Alticor has been removing negative information yet again. See changes by 167.23.0.90 on 09:48, 26 July 2005 in the history. The IP 167.23.0.90 traces to Alticor.

• ESKog called Alticor's recent vandalism anon blanking :-) it was an alticor ip removing our links164.116.253.65 23:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of all the dates that 167.23.0.90 (the Alticor IP) vandalized this entry. This will be updated if necessary.

• 28 February 2005
• 4 March 2005
• 20 June 2005
• 14 July 2005
• 26 July 2005
• 8 September
• 21 September 2005
• 8 November 2005
• 17 November 2005
• 30 November 2005

They have also vandalized other entries, including Amway, Google bomb, Pyramid scheme, Corporate crime, and core. That list alone sure tells you something, doesn't it? (DonIncognito 03:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

You are making assumptions here. Yes, it is one Alticor IP, I am sure they have many. We don't know whether it was done by a corporate leader, a low level employee, visiting IBO's using an open terminal or someone who is staying at the Grand Amway Hotel (or whatever it is called now). All it tells us is that 1 - someone(s) (we don't even know if it was the same person) does not like the information provided or 2 - someone(s) does not think the information is accurate or pertinent. They have every right to make modifications to this page and you have every right to change it back if you think it is pertinent to the article. So don't go playing judge, jury and executioner here. These IP's have done nothing wrong. They are doing what is in the spirit of Wikipedia. Maybe they should left a comment to why, but that is another thread. Furthermore, listing the times an IP address has changed the page is not information that should be put in the article. Neither should speculation be included, which would be the last sentence in the Information Control. I am not going to get involved in this article dispute, but I suggest some of you develop NPOV before an NPOV tag is put on here.

First of all, I am not making any assumptions. All I have stated is that it is an Alticor IP, plain and simple. Let the user come to their own conclusions. You've made more assumptions in the above paragraph than I ever did regarding this IP address. Second, what the user at this IP has done is NOT in the "spirit of Wikipedia" as it is vandalism, pure and simple. This IP has deleted the same lines of text, repeatedly, without discussing it on the talk page, offering a different point of view, or even a simple explanation in the edit summary. Once again, that is called vandalism, and certainly doesn't fall into the category of "doing nothing wrong." In fact, it is pretty similar to the company's general modus operandi of constantly trying to suppress negative information about itself. I do agree with you on the last sentence of "Information control," but the rest of the information is completely valid. (DonIncognito 16:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Don, again, your tone is extremely harsh. And you did indeed make an assumption, or rather an implication when you said "That list alone sure tells you something, doesn't it?". As this user made comment of, it really doesn't tell us anything concrete, except the deletions happened by the mentioned IP, which may or may not have even been the same person. Additionally, this user made no assumptions at all, they merely said that you really can't make any assumptions. Let's try to keep this page as civil as possible.Stones12 22:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The tone is such because I get very annoyed at attempts to justify and pass off blatant vandalism as an exercise in NPOV. In fact, my other comments on this talk page pertain to the same subject matter. Regarding my comment that you quoted above, that was more of a jab at Amway/Alticor's reputation for less-than-honest dealings rather than an assumption about 167.23.0.90. Perhaps I should have clarified that. Anyhow, I'm all for civility and none of my postings can be deemed as anything but civil; however, when I see repeated, large-scale deletions of information referred to as "the spirit of Wikipedia" and "doing nothing wrong" I'm not going to mince words. I call 'em as I see 'em. --DonIncognito 04:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello, i work for quixtar, although i do not know what goes on in the higher levels, i thought that i should point out that quixtar does not accept people to declare personal use on items anymore because of peopole abusing the system.

I've reverted back to the shorter-link-section version. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, so tha'll be my only revert of this type here. If you feel particularly strongly about keeping J. Random anti-Quixtar 'blog in there, please explain why — I'm at a loss as to why these links are necessary or, indeed, desirable. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Provide ample resources is all. QuixtarBlog (webraw.com/quixtar) is a great resource, but it doesn't necessarily answer all the questions, though it is a good source for links (and the forums are amazing)

However, by removing Amquix.info (despite the design, which often turns people off) and the others, there isn't a decent two sidedness. Merchants is a book people have to sign up for. Dateline could be viewed as "biased media" or "only for TV" - Quixtar's systems rely on anecdotal evidence "The guy I'm working with is PROOF that this works!" to prove their points to prospects. People seeking information should also know WHY claims like "Quixtar is a cult" exist -- BWW SOT blog does a great job at that. Some people need resources to REAL stories, of people who tried it, and the more information you can get, the more informed a decision you can make.

Add in the Quixtarleader blogs if you want, but they don't have REAL information. With Quixtar poisoning results like MSN Search, blogs with great info are washed out and drowned out by new domains like "Quixtarxs.com"

Revertting the links...Fact of the matter is, several great sources of information dont show up within the first three pages of search, and how many times do you rely on a user searching past the 3rd page to find something? They usually enter a new query.

Match the links 1 for 1, if you feel its getting biased, with blogs such as beyondquixtar.blogspot.com or blindedbyscion.blogspot.com Gallwapa 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in matching the links 1-1 or attempting to achieve balance; I've stated publicly on Wikipedia in the past that I feel the journalistic concept of "balance" is dubious at best and ethically bankrupt at worst. And I certainly don't want to add cheerleading 'blogs – if I had my druthers, we wouldn't be including 'blogs at all. However, 'blogs can (in isolated cases) prove to be good resources.

What I am concerned about is unnecessary or dubious links. We don't want the links section to get too large, and we certainly don't want links that readers cannot trust sitting down there. A number of anons have been adding blatantly scummy links to this article (you'll see in the history I've reverted the attempts of two such users), and I figure it's only fair if we remove the blatantly, dubiously anti-Quixtar links as well. What is or is not "dubious", I guess you can tell better than I – I only started watching this article because I came across some vandalism while RC patrolling. But please, keep in mind that a) "Balance" is an idiotic concept, b) we don't want too many links, and c) we don't want untrustworthy links, with "untrustworthy" defined however you feel is best.

By the way, the standard way of conversing on talkpages is to put colons (:) in front of each paragraph, with one colon being second-level, two being third-level, and so on, like threading on forae or USENET. I've taken the liberty of modifying your reply to look like that; I hope you don't mind. It's then a good idea to sign your name at the end of a reply with four tildes (~~~~), which automatically includes your username and the date. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 21:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quixtar.com is a dubious link. The link section isn't entirely long, and it provides a good number of resources to select from. With regard to the vandals: They'll never win, they can try, but they'll never win. Thousands of people hear the word Quixtar a year, and thousands more in the coming years, and having resources at hand to make an educated decision should be up to them, not who can best spam a search engine. Gallwapa 23:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ThisBizNow.com is rediculous. Keep that trash off the external links. Gallwapa 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree on that! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why thisbiznow.com is ridiculous. It is a verified site that gives facts and figures about Quixtar. As opposed to a blog site which gives opinion or point of view. My understanding is that Wikipedia was supposed to be a NPOV (neutral point of view, not negative point of view) site. So something with an obvious negative opinion is allowed as a reputable link, but business and financial statistics and testimonials from the partner stores that work with Quixtar is somehow a trash link that is 'rediculous'. There is obviously a lot of strong feelings about this topic, but let's keep it as informational as possible.

• Then let's discuss the content of the links here first and come to a new consensus. The existing consensus among registered users is that thisbiznow.com is not a reputable site, and I agree with that. It is possible (even probable) that quixtarsucks.com is also POV, and we can investigate that. But please, until that decision is reached, stop spamming the link onto the page in contravention of consensus. ESkog | ^Talk 20:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well then let's get rid of Quixtar Wiki! That page is useless! Quixtar already has a Wikipedia page, and what is Eric trying to do, besides have control of his own, where he can lock out posts he doesn't like. The page is practically empty!

Let's look at the links that are there now (and also thisbiznow.com) and try to establish a consensus here as to which should stay to best keep NPOV up. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It is worth noting that Stones12 is a new user whose only 5 edits (as of this note) are to this Talk page. His/her opinion is still, of course, valid and worth listening to. ESkog | ^Talk 19:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are quite right. I only registered as a user when I started engaging in discussion with this group. I never saw the need before and thought it would be proper when discussing to have a user name instead of merely an IP. Especially considering my IP will change somewhat frequently. However, I have been using Wikipedia as a whole frequently and editing occassionally for quite some time.Stones12 06:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe biased, but it's the site of the company. Easy keep. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official websites should always be included in these sorts of things. Unless we're talking about, say, the GNAA, it doesn't usually require any more than the note "official website". --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Including the site that is at the center of the Wikipedia entry seems essential - The Mule 01:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obvious.Stones12 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems a little anti-Quixtar, but is a collection of a lot of verifiable and useful data. I'd say keep. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very anti-Quixtar. However, looking through it, it seems reasonably useful. I am concerned about its reliability – I removed it from the article without knowing a thing about it, because it wouldn't load! If the site looks like being down a lot, we shouldn't keep it – Wikipedia doesn't need any more dead links.
    • The most comprehensive source of Quixtar and Amway information, period. It should be kept. Yes, the site is very critical of Quixtar but discerning visitors can decide what is truth and what is personal rant. The site was down temporarily as it moved to a new host. - The Mule 01:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mule - If this is such an informational site, then you need to add Kiyosaki back as a supporter, because he is quite visibly documented as so on this site. As for the site itself, it is certainly a very negative viewpoint but I don't have the time to go through this voluminous site in great detail to make a statement to its veracity.Stones12 05:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Explain why Kiyosaki should be added back as a supporter? Provide a link where Kiyosaki has publicly endorsed, supported or even commented about his opinion of Quixtar. - The Mule 20:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am merely relying on your claim of this being a very conprehensive source of information. On this site, it is mentioned that there is a close tie between Quixtar and Kiyosaki. If this site is factual and mentions Kiyosaki as a supporter, then that should be sufficient for keeping him as a supporter in the write up. If this claim is false then it calls to question whether this site is responsible information. Personally, I really don't care whether he is included or not, but we can't claim a source as reliable some of the time.Stones12 20:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro-Quixtar (published by them), probably a valuable source of press releases and information on this side of the MLM debate. Keep. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a good resource. "$xfacts.com", where $x is some organisation under fire, are invariably untrustworthy. This even applies in cases where a government is publishing the information! What's there now looks pretty good: Quixtar's "Official Facts" site, sort of thing. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, it's not a great resource but it does give Quixtar's official position on several important issues. Should be kept. - The Mule 01:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a good resource, but as others have said, if thats what Quixtar wants to say, thats what they sayGallwapa 22:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems severely anti-Quixtar and doesn't really add much in verifiable information - just someone ranting. Remove it. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worl, I wouldn't call this one "ranting" – it seems sedate and reasonable, altough, I'll admit, not as useful as I'd first imagined. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit biased about this link since it's my blog but I don't think that should preclude me from adding comments. Remember that the true value of any blog lies in two realms - the quality of the frequent updates and the archives. If you search the archives you'll find a wealth of information including several stories that broke on my blog (the Blakey Report, Quixtar's Google Bombing, the Arbitration tapes, etc.). Also, great effort is made to show every perspective as illustrated in the Backbone project, the March of Perceptions and more. I'll end my lobby now but I hope you'll carefully consider its inclusion. - The Mule 01:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Easy Keep, in my opinion, due to the fact that it houses FORUMS for, against, and NEUTRAL to Quixtar. Allowing communication between all sides is a great resource. In addition, this blog has high quality entries. Gallwapa 22:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is probably the best put together blog on this list and does have positive, negative and neutral points of view. However, it is mostly points of view which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I vote to get rid of it. Sorry Mule. Kudos on the site though.Stones12 05:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• News coverage is useful. Keep. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hell, yeah! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it. MSNBC (originally run on Dateline NBC) is as good a source as any in MSM - The Mule 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. The story was skewed negative, but that was partially due to Quixtar not coming on the show. Should be kept. Stones12

• It seems fair to give them the same space to respond to what they feel is a biased story, even though it seems filled with emotional language and very light on facts. Weak keep. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed - The Mule 02:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This site is fubar for the information it provides, but it seems necessary since they "claim" to have been precluded from the Dateline NBC special. If they REALLY want this information to be their OFFICIAL response to the Quixtar SCAM allegations, so be it. Gallwapa 22:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really care for this one either. This guy goes around and tries to make IBOs look like fools. Entertaining, but not encyclopedic. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whaddya mean, "look like"? =P. But, yes. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the blog but can see it being removed from the Wikipedia entry. - The Mule 02:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Get rid of it. Stones12 06:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Free online e-book, anti-Quixtar but from the bit I've read it seems fact-driven and reasonable. Weak keep. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay (I'm not about to read it at the moment). --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it. It's a guy's experience with Quixtar. The same guy who was featured in the Dateline (MSNBC) show. - The Mule 02:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dump it. Lots of allegations, but lacks any hard facts. Everything is uncorroborated with the note that it will be included in the book. If someone wrote an e-book titled "Merchants of Prosperity" about how Quixtar made their dreams come true, it would be immediately panned by everyone here as one sided and trumped up. Stones12 19:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep it - Anyone with any experience in this business knows that the events and stories contained within have likely happened to them. It explains the process of documenting the fraud that was being committed, and gives actual income claims of an Emerald, first hand.Gallwapa 22:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • After further review, it gives nothing of the sort, Gallwapa. No hard data, mostly empty claims and only the ability to download a book. It would be ridiculous to put a link to a site that is an advertisement for an e-book.Stones12 05:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not an advertisement for an e-book - the book is free - it's just a different mechanism for delivering the information than a standard web page. The claims seem "empty" to you because you didn't actually look at the book. ESkog | ^Talk 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I ask you, if a pro-Quixtar free book was offered by someone who had achieved great success through Quixtar, would you include it? Including this site, gives justification to include web sites like IBO Facts or Distributor websites and I don't think that is the best solution.Stones12 18:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no pro-Quixtar free book, becuase "The Systems" sell them to IBO's, further raping money from the IBO's caught in the Motivational Systems. FIND me a free resource that we can link to and I'll be GLAD to vote to include it. Gallwapa 20:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Gallwapa phrases his statement more adversarially than I would, but I agree with the basic point. If there is a comparable free nonfiction work which concludes in favor of Quixtar, by all means list it here and I imagine it will end well. ESkog | ^Talk 20:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Then what about excerpts from a published pro-Quixtar book? And what about the IBOfacts website? Essentially, that is the stance of people that have succeeded with this model in a free format. I see it as the other side of the same coin. If one is included, so should the other. I am not trying to be difficult here, yet it is important to have some standards of acceptance.Stones12 21:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Stones, the problem is you can't prove someone has succeeded. Most of the proclaimed "successes" in the Quixtar business are people who made it to the qualification one time and no longer qualify. The thing is, they are still touted as "successes". They then reap large ammounts of money from the secret tool business, and their quixtar businesses actually show LOSSES after expenses. How can LOSSES in QUIXTAR be attributed to success? Show me a diamond who will show you their financial statement, and I would consider changing my stance. The fact of the matter is, QUIXTAR wont even tell us how many IBO's they have, or how many diamonds they have. Gallwapa 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Gallwapa, interesting argument that does not address the point. Let's address the financial statement first. Why should a diamond show you his financial statement? He owns a private business, not a publicly traded business. The neighborhood Italian restaurant owner does not share his financial statement with just anybody. He has a right to privacy as much as everyone else.

• As for the tools, I hardly see how anyone could say it is a secret that people make money from the sales of tools and motivational materials. If someone can't figure that out, then they are not very bright. Anytime something is sold, there is a profit or the salesman will die out.
• You claim that high level distributors experience losses in Quixtar and make money from the tools. If you include money spent towards tools, functions or accomodations and meals at functions, that should really go towards the money they make on the tools business. Simple Accounting 101. They are separate businesses and entities and the expenses should be separated, too. To run a Quixtar business, you must pay the fee to start up, which as far as I can tell is somewhere around $60 a year, plus any sample products or product brochures. If they can't cover those expenses, then the person is not very business savvy and should rethink their decision.
• As far as distributors that have not reached the level where they share in the profits from the tools go, they have an option to buy tools or attend functions. This is a choice and is included in the BSMA (I think that is what it is called) agreement. Nothing should be forced upon a person and if it is, the one being forced needs to take action.
• The problem I see with you, Gallwapa, is that you take negative as Gospel and anything not negative must be a fabrication because everyone is out to get you. The simple fact is that Quixtar is bound by laws and restrictions to tell business facts when they make a public site or statement. Otherwise they would be breaking the law and the FTC would be making them change whatever the claims are. These are laws that a blogger is not subjected to, which is the primary reason that blogs should not be listed as sites. They can post whatever they want as long as it is not slanderous or breaking of any trademark, without fear of legal repercussions. It does not matter whether it is truth, fiction or a mixture of both.Stones12 02:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Stones, the fact of the matter is [Quixtar apparently doesn't care about the FTC] or laws or rules. 70% rule changed to include the very thing that defines MLM? Its not that I don't like anything "not negative", I don't like blatent and obvious lies. You think laws apply in politics? Have do you not follow the news? How can you compete with a corporation that has [the President of the United States] on their side? Merchants explains several links between that political party and the corporation. It is a valuable resource and should be included.Gallwapa 22:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Gallwapa, after mentioning that blogs are not the most reliable resources, you turn around and cite 2 different blogs to try to make your point. Not only that but the President comment is from a letter of thanks for the donations made for Hurricane Katrina. I would think that not doing so would be a bad show on the side of the president. Once I have finished reading this long and very dry e-book, I will respond to the 'links' that are contained within this un-published material.Stones12 22:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said blogs were unreliable for information. Its content, not the format, that matters. Follow the links in the blog, and you get original sources and can read the full articles yourself. Like cliffnotes? read a blog where someone cuts to the meat. Gallwapa 07:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I said blogs were unreliable and not subject to anything except one individuals opinion. If you want to link to something useful, link to the actual information, not to one persons blog and their 'take' on the information. Like you said, it is content that matters. Content is the information, the format would be the blog. The meat is the original source, not some op-ed piece. In the future link to the 'content', not the 'format'. Got it?Stones12 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever - Still a valuable resource and should be kept.Gallwapa 19:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is all good and well but I think the conversation has strayed from the point - should MOD be included as an external link. Yes, it should. It's a valuable, free resource. - The Mule 14:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a fan of blogs in general (can you tell?) but this one seems solid. Legal information presented in a professional way. Keep. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrm, I'm not sure. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm ambivalent on this one. I see its value but can see why it might be pulled from the entry as it's broader in scope than just Quixtar. - The Mule 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a bad blog. I don't like blogs being included, but at least this one has some supporting info on it.Stones12 06:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Critics bash Quixtar/Alticor for supposedly deleting negative websites from the Wikipedia page, but now it is CRITICS who are deleting pages that speak Positive about Quixtar! This is more than hypocritical, its CRIMINAL! This is Exactly why intelligent individuals do NOT rely on the internet to make business decisions, and No one should waste their time expecting to learn anything of value on these Negative or so-called "Neutral" websites.
  • Well how dare we try to be neutral. Please don't waste your time vandalizing the page. ESkog | ^Talk 15:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a site designed to sell the Quixtar "opportunity" to the masses. It is not long on facts or information - just three success stories. It doesn't belong here. ESkog | ^Talk 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a blatant advertisement dressed up to look like a facts & figures information. If we can't kill these things with fire, we can at least restrain ourselves from including them in lists of recommended online reading. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed - The Mule 02:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disagree. This should be kept. While some of the site is weak, I find it to be rather informative. The point of Wikipedia is to provide an electronic encyclopedia with as much neutrality as possible. Business information, such as sales numbers and rankings, are neutral whether they are reflect a rise or fall in volume or sales. This site includes the
        • People Are Talking section which has quotes from business leaders like the CEO of Easter Seals, Mayor of London, Ontario, Director of the Red Cross, Presidents and CEO's of Barnes & Nobles and other affiliates and excerpts from Magazines and other News Media. (If a blog is allowed by anyone not a business leader, then statements from business leaders should be allowed, too)
        • The By The Numbers section lists company statistics and earnings by IBO's (as well as the average earnings). Strictly 'Facts and Figures' here
        • Making A Difference includes charitable works done by the company and IBO's (which is a bit of cheerleading).
        • And the About section gives a simple breakdown of the business model employed and a small write up of the exclusive products offered.Stones12 19:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For something that should be 'killed with fire', there are no pertinent reasons why this site should not be included. ESkog claims there is only 3 success stories. There is certainly a lot more information than that. fuddlemark says it is blatant advertisement dressed to look like facts and figures. Please give examples of what is an advertisement dressed up like facts and figures.Stones12 22:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Stones, profiles of success link does list 3, crappy "success stories"...and the only good info on the whole site is the statement of how many of each pinlevel there is, however they dont list total IBO to derive a %...its crap.Gallwapa 07:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting logic, Gallwapa. Because the site does not give you the one piece of information you want, then the whole site must be crap. Your browser must not be working correctly, because as I noted earlier, there is a whole lot more information on this site. The success stories section is not big, but if it were bigger, you would complain that it was a blatant advertisement and should not be included. Since there are only three, you claim that they are crappy and the site should not be included. Or maybe it is because 2 of the 'success stories' use their profits to help the poor and needy in other countries and that bothers you for some reason. Also, in the By-The-Numbers/IBOs section there is a % of pin levels from 2004. Obviously, you did not really look at the site, but merely browsed it in passing. If you are going to make a decision on something, I suggest you look at it thoroughly next time.Stones12 04:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No, and I HAVE seen the page. I've even blogged about it. The fact is, the info there is incomplete and misleading. Gallwapa 19:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Please cite information to support your claims. What is incomplete and misleading?Stones12 22:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Here we go

• Misleading

• Often, a new IBO also will choose to attend optional and voluntary training sessions or purchase professional development materials provided by that organization - all covered by a money-back guarantee.

• Why: IBO's are pressured into "The System" from the very beginning. The Systems are joined at the hip, as was mentioned on "Directly Speaking" by DeVos himself. In addition, the money-back guarantee is misleading. The BSMAA says they must be refunded at a "reasonable, negotiated rate" -- What that means? My sponsor offered $1 for every $7 CD I had purchased, even those that were UNOPENED and UNUSED in their shrink wrap. My only recourse would have been going to arbitration, which is just about the most rigged system in existance and has even been deemd unconsionable and unenforceable in recent months.

• This is what I am talking about. Finally some discussion other than 'kill with fire' comments. Let's address this. Money back guarantee. There certainly is one, as you plainly stated when your upline offered to buy back tools from you. Now, the word reasonable is certainly in question there and it sounds like you were dealing with some less than fair individuals. I believe there is also a time limit on buying back tools that is something like 60 days. Regardless, you said the only way to get more money back was through arbitration. This fact plainly shows that Quixtar and the MO's are not 'joined at the hips' as you say. If they were truly joined, then no arbitration would be needed. The simple fact is you bought the tools from WWDB, not from Quixtar. Quixtar can help you get some of the money back through arbitration if WWDB does not follow the terms of the tool buy back agreement. Quixtar does not own this, but tries to regulate the MO's to follow protocol. As far as arbitration as a whole, it is used in a multitude of industries, and as it stands it is the best system available. If you have a problem with it, come up with a better system and propose it. As far as this 'Why', it is more of a disagreement with the MO you were involved in, not Quixtar itself. Plus, what is printed in thisbiznow.com is factual, it seems that the MO you were involved with just didn't want to follow the rules.

• Unlike most other companies,Quixtar's sales are not the result of advertising.

• Why: How about the half-a-page spread in...what was it, the USA Today? awhile back touting Quixtar as a leader in Icommerce and to come to Quixtar.com for financial freedom.

• Yes, I saw that ad in USA Today. It was put out by the Direct Selling Association. Did you see the ad yourself, or are you merely reiterating what all the bloggers have to say. The ad prmoted Quixtar as an 'opportuniy'. It did not highlight any products and I seriously doubt that it caused any sales. It could certainly be argued that the ad was intended to increase sales. Yet, in order to buy something, a person must have an IBO to buy it through and not knowing what they could even buy kind of dismisses your argument.

• How about their "downtalking" of "negative" information?ome people use the web to express views about companies, opportunities, products, or individuals. "Some sites are factual, others share personal opinions or experiences, and others spread misperceptions or mischaracterizations." While this may be a valid point, the fact of the matter is it is over shadowed by the fact that Quixtar ACTIVELY tries to control information relating to negatiev information. If they've got nothing to hide, why the hell do they care if theres 100 people online who blog negative? If it wasnt true, they wouldnt have anything to worry about, right? Because there'd be hundreds of legitimate positive or neutral sites...oh wait...funny how the only positive sites are quixtar employees or false blogs. W-T-F?

• Like you said, the statement is true. What you read into it is your own perception. As far as the allegations of information control, the only 'evidence' I have seen is on blogs and a statement that Greg Duncan said that people were doing this. Now, since I did not hear this comment first hand, I do not know what he said. Did he say Quixtar was doing this or WWDB? Also, look at the large company web sites as a whole. There are usually 5-6 negative websites for every positive one. This is not something unique to Quixtar. It is an unfortunate fact that people do not go out of their way to do something positive. Mostly, it is only negative that people will go out of their way to post. Anyway, your disagreement is based on heresay and what is stated on the website, you actually agree with. Point refuted.

• Since 1999, IBOs powered by Quixtar have earned more than $1.7 billion in bonuses and other incentives by generating sales of more than $5.2 billion at www.quixtar.com, and

• Why: It doesnt tell you how many IBOs there are (were) or that quit. OR how much of that 5.2 billion was the result of the PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED starter kit that was $75. Greg Duncan stated about 50% of the IBOs quit every year since the 1970s. Figure 350,000 IBOs, 50% quit, 50% join, every year. thats 175,000 x $75...How much of that revenue was generated back? Its misleading, or incomplete information. period. the list goes on and on. Gallwapa 23:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't need to tell you how many IBO's there were. It tells you how much IBO's have made and how much in sales were done. These are figures that have been recorded and verified. I highly doubt D&B would give such a high rating if the numbers were incorrect. Plus, and I may be incorrect here, but the starter kit was replaced when Quixtar launched, which makes your argument moot. Now, there is an optional bundle that you can purchase when you register, which is fully refundable if you opt to return it.

• So, in conclusion, you argue that the tool buy back system is flawed. Perhaps it is, but you don't buy your tools from Quixtar and they have set up an arbitration procedure to help get the money back. You argue that Quixtar does advertise because of one ad placed in USA Today promoting an opportunity, not products. I can understand your argument, but the ad was not to promote the products, but the opportunity. You agree that the statement about websites in general is true, but have personal issues with alleged activities. Regardless of your personal feelings here, no incorrect information is listed. And you have issues with the amount of income generated through Quixtar because it does not give you a fact that you want. The numbers are solid and there are ways to figure out what you want with the public information, if you have any math skills. Are you so daft that you can't figure it out on your own? I'll give you a week and if you can't figure it out, I will give you a hint. If you can do the math, maybe you will finally have an answer.Stones12 13:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay Stones, I give - how many total IBOs in FY 2004? How many qualified diamonds in FY 2004? Gallwapa 19:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Man, Gallwapa. Did you even try to figure it out? You gave up within 6 hours and you had all the information in front of you on this website. And all you can do is complain about how little information you have. Sometimes, you need to think a little. Since, you are a little logic challenged, I will make this easy to understand. IBO's made $345,000,000 in fiscal 2004. The average active IBO made $115 a month. Take the $345M and divide it by $115/mth. Now you need to translate that into yearly income, so take the answer and divide by 12mths/yr. That answer will yield you the number of 'active' IBO's, which at that time was somewhere in the neighborhood of 250,000. 66% of IBO's are 'active', so take the 250,000 and multiply by 1.5 to get what would be 100% of the IBO's. The answer is roughly 375,000. Multiply by the % given for Diamonds and you wind up with 66 in North America through Quixtar that qualified fiscal 2004. Now, from what I understand, there are also International Diamonds in N America that qualify by having legs in other countries and are not included in this number, but that is another thread. It is really not that hard if you use your brain, but I guess some people expect everything to be given to them as a hand out, instead of working for it and earning it. Lastly, while Greg Duncan may be a Diamond and above, as far as numbers go, I would stick to the information put out by the corporation. It will be much more accurate. Happy Thanksgiving.Stones12 15:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny, roughly 375,000. More than 380,300 Independent Business Owners received a bonus in FY 04 according to ThisBizNow. Thats not including "IBO's" who registered and did NOT receive a bonus check. So which is it? Because $375,000 is a find and dandy number...but Quixtar's own numbers contradict themselves. I hope you're starting to see my point about the validity of any of this information. Gallwapa 00:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• While the extra 5,300 is around 1.3% error, which I would consider reasonable for a rough calculation, more information would be needed to validate the total number of IBO's. I concede that this would need more explanation to help understand from where it was derived.Stones12 03:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This blog is very unique in the way it breaks down and analyzes individual Quixtar motivational tapes. I'd add it to the list. - The Mule 02:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Not relevant. Quixtar is independent from any of the entities that make the BSM. Quixtar does not make or sell the motivational tapes. If you want to have a description of the tapes and other material, then make a unique Wikipedia entry for it that can be linked to through the Controversy section.Stones12 19:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to keep. 100% relevant to information control, and "cult like" aspects of motivational organizations.Gallwapa 22:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you stated my case exactly. This is about the motivational organizations, not Quixtar. Quixtar has goods and services, no motivational materials move through this medium. As I said before, if this is something that you feel deserves its own unique entry, then do it. Otherwise it is not relevant.Stones12 05:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see all the arguements presented above. I authored SOT to show how the BWW motivational organization is damaging and cult-like. In that sense, it is about BWW, not Quixtar. However, since there is clearly a symbiosis between Quixtar and all the MO's, keeping it would certainly be good. If I may offer a few suggstions, the best in my opinion would be to state in this entery the major MO's (BWW, WWDB, InterNet, etc) and pershaps do some links on info to those. Another would be to create a new topic about MO's with links on the Quixtar page to those. Being a little biased myself, I would suggest to keep SOT because the majority (with very few exceptions) of the people will be contacted by IBO's that are plugged into a system AND all of the major systems show to operate in similar ways. Thanks for considering, Xanadustc
    • KEEP IT. The System's are joined at the hip with the corporation, as RICH DUVOS has said himself on the DIRECTLY SPEAKING tapes. Gallwapa 20:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Directly Speaking tapes were put out in the 60's and 70's when there was no Motivational Organization system (and his name is Devos). Quixtar derives no income from the sales of motivational material and has no relation to AMI which puts out the BWW material that this site calls into question.Stones12 20:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correction - The Directly Speaking tapes were distributed in 1983, the year Amway also published an advertisement in popular newspapers which led to the 1986 ruling by the FTC that Amway had violated their agreement from the infamous 1979 Amway v. FTC case. Not that when the tapes were produced makes much difference, the issue is whether the SOT blog is relevent to the Wikipedia entry on Quixtar. I say it is.
        • I stand corrected. Regardless of when they were distributed, they have not been distributed for over 20 years. The content on this BLOG is one man's analysis of motivational/educational material put out by the motivational organization BWW, which is a completely separate entity from Quixtar.Stones12 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of this article is about Quixtar. It does an excellent job of explaining Quixtar's attempts to squelch criticism. Link should be included. - The Mule 02:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Rober Kiyosaki from the "Supporters" because I can find no record of him ever endorsing Quixtar. True, he is very supportive of the MLM industry but that doesn't mean he should be listed as a supporter in the Quixtar Wikipedia entry. - The Mule 14:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kiyosaki Has talked at Quixtar Functions and has an officially issued talk sold in the networks. Yes the Talk is about MLM, but just him releasing that for sale in the Network more than endorses the Quixtar and the business. This is all containing in the legal rights of the sales agreement. If he did not want to release this to them being the Quixtar Motivational Tools he would not have. So fact is the post should not be manipulated just because of ones opinion.

"the post is should not be manipulated just because of ones opinion." Don't you think that's quite hypocritical for you to say, considering you've spent the past week vandalizing the Quixtar entry, eh 64.118.137.226?

Before you start throwing stones and making implications, why don't you ask that user why they deleted the sections. This is a forum for discussion, not for name calling and accusations Dom. The only way this page will get better is through objective thought and communication.Stones12 02:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem with objective thought and communication. I've got a problem with vandalism and hypocrisy. And I don't really care to know why a vandal performed his vandalism. Or did you not notice the repeated deletions of the same material by 64.118.137.226? DonIncognito 05:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DonIncognito, I do not support random deletions from a page with no discussion. I think what the anonymous poster did was bad form. However, from the tenacity of the deletions, maybe this person has a valid reason for the deletions. Most of the vandals I have seen, delete and disappear. On top of that, the post in the above discussion is well thought out and intelligantly written, very unlike a vandal. I welcome their voice, especially if they decide to register.Stones12 15:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"However, from the tenacity of the deletions, maybe this person has a valid reason for the deletions." By this logic, if I replace the entire text of the BMW entry with "AuDi RuLz!!11!" twenty-five times then I must have a "valid reason" for my vandalism. I, however, think that the strength of one's convictions is irrelevant here. Furthermore, I take into account past behaviour when considering one's merit. But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here.

• I removed the Kiyosaki entry due to my inability to find evidence that he supports Quixtar. Just because Quixtar uses his books, does not mean he supports or endorses the business. They also use books by Dale Carnegie but I don't think he has much of anything to say about Quixtar. My point is that I would like some evidence. Documentation. Link. Something that makes a very visible connection between Kiyosaki and Quixtar. Something beyond personal testimony of "I know he endorses Quixtar." I've heard Paul Harvey endorse Amway. I know he should be listed in that category. There's an audio clip floating around with that endorsement. I haven't seen anything from Kiyosaki. If it's there, fine. Put him back. But let's see it. Let's link to it. Let's not just assume that he endorses or supports Quixtar. - The Mule 14:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Mule, someone provided a link down at the bottom of the discussion page under another Kiyosaki header. I believe it was by the user PaulHanson.Stones12 15:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Right. Well John T Reed says he heard him at a Quixtar conference. That's good enough for me. Add him back in with a link to that page in the support description for reference. - The Mule 13:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced "Amway opportunity" with "Amway program", and don't think it didn't just kill me inside to misspell it like that. Stones, I appreciate you think the views the rest of us hold of MLM scams are unfair, but c'mon on, "Amway opportunity"? That's a joke! Please try to respect WP:NPOV, and of course don't hesitate to rap us over the knuckles if we fail to do the same. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem, Fuddle. If you have a problem with the wording, that is fine. It was the best word that popped into my mind, and I can understand how it could be viewed as NPOV (the dictionary defining opportunity in one way as a favorable or advantageous circumstance, and favorable would be an NPOV word). As for your views, I don't think they are unfair. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I think posting views as NPOV is not right on a site like this.Stones12 16:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how pages can be protected from abusive edits although this is a good candidate.

Incidentally, I added category:companies of the United States. I think Amway should have its own category, I'll probably try that out sometime soon...if there's a better cat:, then feel free to change it.

By the way, if any Wikipedians are interested in making some serious money...eh never mind. Paul 23:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't really a major edit conflict - just the occasional anonymous editor blanking all the sections critical of Quixtar. There are enough people watching the page to fix it in time, and there is a pretty solid consensus about what belongs in the article (at least among registered users). I don't think this is a good candidate for protection. ESkog | ^Talk 03:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because we fix it often and fast, doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected...but thats just my two cents. Alticor and their AQMO brainwashed minions vandalize it frequently enough to annoy me... Gallwapa 00:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not sure what you mean by "protect." If you mean only registered users then I could consider that, though I hesitate to embrace such a move. If you mean locking it down where only admins can modify it, then I will disagree strongly. - The Mule 14:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if it shouldn't be protected, than never mind...our vigilance is good enough i guess.

Regarding Kiyosaki's connection to Amquix, there is some mention at John T. Reed's website. Reed's site is obviously very POV and the info is unsubstantiated, but if verification could be found then it would improve the Kiyosaki and Amway articles quite a bit. The site is http://www.johntreed.com/MLM.html .

I created an Amway category, if anyone has any suggestions or comments, please let me know. Cheers, Paul 06:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Quixtar have made their first ever decent edit to this page. If it is Quixtar, and it is decent, well, hooray! Keep it up, lads!

Could someone more knowledgeable and less biased about the system than I – Stones, I'm looking in your direction – please check over the latest additions to see if a) they are useful, and b) they can be made more NPOV. It may be that we have to do a full rv anyway, but I hope not. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark, I have looked over the information. There are a few tweaks that need to be made. The information all checks out, but in my opinion, a little bit of POV. Hopefully, I will have it done by the Thanksgiving holiday.Stones12 23:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because the System is full of lying sacks doesnt mean I don't want this article not to be NPOV. Besides, Quixtar changed the 70% rule recently anyway so now it DOES include personal volume (hurray for pyramids). And it seems we've got hostile IP's vandalizing our very own quixtar wiki now, too :). Bring it on...(Notice how the alticor IP removed our pretty little quixtarwiki link)Gallwapa 22:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*The 70% rule NEVER said RETAIL sales. Period. They didn't Change anything they clarified it. Check the official website of the Attorney General of Michigan. It states:

"Multi-level marketing is a lawful and legitimate business method that uses a network of independent representatives to sell consumer products. Commissions should be based upon the sale of goods or services to end-user consumers who may include the sellers of the product."

Did you get that? "may include the sellers of the product." The ONLY rule regarding Retail sales is the 50pv Member/client rule. In order to get a bonus on total group volume, you have to do 50pv, $100, or 10 different M/C sales. That's enforced electronically. If you don't have that volume, which is easily tracked, you only get a bonus on Your personal volume! Plain & simple. Please stop twisting facts and perpetuating misconceptions!

• Twisting facts and perpetuating misconceptions? WWDB still has standard fulfillment in many LOS, and in mine, I asked my sponsor why I got a bonus check when I didnt do 50pv. He said just take the money no one will find out that doesnt really count. The fact of the matter is, it *ISNT* enforced. Also, you can use four tilde's to sign your username/timestamp to your comments. Like this --> Gallwapa 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Gallwapa, did you get your check from Quixtar or your upline?Stones12 18:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Upline164.116.253.90 21:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, then there is no way that Quixtar could know that you didn't do your 50 PV. With the Direct Fulfillment, Quixtar tracks all of that and pays out the bonus check. I am relatively sure they would not send a bonus check without the 50 PV, since they have red flags if you don't do the 50 PV. Your upline was subverting the Business Rules. They were the rotten apple, not the corporation.Stones12 03:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Stones, do you not get that the corporation doesn't do anything to police the Motivational Organizations becuase they are joined at the hip? (as Rich so kindly put it in Directly Speaking)Gallwapa 06:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You totally missed Stone's point! Your Upline is the one that paid you for what you didn't earn, NOT Quixtar! Most IBO's receive a check directly from Quixtar now, and if you don't have 50pv, or $100 from Member/Client - you Will Not get a check for Downline volume! Also, what is there to police? They hold seminars!... Weekly trainings... support materials - that are All Optional! Stop making it out to be some kind of conspiracy! Yes, there is profit from the training side as there should be. Knowledge is valuable - that's why I paid $80,000 for my College degree! My professors made money off me! The guys who wrote the books made money off me! And when the Professor wrote the book (required textbook) they made LOTS of money off all of us! Is that a scam?

• Gallwapa, you keep citing these Directly Speaking tapes, which we have established were made sometime around 1983. First off, that was over 20 years ago. Secondly, I have not heard these tapes so I do not know what Rich is referring to (and don't point me to a sound bite, I would need to listen to the tape in it's entirety). And Quixtar does try to police the MO's, but since they are separate entities, it is hard to enact anything or even know what is going on, which is why the arbitration process is in place. Now, the arbitration process may have flaws, but that is all there is right now. Most importantly, you got your check from your upline, not Quixtar. Quixtar does enforce the member client rule, your upline apparently did not. If you want to report your upline to the FTC for rules violations, go ahead.Stones12 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]