clean up. Stop trying to make out that every edit that you dislike is because of bias. David D. (Talk) 04:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point. These pages are already linked in this article. It's redundant to link them again. I have no personal agenda here, and my edits are not vandalism, so I'd appreciate it if you'd tone down the silly rhetoric a few notches. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
May be I am really missing the point. But do not delete the links to put across your point. If you have some suggestions you are welcome but do not delete contents or vandalize the article. And better mind your tone and your actions.75.73.188.53 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one accusing people of having agendas, or throwing vandalism warnings at established users. I have made a suggestion: that the links not be included twice, because it's redundant. Others seem to agree with this suggestion, as demonstrated here and in the article's history. That's how consensus is born. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This is just silly, you're not even trying to understand the argument. They are already linked to, multiple times, throughout the article and appear in the reference section (did you look yet?). Nothing has been deleted except for their redundant appearance at the end. This is not vandalism its house keeping, an effort to stop masses of junk cluttering up the external links that should be reserved for only the most pertinent links, i.e. "very very relevant".
It just confuses the issue to have six different sites. Which are the most important? The news release one is good, obviously their main site and I can live with the shopping portal one, although that should probably go too.
The three I linked to above are just advertising fronts. We already use the relevant info from them throughout the article. You have yet to give any good reason why someone reading the article would need these links in the external links section. David D. (Talk) 04:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it not amusing that you are arguing that www.quixtar.com should be or should not be on the Quixtar article. What are we discussing here? 75.73.188.53 05:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
www.quixtar.com isn't up for discussion. You are still missing the point. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
What is your point here? It is not one of the three being discussed. It is an umbrella site for the Quixtar-Inc site. Maybe we should get rid of the Inc site? Maybe you can explain why Quixtar owns and promotes so many different web sites? Why not all the different sites under one domain? Maybe it should be in the article? Three corporate sites for one company is more than enough for a wikipedia article. David D. (Talk) 05:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sure either you are joking when you expect me to answer Maybe you can explain why Quixtar owns and promotes so many different web sites? Why not all the different sites under one domain? '. We are not here to design website policies for the companies. Wikipedia is to just list the facts. What if Quixtar owned 10 more websites? Is that something you or I can answer? 75.73.188.53 05:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is obvious. Just because it looks like ten different web sites does not mean we link to all of them. There is a hierarchy and three is more than enough. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
If there are 10 websites owned by a company, they all should be mentioned as corporate websites if the article is about that company. If the article was about something generic e.g. supply chain or distribution or multilevel marketing, then they were not relevant. I don't understand what hierarchy are you talking about? 75.73.188.53 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Think about it. If all ten sites are run by the same company what do the sites represent and how do they relate to each other. No hierarchy? I think not. How about you try and convince us why they are not hierarchial. David D. (Talk) 05:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:External links, it seems there are some other problems with these links, furthering the justification for removing them. Here are a couple of "links to be avoided":

  • 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material... - the neutral third-party sources tend to contradict some of the information provided on these sites, which calls our neutrality into question if we continue to recommend these links.
  • 4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. - probably the most relevant and clear reason why none of these tangential external links should be included.

Please explain how these sites meet both of these criteria from our policy page. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Which of these sites is selling anything? Have you bought anything from here? Will you say that www.target.com should not be on Target article because it sells products?
And just because your favorite sites say something different doesn't mean that that is neutral. Which of the facts in any of the sites you are disputing is inaccurate or misleading? 75.73.188.53 05:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Target's one home page is legitimate in Target. However, if we started giving direct external links to all of their departments, online faces, and ad campaigns, then yes, I'd agree that would be too much. Let's compare apples to apples here. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Each of the sites in question, which all basically say the same thing, is nothing but misleading half-truths and contextless talking points. It's irresponsible for us to link to them here, and we need to be careful when using a company's own sources as references in other parts of the article. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sure you being a responsible editor ( at least you think so ) your statement "is nothing but misleading half-truths and contextless talking points" will be supported by some facts or logic. Please mention which fact on this website is misleading? Wikipedia is not a place to vent out your opinions or frustrations in life just because Dateline or similar programs does not give you chance to speak 75.73.188.53 05:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I just clicked on thisbiznow and the page has a testimonial. Do you believe that testimonials presented by a company to consumors will represent a balanced perspective? I expect that could account for the quote you cite above. David D. (Talk) 05:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed we need to be careful but a company's quoted sales figures etc. are probably OK as a primary source but obviously an independant source would be preferable. David D. (Talk) 05:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
That does not address my question - what facts on these websites are misleading or inaccurate? 75.73.188.53 05:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not answering your question, I'm responding to ESkog's comment. David D. (Talk) 05:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm done wasting productive time with this ridiculousness. It's clear that no rational argument is going to persuade you that we shouldn't blanket the page with corporate spam, and you will just continue to misunderstand and misrepresent our position. I hope more editors will join in the discussion to help us build a consensus, but right now I still stand strongly against the inclusion of these links. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So we have a consensus of two. Hang on, are vandals allowed to form a consensus? (see the link I added to the section below) David D. (Talk) 06:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We have a consensus of three at least, but I have been less active recently because of the ongoing conflicts. --Knverma 09:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that all these sites are anyway reachable from the bottom of the www.quixtar.com main page. (www.ibofacts.com is reachable from www.iboai.com) --Knverma 11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection of this page

It is good that there is discussion on this Talk Page. It is bad that the discussion has been accompanied by edit warring. I have semi-protected the page for a short period to give the anon IP editor at 75.73.188.53 a chance to cool off and consider his approach to resolving disputes.

Please follow the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure. Consider asking for a third opinion or posting a request for comment.

Further edit warring will lead to blocking as there seems to be only one IP editor who is causing the disruption.

--Richard 05:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since semi-protection may be interpreted as my taking sides on the dispute, I will comment that the Talk Page discussion does seem that one anon IP editor is repeatedly editing against consensus.

--Richard 05:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly the anon is the one that called for the protection in the first place. [2] But who are these vandals s/he talks about?
"This article is continuously vandalized by some critics who keep on deleting information and adding blogs and spams in the article."
Not to mention what are these blogs and spam that are being added. Maybe IP editor at 75.73.188.53 could be a bit more specific? David D. (Talk) 06:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, I came here in response to 75.73.188.53's request for full protection but, after reading the Talk Page, concluded that most of the disruption was being caused by 75.73.188.53 and 12.104.244.6 who are possibly sock or meat puppets of each other. That's why I opted for semi-protection.
I think the vandals that s/he is talking about are David D. and ESkog.
--Richard 07:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, David D. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), that editor is always causing trouble! David D. (Talk) 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Causing troble to your attempt to delete information you dont like 12.104.244.6 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Show me one instance where i have removed anything from the article that is not redundant? David D. (Talk) 20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Scheibeler

Regarding this edit based on Quixtar's webpages: the words "failed efforts" should perhaps be clarified, given that the webpage itself says that the results of the arbitration were subject to a confidentiality order? It is not clear what readers are supposed to understand from those words. --Knverma 10:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see past discussion regarding citing critics and response. We have the choice to

  • citing a critic's site as well as Quixtar's webpages responding to the critic.
  • not citing either.

Currently the article links to Quixtar's comments on Scheibeler but doesn't link to Scheibeler's site. --Knverma 17:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to explain that there is some litigation, not to advertise about the person who filed lawsuit. Let us focus on controversy rather than people who created controversy. 12.104.244.6 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Talking about lawsuits and their results is fine. Presenting Quixtar's comments on them is not fine, unless the other points of view are presented. --Knverma 22:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I am of opinion that for NPOV, the right thing to qoute here would be actual litigation papers if they are available, else this section is not that relevant just because one person ( to gain popularity ) has created his website/book etc. If the topic is about court case, it should refer to court documents. If not possibe I would prefer either removing this topic or provide details of what quixtar talks about it. As an example, if I file a lawsuit against Microsoft, ill you agree to put my profile on Microsoft article? 12.104.244.6 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you can be mentioned, provided you receive significant attention for your criticism of Microsoft. Receiving media coverage is one of the important criteria used by Wikipedia to decide if some event/person is worth mentioning. --Knverma 18:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you are much more knowledgable about Wikipedia guidelines, so I will take your words and not debate further on this point. 12.104.244.6 19:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Stella Liebeck who sued McDonalds should also have an article with her profile and the books she is selling,if any. Unfortunately I do not find it here. May be we should create that. And yes if McDonald says something about it, it is POV. 75.73.188.53 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a whole article on that case, so what's the problem. I don't know which books she wrote, if there are any relevant ones you could point it out on the appropriate talk pages. Also the Eric Scheibeler article is nominated for deletion. Further I see criticism (by sources other than the company, e.g. ABC News) of that lawsuit as being frivolous, so it's not the best example to consider. --Knverma 09:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation

Regarding this edit: accreditation is best discussed after having discussed the tools controversy. It provides a proper perspective to readers, since the accreditation program is a step towards dealing with the problems surrounding the tools businesses. --Knverma 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More external links gone

I just removed these too. I aim to incorporate them back into the article as citations at the relevant points if they are not already been cited. David D. (Talk) 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice not to delete articles without any reason 12.104.244.6 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The whole point is to add them back into the article as cited references. That makes them more useful. You can help if you want. David D. (Talk) 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I see you added them back verbatum with the following edit: ""will try to incoroporate" effort not visible. Only eagerness to delete the sites shown. Why not wait to delete till incorporation is done?". I can wait until they get incorporated into the article but what are the chances you will just repopulate them as you have done in the past with the "corporate references"? You can help if you want to improve this article. David D. (Talk) 21:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I am also of same opinion that Corporate websites MUST be listed if there is a header called corporate websites. Regarding media articles, I agree that if they are referenced, there is no need to have a section called media articles at all. Perhaps same should be done with government links too. 12.104.244.6 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media articles

[edit] Government documents

[edit] No references to TEAM

I recognize that this and related articles are difficult to maintain while keeping NPOV, but I am apalled that there are no mentions whatsoever of TEAM or Orrin Woodward. I understand that neither of these are note-worthy enough to warrant articles of their own (or at least, this has been the opinion of Wikipedians in the past; I personally think an article on TEAM would be noteworthy), but I feel it's important that TEAM gets a mention in this article to acknowledge that the two organizations are closely knit. I attended a TEAM meeting recently, and there was of course no mention of Quixtar. It took a fair bit of googling to actual find the connection between TEAM and Quixtar; enough that the majority of people would not be able to find the connection. TEAM's websites obviously do not publicise the link between TEAM and Quixtar, and for Wikipedia to keep quiet about this is irresponsible. I would have already written something to add to the Quixtar article, but I noticed that TEAM had been mentioned in this article before and had been edited out, and that a separate article had existed, so I wanted to investigate why previous mentions of TEAM had been edited out first so that my additions don't get deleted. Trevor Bekolay 05:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The response from my side is that there is too much dispute going on here, so I didn't push for keeping the TEAM material. I am on the fence here: the material can be added if no one else has any objections. A separate article would anyway be best. It seems the previous version got deleted because of being an advertising. BTW there was a second Afd after the one you mentioned. --Knverma 09:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please either include info about TEAM or add a seperate page about TEAM. I live in Ohio, where TEAM has gained a following in recent years. They are obsessed with negative press and making sure they are not mentioned in a negative light on the internet. I believe TEAM members have personally altered this page to keep Orin Woodward and TEAM's name out of it. JamesRenner 12:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Orrin Woodward has subpoena'd Wikimedia as part of discovery on another case (Team of Destiny v. Scott Larsen). He has not attempted to sue Wikimedia. I spoke to a TEAM member yesterday, and I think I have enough to make a decent article; hopefully it will be up tonight. The hardest part will be finding cite-able resources, as most of the real information (not the marketing schpiels) is spread through word of mouth and meetings. Trevor Bekolay 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Created the article, at TEAM (company). Trevor Bekolay 17:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Edit

The seemingly overambitious (perhaps understandably) editing on this page has caused an error: in "income of quixtar ibo's" the following sentence makes no sense: "Quixtar IBOs who show the business plan are is legally required to share full information that these higher bonuses are after reaching these levels." Could the editor who changed that please clarify? --Snideology 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that earlier, though there are lots of problems with the article actually. The above sentence is unnecessary: higher bonuses at higher levels is the marketing plan itself, there is nothing extra to add. -Knverma 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Notpropaganda

The page for template:Notpropaganda says:

  • This template is meant to tag talk pages of articles which get vandalism or accusations from editors which are biased by some known wave of propaganda.

What "known wave of propaganda" is this in reference to? Why was this template added? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the regular Quixtar victim attempts to prop up the company such as [3], less than 24 old old and started by reverting an older reversal of propaganda of the same kind. Digwuren 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any "known wave of propaganda" that's involved. POV editing, perhaps. I'm going to remoev the template, but let's all work together to keep the article neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Readability

I originally looked up Quixtar on Wikipedia because I was wondering what Quixtar is and how it actually functions. In general this article is currently poorly written. The sentences appear to be strung together without any unifying thought from one to the next. It uses a lot of jargin that I am not familiar with without definitions, and I found myself completly zoning out about two paragraphs in without learning anything. In the controversies section the tone is very defensive without ever talking about why (for example it is quick to point out it is not a pyramid scheme according to the lawsuit filed, but does not address why one might suspect it is a pyramid scheme to begin with). Quixtar is a quit a controversal company that some believe give them buying freedom and independance (why?), while others think it is cultish in its member loyalty (why?). This does not come accross at all in this article and does not clearly illustrate either side of the coin. just my 2 cents... Britt 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. Anything controversial ends up as you describe above. To write in a NPOV style is hard in a world of advocates. David D. (Talk) 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skaggs case

This case doesn't actually involve Quixtar, should it even be here? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Insider" is financially compensated by Quixtar "groups". He/She has many biased sites/comments throughout the internet. Crediability is to be questioned when financial gain is involved. "Insider" has been investigated for 18 months on his/her conflict of interest. Proof of all afore mentioned statements will come out when legal process' are in place for N-21/BWW and Quixtar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickstar7 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is complete false, apart from one exception I receive no financial compensation from any Amway/Quixtar groups for any of my internet activities. The one exception, which is very recent and public knowledge, was that Alticor recently invited a group of bloggers to participate in a panel discussion on blogging. I was one of the bloggers invited and our expenses were covered and a small stipend paid. The stipend did not even go close to covering lost income for the time period, in other words this "financial compensation" actually cost me money. So if you think you have "proof" for some court case, well I suggest you reconsider your sources, since they're lying to you. Either that, or you're just lying yourself. Either way, this accusation is completely false. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)