Archive 1

• Consensus was to INCLUDE But the BOT guarding this article is reverting the edit to add this... still vote to include: Wikipedians have on several occassions suggested that if people want more info they go to "other sources". QuixtarWiki has tons of information on Amway/Quixtar and the people involved, which by all rights don't belong in an encyclopedia but are a reference point for people doing research. INCLUDE Gallwapa 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote to include...useful stats on here including IBO earnings. Gallwapa 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In inspecting the history, I find that no one except for Illusion408 voted to "include" this link. Hiding behind a confusing removal of other users' comments under the guise of "see history for detail" seems extremely misleading and disruptive. I will again be removing the link. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, there were 2 of us who voted after like 2 months ...and we both said include. I didn't know how to archive talk... so I did my best...*blush*... Gallwapa 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not include any of the blogs. It sets a bad precendent and is generally not accepted on wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Weblogs, one positive, one negative, and one employee to be fair for all. --65.40.167.66 14:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)CK[reply]

This has nothing to do with fairness. Blogs are unreliable sources and should not be used. Two wrongs do not make a right. I see the bot has already removed them. I'm not sure you want to get into a revert war with a house keeping computer. David D. (Talk) 14:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This was actually removed...I still vote to keep it, it is a useful resource and has broke many stories, including the Quixtar Googlebombing attempt (which was later picked up by the news organizations listed below...). I feel its a better source than Amquix.info, infact, and If I had to choose, I'd take this one. Gallwapa 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed again, mainly because it sets a bad precedent. It is generally accepted that wikipedia articles do not link to blogs, no matter how good. Once you add one, every Tom, Dick and Harry want to make a case for their own "excellent, objective" blog. This then leads to the link farm mentality that was so obvious on this page. David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good info here, but it is now a dead site. Vote to remove. Much of the useful information is on the "QuixtarBlog". Gallwapa 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another blog that an anon IP is trying to add to this article. I have not even read the content. A quick looks shows many advertisements on the page (commercial links- are click throughs generating revenue for this user?). As I have said above, regardless of the quality of information available, wikipedia is not in the business of promoting blogs. If someone really wants to find out all the different opinions on Quixtar, after reading this article, they can easily use google to quickly find many different blogs and other resources on the web. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do people like Paul Harvey really support Quixtar or are they paid to endorse quixtar? Sure he advertises their products on his show, but i don't see how this is the same as supporting the product. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really question the whole section and whether or not it actually adds anything to the article. It doesn't provide specific endorsements (Ronald Regan thinks Amway/Quixtar helps American's do "X"...) it just says he spoke. Fantastic. I speak daily - often times in public places where others hear me. It doesn't mean I endorse the particular venue... Gallwapa 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although there is a reliable quote from Asafa Powell, for what it's worth, where he says that Quixtar products improved his performance and helped him get the 100m world record. Of course, it is a no brainer he would say this if they pay him to endorse the products. David D. (Talk) 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? I guess the concept of the discussion-for-links got forgotten?... Gallwapa 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i did read the discussion but there seemed to be too few contributors to make sense. My feelings are blogs are not useful and too many links to Quixtar controlled sites are not useful. I tried to cut the links down with an objective criteria in mind (reduce the link farm look and retain reliable sources). A compromise might be to quote the sites as sources but that gets back to the problem of what is a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either we include blogs in this topic or not. It is not fair for a select few to decide which blogs are OK and which ones are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.237.246 (talk)

If you're referring to my comment above I said "My feelings are blogs are not useful", in other words no blogs. Who said anything about "a select few to decide which blogs"? Blogs are unreliable sources and should never be used, let alone five or six blogs. David D. (Talk) 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone expand the details of the connection between Quixtar and "The Team"? I don't understand it well enough to explain it. I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to this article and this discussion. It helped me understand this thing when a friend tried to get me to sign up for "The Team" without telling me of the connection to Amway. Barwick 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC) The Team is an organization that teaches specific techniques and offers support on building a Quixtar-affiliated business. There is no connection to Amway, short of being owned by the same parent corporation (much like Aston Martin and Ford are owned by Ford Motor Company, but are obviously not the same companies). And on a personal note, I'm sure your friend checked "this team thing" out, and believes it's good and would be good for you, are you going to trust your friend whom you've known for years? decades?, or some strangers on the internet?[reply]

I asked another admin on IRC about those links and decided to reduce the blocklist to only the blogspot and the www.thisbiznow.com ones. Thanks.Voice-of-All 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it should not go off any more since I just removed 2 other links that I forgot about (though there are still 2 spam links).Voice-of-All 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added back Powell since it can be sourced. Having said that, it is from http://www.prnewswire.com/ (but published on Forbes.com) which seems to be an advertising agency? I'm not sure this is a reliable source and the article in Forbes (from PR Newswire), reads like promotional material. I would be happy to delete the Powell stuff unless we can find an independant source for this information. David D. (Talk) 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barwick (talk · contribs) wishes to use the word unscrupulous to describe an investigative journalism report. An example of the rationale is here as quote: "undercover" implies it was done with respect for rights of innocent people (like an undercover cop). If I tricked your kids into letting me into your house to watch your family, is that "undercover"? End Quote. I stand by my comment that the use of the word is Berwick own POV opinion of the investigation. Undercover seems to be descriptive of what happened. Unscrupulous paints a picture. here are the two definitions of undercover:

1. Performed or occurring in secret: an undercover investigation.
2. Engaged or employed in spying or secret investigation: undercover FBI agents.

Neither definition of undercover "implies it was done with respect for rights of innocent people". Undercover means it was secret. This could be either bad or good. Uncrupulous can only mean bad, consequently the use of the word undercover is significantly less POV than unscrupulous. What do others think? David D. (Talk) 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way if you have a quote about it being unscrupulous then that might be able to be used in the article. Your own opinion counts for nothing. Read WP:OR for more on this issue. David D. (Talk) 19:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this post on Qblog has all you need to know on what a pyramid is. In summary, if you do not have payment for recruiting then you cannot be an illegal pyramid. It's the sine qua non of an illegal pyramid. This was made clear in FTC v Amway ...

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

BY PITOFSKY, Commissioner:

...

A. Allegations That the Amway Plan Is a Pyramid Scheme

...

The Commission had described the essential features of an illegal pyramid scheme:

Such schemes are characterized by the payment by participants of money to the company in return for which they receive (1) the right to sell a product and (2) the right to receive in return for recruiting other participants into the program rewards which are unrelated to sale of the product to ultimate users.

This has been repeated again and again in case after case. Links to first sources are in the first link provided. The claim the 70% rule and Retail Sales Rule are what makes Amway/Quixtar a non-pyramid are, to be charitable, a gross misunderstanding by MLM critics that has been repeated ad nauseum over the internet.

Now, as for the 70% rule, to quote FTC v Amway again -

The '70 percent rule' provides that '[every] distributor must sell at wholesale and/or retail at least 70% of the total amount of products he bought during a given month in order to receive the Performance Bonus due on all products bought . . ..' This rule prevents the accumulation of inventory at any level.

It's about inventory loading, and it includes sales at wholesale, ie to downline distributors for resale. The statement above is from the Court in 1979. Here it is again clarified by Quixtar in a letter in 2004, since the "misunderstanding" keeps getting spread, even as far as here on Wikipedia -

Specifically, the Rule requires that an IBO sell at least 70% of the products purchased monthly to downline IBOs, members, and clients

[1]

It's only "arguable" if you ignore the guys who wrote the rule and ignore the courts who interpret it. The 70% rule and Retail Sales Rule were found to protect against inventory loading and to encourage retail sales (that is, sales to end users, it's not even specified this has to be a non-distributor, and the letter talks about that too).