Talk:ACN Inc./Archive 2

/Archive 3

Archive

I have archived the old discussions, since they are lengthy and no longer active. Monty.the.cat 08:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank heavens. Mike 08:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've Added Some New Material!

I guess from all the above discussion that I am expecting to see Monty.the.cat shortly swoop in to attempt to cut to ribbons everything that I have just added. Note, dear Monty.the.cat, that I have tried my best for neutrality. And we're trying to present available facts about ACN, not display prejudices. I have more for later, but it is not yet ready for prime time. For one thing I want to get in some amount of detail about the compensation plan, but am unsure how much is enough, so ... Mike 04:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am too tired to do anything to your article, while you have added some (although limited) valuable information, your edit is littered with errors and thus I believe it should be reverted unless to its original form, unless you are willing to fix it up yourself. First you should remove all disputable information that is gathered from advertorials and ACN's website, as these sources are highly biased. Plain facts can remain. The referenced sources I am referring to are numbered 2,3,4,5,6,8,10,11 and 12. The competition section needs to be completely removed since it is ridiculous, using ACN advertising material to claim it is better than it's competitors and mentioning one competitor and saying ACN is better than them (if you want to compare ACN on a individual basis, why don't you compare it to the thousands of telecommunications companies out there?). I am also sure if you read the wikipedia guidelines you will probably find that you are unable to reference sources that are not publicly available, which you have done one numerous occasions. The stairway breakway plan wiki is a joke, as it does not properly address the serious flaws in its structure. Your article contains factual errors, such as ¨In its 14-year history, ACN has had only two court cases¨, which is wrong, asides from the two mentioned there a numerous other ones such as the Canadian case and the ones relating to ACN Energy. The article is full of opinion either unreferenced or referenced by ACN advertising, eg. 'The other appears to have been a mere technical violation', 'came together in a search for a new MLM opportunity, hoping to find a company with a more fair compensation plan, solid ethics, and a trusting environment', etc. You mention revenue figures that only numbers on advertising material and not reliable figures which come from documents where ACN are accountable for.

In short please fix it, otherwise it will need to be reverted to form where it is not just a blatant ACN advertisement. Monty.the.cat 10:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC).

Please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view in order to see exactly why your edit is inappropriate.

Monty.the.cat 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe some of it needed trimming. "Blatant"? No, I don't believe so. I think some of it could definitely use a rewrite, but I saw what was up here a while back and that was definitely over the top, and it needed to be undone. I was trying to be informative, but I appreciate your concerns, and agree with you to a certain extent, so I'll try to do a better job. I got other things going on, however, so I'm just adding back a little you removed that isn't bloody well blatant.

As far as competition is concerned, the only ACN competitor I mentioned is the only telecommunications competitor using an MLM model, and it's at least in the same or a nearby order of magnitude. If you insist upon it, sure ACN competes with Qwest, but its globflies in comparison. Do you say that the mom-and-pop grocery down the street competes with Albertsons? Yeah, in a sense, but their real competitors are the other mom-and-pops, not a store chain so large that the smallest department of the smallest individual store has larger sales figures. Lightyear is ACN's nearest competitor. Qwest, AT&T, Verizon and whatever probably don't even notice either one. Mike 08:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes you made recently. I think you have now made an improvement on the article. I did however remove the revenue figure in the right hand box, since there is no reliable up-to-date figures on ACN's revenue. Also why did ACN report to have a revenue of 500 million, a nice round figure and not say 489 million or 512 million, it seems a figure made up for convenience, rather than something the reflects the financial performance of ACN. In regards to competition you can think of it in two ways, ACN's competition in the telecommunications market or ACN's competition in the MLM market. It does not make sense to think ACN only compete against those MLM telco companies. ACN competes for customers in the telco market, and ACN competes for sales representatives in the MLM market. In any case there is no need to compare ACN to competition, since such a comparison undoubtedly introduces some bias. If you read other companies wikis you will rarely see products of one company compared to another company. Monty.the.cat 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as the 500 million figure, since ACN is privately held there are no publicly available figures for annual revenue beyond what ACN releases (as far as I know), and I think the "nice round" 500M figure is more in the nature of an approximation, since I have seen printed materials indicating "about $500 million" and the current About Us section of the corporate website says "...over half a billion dollars..." The thing about revenue claims is that everyone has one. If I were to characterize my salary as a computer programmer, I might say "about $50k annually", if I were trying to convey the general sense of it, and to the IRS I might get downright exact (to the penny), since by law I have to. But not necessarily to you, because its private information and I choose not to. There are other large private companies who do not disclose their exact revenues, but give ballpark figures. In such cases, do we shrug our shoulders on WP and say "it's a dime or it's a billion, nobody knows", or do we give the claimed amount and attribute it to the company itself so everyone knows what the source is? You can't give that Hoovers' figure with a straight face -- the available evidence suggests that that is waaaayy too low. Yet there is the reference in the article. I think that the 500M figure is reasonable, and in absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, reasonable to appear in the article/infobox. Anwyay, that's my 2 cents. Mike 02:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "reasonable approximations". Verifiable information is required. — ERcheck (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Noted, but the figure is verifiable; as in the verifiable statement "...over half a billion dollars..." as applied to revenue, which can be verified here. I didn't make it up. In this paragraph I was simply discussing whether the figure could be argued to be reasonable. Monty.the.cat doesn't think it belongs there because there's no independent corroboration, but my argument is that the claim itself from the company is grounds for including it. It might be wrong, it might be biased, but the half-billion figure is verifiable, at least from the point of view that the article editor (me) didn't just dream it up. That I originally put the company website as the only source of the figure should convey to anyone who cares that the figure is not obtained from a disinterested source. Mike 06:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The reasons you gave are exactly the same reasons that I argued against putting financial information about this private company (read the archive). As Ercheck mentioned, approximations are not suitable for Wikipedia. One of the main reasons you seem to be putting these figures in is to correct errors in the linked Hovers article. If you do not like the Hovers article, remove it, I do not really see any information in the article that is not contained in the other references and I do not see any reason to keep the link. Monty.the.cat 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeeze, you don't think I read the archive? I wrote a good portion of it, after all -- of course, that's not a guarantee I read it all, but still...  :-) Anyway, you seem to be arguing that since ACN's revenue figures cannot be independently corroborated by a disinterested authority then we can't put the figure in the article, because the only source is the company itself, which is biased by definition if not in fact. I have to say I have a problem with this. First of all, I note that this rule isn't being followed in some significant places and perhaps somebody ought to fix these other articles: Alticor; Bechtel; Bloomberg L.P.; Sabre Holdings; and others (see Category:Privately held companies of the United States. You should get started on the cleanup as soon as possible, and pack a lunch because it will be a long day.

But what it looks like is that you are promulgating a rule that requires not mere verifiability, but disinterested corroboration in every article on Wikipedia. So in the instance at hand, to follow this rule I may not include any information in the article which was obtained solely from ACN. But Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't say this. It says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Now, the figure of "...over half a billion dollars..." for revenue is not something I dreamt up, it is something that can be verified as having been published by a reliable source (we can perhaps argue as to how reliable, but still...). The source happens to be ACN itsefl, which presumably knows how much revenue it had. Or it is lying through its teeth, but the threshhold for inclusion clearly is not truth. You also cited the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources guideline, but even there it doesn't require what you seem to be seeking. I quote the following from the article on the guideline:

Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves.

So the use of an ACN-sourced claim, in this article about ACN, clearly satisfies the Reliability guideline. Thus, since Verifiability and Reliability guidelines have both been satisfied, I have added the revenue figure back to the article. Mike 06:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the article should say something on the lines of "ACN claim to have revenue exceeding $500 million" with a reference to ACN's website... What do you think ERCheck? Since the figures are not really reliable, I believe the 'having quadrupled over the previous five years' should be removed.Monty.the.cat 16:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For a company that does not have a public accounting of their revenues, I view the information on their website as promotional versus a reliable reference that is based on independent audits of their finances. "Claim" is best. I also think that the disclaimer is not appropriate for the infobox — specifically, the claimed number should at most be in the text of the article. The reason for leaving it out of the infobox is that the infobox is a quick summary of facts about the company. This is not a "fact", it is an approximation based on a claim on the ACN website. — ERcheck (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to put a promotional figure on the wiki, shouldn't we also present information relating to unsuccessful loss making former subsidiary ACN Energy? Monty.the.cat 05:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd Discrepancy

The Hoovers reference with respect to ACN's revenue says 76 million, presumably 2006 numbers, when Inc magazine had ACN's numbers in 1998 as close to 100 million. ACN has clearly not gone backwards in revenue, so where on earth did they get 76 million from? They also leave off one of the Cupisz brothers. Mike 08:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Donald Trump as an endorser of the company has previously been endorsed discussed. [Word corrected — ERcheck (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)] Without reference that satisfies WP:VERIFY, this does not satisfy WP:NPOV. Probably more accurate to say that he is a paid spokesman. Unless a suitable reference can be supplied, this paragraph should be removed. — ERcheck (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Donald Trump as an endorser of the company has previously been endorsed." What? Sorry, but this sentence doesn't parse. Aside from that, you seem to be leaning towards the notion that an endorser of something must be unpaid. Check Wiktionary, and you will see no implication that endorsement requires this. It is a commonplace that if some celebrity endorses something, beaucoups bucks was spent to achieve this. Is the news that Catherine Zeta-Jones endorses T-Mobile something that cannot be noted on Wikipedia because it is POV? It is a fact that she did, and they paid her well -- otherwise why the heck would she do it? If I were to write in T-Mobile's WP article, however, that "T-Mobile is such a great cell phone company that even the great actress Catherine Zeta-Jones likes it", that would be clearly POV, and she didn't say that, either, she simply read the ad copy they gave her. By the same token, the news that Trump endorsed ACN is not POV, but a fact. Presumably they paid him something, but maybe they didn't, there is no publicly available information on this that I am aware of, so saying he's a "paid spokesman" is a speculation and violates WP:VERIFY -- I do happen to know that there is a contract of some kind covering ACN's use of his image and so on, but that's not verifiable, so its not in the article. I tend to think that Trump doesn't need celebrity endorsement contracts to support his lifestyle, but whatever. As far as WP:VERIFY is concerned, the reference at the end of the paragraph attempted to cover the whole paragraph. Do I need to add the reference to every sentence or assertion in the paragraph? There is such a thing as over-referencing things, too. No, I think the paragraph should stay. Mike 07:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, a typo. This was a topic of discussion - see the talk page archive. Calling him an endorser without revealing that his is paid can be misinterpreted. Being paid is akin to being a paid spokesman. There is a completely different implication if one is paid to be on a commercial versus giving an endorsement without pay. — ERcheck (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that he is being paid -- nor any that he is not. As I have tried to point out, the word "endorse" is neutral, by default, as to the existence of a quid-pro-quo. Despite this it is well understood that celebrities are generally paid for their words of endorsement, and an endorsement without payment is rare enough that this is generally the only time a qualification is given, i.e. "freely endorsed". What makes Trump's endorsement remarkable is that it occurred at all. Trump, after all, does not need to shill for other companies to maintain his lifestyle, and endorsing a bad product could conceivably tarnish his image (or self-delusion, whatever) that he is a cunning businessman, if the company failed spectacularly, for example. What you seem to want to do is either leave off a verifiable fact, that Trump endorsed the company, or attach an unverifiable qualification to it. Given your status within Wikipedia either is an odd ambition. And for the record, I don't particularly care whether Trump got cash for the endorsement or any other form of remuneration, or not. Mike 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Given your status within Wikipedia..." I have no "ambitions" on this article. I am pointing out that there was a discussion on this previously. Donald Trump is not the typical "celebrity", such as actors or athletes. He is a businessman. It is unusual for a CEO of a corporation to endorse products, other than their own. In the previous discussion(s), I believe that there was mention of whether or not the endorsement was internal to the company.

This article has at times been a battleground between ACN advocates and those who see ACN as a bad company. Occasionally, I have stepped in to moderate and try to be sure that this article remains neutral and has reliable references. (The phrases "...spoke in glowing terms" and "..extolling ACN's business" are not neutral.) I take exception to the implication that my interests are other than that. — ERcheck (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And I apologize; that's not what I intended it to mean. I merely pointed out that when the choice is between two unverifiable assertions (Trump received compensation for the endorsement or he did not), I find myself drawn to the third way, which is to leave it at "endorsed", since that is what he has done. You're right, it is unusual for a businessman to endorse a company or products not his own. As far as the endorsement being internal to the company, the company has made no secret of it. It's possible they put out press releases about it, though I have not seen any, but in a number of public places on the company's websites you can see the face of Donald Trump peeking out saying something nice about ACN. Trump was on the cover of the 1st Qtr news magazine. Trump is featured on each rep's personal company website: ACN & Donald J. Trump. The DVD/CD being handed out like penny candies all over the US has The Donald's face and voice all over it. It's not being done in private. So, observing all that, so many want to leave him off ACN's article. Why? Mike 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of leaving him out of the article. It is a matter of making the information comply with WP:NPOV. When I read "publicly endorse", it reads as if he is making public commercials, rather than internal to the sales people. Of course the company is not making it a secret; they are using it as positive press. I suggest that you propose a NPOV version on this talk page. I hope that there will be an easy consensus on the best way to write it. — ERcheck (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with ERCheck, any reference to Trump in the article, should make it clear that he was a paid spokesperson. The fact that he was paid and that his 'endorsements' have restricted allowed distribution mean that his comments were not made from a NPOV and this should be reflected in the article, which it clearly is not at the moment.Monty.the.cat 06:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ERCheck's proposal to write an NPOV version of Trump's endorsement of ACN is pointless. I cannot write that he was paid to make the endorsement, because I don't know that he was paid, and there is no source I am aware of that says anything one way or another. I would be surprised if were NOT paid in some fashion, but with all the argumentation here about "reliable" sources any article that says anything about payment would not be verifiable. So, according to all these standards, no mention of Trump's endorsement is possible. So there we are. Mike 08:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I am still a little worried about the use of unreliable references in the article. Many of the referenced article are from magazines whose stated aim is to promote MLM / Direct selling companies. They seem to have little if any editorial oversight. Comments such as "ACN grew steadily during that time" should be removed unless they can be backed up by more reliable sources. If these references are to be used as sources, then I might as well use http://www.subboard.com/generation/articles/116164656490688.asp as a source, since it probably has more editorial oversight as a university magazine than the promotional magazines used in the wiki. Monty.the.cat 06:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You take things out of the article that the company claims on its website and in its literature, because they can't be independently verified. You take things out which do have references from independent sources, because you believe they're unreliable. And they're unreliable because you think they like to promote MLM, and its one thing you've made clear here and that is you hate MLM with a passion. You even take things out of the article that are referenced by sources that haven't the vaguest relationship to MLM, possibly because the reference infers something positive about ACN, which you clearly would avoid at all costs. Even earlier you removed the sentence saying ACN's comp plan was a variant of the stairstep breakaway style of MLM, because you thought the WP article on stairstep breakaway was a "joke". I'm at an impasse how to respond to all this. If the article cannot be added to because no source is good enough for you and you seem to have been appointed arbiter of this article, then perhaps it ought to be nominated for deletion. I am not kidding. Mike 23:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have given reason to believe the sources are unreliable and biased, if you disagree with me then discuss the points I made rather than write a whole lot of sentences with quotation marks around words or the use of italics, in an attempt to ridicule my opinion. By the way I have had disagreements with anti-ACN edits which I believed were unsuitable, along with pro-ACN edits, which you will find in the archive. Wikis are not ruled by any one author, be it you or me. If I had free reign over the article, I would write the wiki very differently, but I don't. In regards to nominating the article for deletion, you are welcome to do so, although you efforts may prove to be fruitless, since the article does not meet any of the criteria outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion Monty.the.cat 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism/Non-NPOV Edits

Someone with a negative POV made some non-neutral edits, which I reverted. If there can be nothing positive said about ACN (see the discussion history, especially Monty.the.cat and my "conversations"), then there won't be any negatives either. You want to discuss this, Mr. 74.94.68.194, then chime in here. Mike (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mike, you say that you want neutral point of view. That does not mean that you must have a negative and positive balance in an article. With this argument, one would find it very difficult to write about Osama Bin Laden. Would we have to find a good thing about him for every bad thing? The fact is that there are considerably more bad things about ACN than good things and as such, they should be included in the article. Quoting sources such as the ACN magazine would NOT be considered neutral. However, quoting a news article would be neutral point of view. This is because the source is impartial. Get your facts straight Mike. --TheEditor22 (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. 74.94.68.194 is back again. Hey dude, register a domain and create a web page if you want to rant about multilevel. This isn't the place, OK? Reported to administration. Mike (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The material added does not appear to conform with a neutral point of view, in that the views of the author are quite obvious (see Raul's Razor), nor with verifiability policy, in that personal blogs and forums are widely not considered to be reliable sources. Aside from the court case (which should indeed be covered), has any of this been reported in mainstream press, or other third-party-published material with editorial oversight? As much as I can sympathize with the author, I'm not sure if the content is suitable for Wikipedia's purposes. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Sympathize with the author"? Over what? That he/she has a slanted point of view to express, and wants to express it on Wikipedia? There were heated discussions over this article in the past, between primarily Monty.the.cat and myself, with Monty.the.cat being utterly opposed to placing anything in the article that had any kind of positive tone, whether or not it could be verified (no source is good enough if it has something nice to say about the comapany), and me trying to at least put some actual data in there -- we eventually settled on leaving the article pretty much barebones. This recent anonymous editor is trying mightily to introduce slanted negative-toned verbiage in there. I say that if nothing positive can be said, then neither can anything negative. He can keep pushing his point all he wants, I got lots of time to revert his edits. Mike (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Mike, I have a new hobby. It's called making life on Wikipedia very hard for you. Come to think of it I know a few people who might share this hobby. --TheEditor22 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits that have been removed are indeed npov. Pls stop adding them. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

74.94.68.194 was wrong to cite blogs and private pages as sources, however if someone actually would like to write about the business model of ACN, there were two websites linked off one of the websites 74.94.68.194 cited that is verifiable. They are https://myacn2.acninc.com/OnLineRepAgreement/jsp/US/USLegal.jsp and http://www2.acninc.com/join/301.pdf . By the way Mike, our discussions centered on the verifiability of edits. The article was left as bare bones due to the lack of verifiable information on ACN. Monty.the.cat (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the first link and then check the box saying that you want to become an independent sales rep then you can see the initial price of the training kit is indeed $499. Monty.the.cat (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was a dispute over the $499. Mike (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008 - POV edits

I reverted edits by two IP editors - one anti-ACN and one pro-ACN. All edits must follow Wikipedia policies, including:

• Neutral point of view
• Verifiability
• No original research

Please do not delete the documented section on court cases. This is verified by reliable sources and has been discussed previously. Please do not introduce inaccurate information. — ERcheck (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, let's leave the course case. Singular. But I would like to bring up Trump again. You know he re-appeared in the July ACN convention in New Jersey, and personally endorsed ACN in his talk, as well as announcing the renewal of his endorsement. ACN has put excerpts from Trump's address on its corporate front page as part of a new feature, ACN TV. It's a fact; what kind of additional verification is required before the information can be allowed to appear in the article? A photocopy of the check ACN gave him? I find the whole thing bizarre, actually. Mike (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike, you blatently work for ACN. Pathetic. Give it up

Reverted some info about 2 reps

Someone added a sentence at the end of the Australian court case: "However, two "independent representatives" of ACN were found to have violated federal law." The appeals court vacated the entire findings of J. Selway and his successor, including two of the reps originally charged. How can ACN be found innocent and the two reps remain guilty? Mike (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Because part of the IR contract says that they take all responsibility for any illegal actions they take as IRs, and that ACN will not be held responsible for such actions. In other words, since they're "independent" representatives, ACN can wash its hands of responsibility as far as the law is concerned. 64.81.245.109 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What does that matter? ACN and the IR's were all charged under the statute, ACN for originating the features of the plan that were found by Selway to be illegal, and the IR's were charged for participating (I guess as accessories). But after the appeals court threw the charges out, the IR's couldn't possibly be charged for participating in the plan if the plan wasn't actually illegal, now could they? What's your point, here. I sure don't see what you're driving at. Mike (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

1000+ Employees?

In the box at top of the article, ACN is listed as having over 1000 employees. However, the Hoover's entry claims they have 600. Is this another my-word-against-yours argument between the sources? Or does the 1000+ figure include IRs (who aren't technically employed by ACN)? 64.81.245.109 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

IR's are not included. If they were, the number would have been well over 20,000 -- 15,000 showed up at the Anaheim convention back in December 2008. Where did Hoover's say they got their headcount and their sales figures? They don't say. ACN says on its website that it has over 1000 employees; did Hoover's engage the services of a hacker who broke into the company's databases to find that they only had 600? Or perhaps they visited all six company office buildings on three continents and did a census. Hoover's estimate of ACN's 2007 sales is $76.4 million, versus ACN's own claim of 500 million. Considering that Inc. Magazine said they had over $90 million in annual sales in 1998 when they were the 22nd fastest growing company in the US, and that Trump is so enthusiastic over the company that he asked for ACN's videophone to be the featured product on one of the upcoming Celebrity Apprentice episodes, and that ACN just got done paying $5 million for the outstanding debt of WorldGate Communications (aquiring a 63% stake), penning an agreement to buy over $50 million worth of WorldGate videophones over 2 years, and that it has an agreement to buy another million and a half worth of WGAT stock, I don't think Hoover's knows what its talking about. Mike (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that the 1000 employees number is uncited and from 2006, so I have WP:BOLD and replaced it with the number from Hoover's which is more recent. If there is a better verifiable source for this information feel free to update that number.Lotu (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Hoover's information is hopelessly inaccurate in this case, and should not be relied upon for either annual sales volume or number of employees. To start with, the article in Hoover's gives an estimated sales volume for 2007 of only 76 million, when Inc. Magazine gave their volume in 1998 as 88 million -- $76 million for a company now in 19 countries that was much smaller in 1998? I am certain that I saw the 1000+ employees claim on the company website at one time, and for a company with major headquarters in six countries seems more likely than 600. But I looked all over ACN's corporate website and could not find a source for the 1000 employees, so I guess Hoover's probably inaccurate figure will stand for now. Mike (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

SubSections

The SubSections in this article have very little text under them and look like a list. This is poor style and looks more like a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia. I'm going to remove them and try and make the prose flow a little bit. Lotu (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to fill them out a bit more when I had some time, but you've done a good enough job of improving the appearance of this section for now. I'm going to clean up a few minor errors, though. There's a lot of detail that could be added to some of this, so as to make it look less like a marketing brochure and be more generally informative. For later. Mike (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BBB accreditation questionable

I will be removing the line in the introductory paragraph that says ACN Inc. is a BBB accredited business. Reasoning: While the ref link provided does lead to a page that says it confirms that ACN Inc. is The link provided[1] leads to a page that says it confirms that ACN Inc is BBB-accredited business, the button on the same page to access the BBB Report on the Business leads to the page below.

• BBB Reliability Report for American Communications Network, Inc., BBB. Retrieved on April 25, 2009.... which says:

"This business is not a BBB Accredited Business."

"BBB rating D". [Which is a poor rating.]

It is misleading to indicate that it is BBB accredited if there are BBB sites that say otherwise. — ERcheck (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem: those who have negative POV with respect to the subject seem to only find negatives. This is normally considered to be as much POV as those who can only find positive things, wouldn't you say? Sure, it's a D rating. For a non-accredited business. I wonder if that makes a difference? No idea. But how reliable is the rating? Read the page: there were 239 complaints filed in 3 years. 238 were resolved. Yet the page says that besides the number of complaints, the rating comes because of "Failure to respond to complaints filed against business," when the figures on the page say that ACN has a 99.6% resolution rate! Now, can you really trust what the BBB Detroit is saying? And this is what I mean by naysayers can only find negatives: ACN moved its headquarters to Concord, NC (probably because Detroit is an economic disaster area), and they aren't members of the Detroit BBB any longer as a result. Check out the current listing for their current location:

BBB Reliability Report for ACN.

• "A BBB Accredited business since 10/09/2008"
• "Based on BBB files, this business has a BBB Rating of A+". [Which is a decent rating]

Based on this, I believe the line in the introductory paragraph that says that ACN is a BBB accredited business should be restored, with the most current citation. Mike (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ACN Rep. Site and some Notes

I have noticed that throughout the edits many ACN representative sites manage to filter their way into the "citations". Seeing as how these sites are managed by a single ACN sales person, they are not appropriate for citation for any number of reasons. They follow the pattern of (http://[ACN Rep Name].acnrep.com) for future reference. Also notably, a majority of anonymous edits tend to be either very ACN positive or vandalism. Given the large number of ACN representatives _personally_ vested the contents and impression that this page leaves on people, there seems a rather large potential of favorable editing. Is this a criteria for locking of a page?

I wouldn't say that that is a valid page-locking criteria. Compared to many other apparently more controversial articles (such as the one on [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], which has no such lock, this article on ACN is practically placid. As far as citations from ACN rep pages is concerned, I'd say that these are largely pointless, since these pages reflect the information found on the company's main site, and a cite to the main site should suffice. I didn't see any of the cites you mention in the current revision, however; I've ignored this article for a few months, however, so I probably missed something. Mike (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was turned on to this page after a "acquaintance" got me to attend a recruiting meeting. The lack of transparency in the company structure is really concerning. Also, notably you can find links to any amount of corporate paperwork, but they all fail to mention the joining fee (~$500) and the training fees (another ~$200) as well as yearly cost to stay with the program. As far as I can tell all/some of that money gets kicked back up the recruiting tree. Seems to me to be 100% pyramid scam IMHO.

I can appreciate your point of view, and having read what you've written so far (as of 5/19), it should be clear even to you that you are hardly a neutral party yourself. And thanks for trying to have my user sandbox deleted; you're such a sweet person. The talk page to the article is supposed to discuss the article, not debate the merits/demerits of the subject of the article, but since you've chimed in with your opinion (along with several unfounded assertions), let me comment on what you've written. What "lack of transparency" are you talking about? You attended a recruiting meeting. They didn't mention the $500? I'm sure they did. You expect every single page on the company's website to mention $500 joining fee and the annual renewall fee? If you signed up, and made some money, I don't think you would fuss about $149 to keep earning it; and if you didn't earn any, why would you renew? As far as it being a 100% pyramid scam in your honest opinion, an Australian federal appeals court ruled 100% that it isn't, and if you read the full court opinion you might have gotten the impression that the court thought the government agency that brought the charges against ACN was totally unjustified, especially since they required the government agency in question to pay court costs.Mike (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also notably, "Success from Home" magazine appears to be an ACN funded publication. Correspondingly, use of its statistics and information is similarly poor taste. --Meawoppl (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

SfH "appears" to be an ACN funded publication. Hmmm. From what appearances? That they wrote positively about the company? Admittedly, SfH has featured ACN four years running, and ACN buys lots of copies to distribute to prospects, but what do you expect? When one of my sons got some good press in the newspaper because of his school sports activity, I bought several copies of the paper so I could clip the article and show off to my friends. I guess you could use your same logic and say that it appears my local newspaper is funded by me, or perhaps its in the pocket of the local high school. On the other hand, my local newspaper likes to sell advertising, so it prints articles that it knows will make people buy the paper, and horrors, they will be able to sell ads, make money, and so forth. If you examine the masthead for SfH, you will see that it is not an ACN pub. Mike (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Followup

Wow, so I did a lot of reading about all of this and it is clear to me that User:Cyberherbalist/"Mike" is not a neutral party in this exchange. He is likely the only force keeping this page from what I think to be a far more negative and honest reflection of this company. See User:Cyberherbalist/ACN2 if there is any doubt as to this. Also read the /Archive 1 to see further evidence. I believe this page (Cyberherbalist's) ought to be deleted under the policies outlined here. If not deleted, there ought to be some disclaimer of "this is not a wikipedia article"

You know, I made it very clear in the "exchange" you mention that I was an ACN representative. Monty.the.cat, the other major party in the exchange, was much like you, decidedly biased against ACN (and quite proud of himself for having dissuaded a friend from joining the company). Neither of you seem to be able to see yourselves in this light, however. You seem to imagine that a negative POV is valid, whereas a positive one is not. And aside from my own opinion on whether to delete my sandbox page because it wasn't neutral enough, the consensus so far (as of 5/19/2009) was "Keep", because it was within the allowances for sandbox pages. Mike (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ACN made 500 Million USD in revenue for 2008. I don't know the profit, but lets just work with the revenue for now. With 600 employees, an average salary of AT LEAST 20,000 USD this figure would come down to 488 million. Devide that by the 20,000 representives, and you've got an average of 24,000 for each representive. Now, for a wouldbe investor that salary for the risk is pretty awful. And yet we know that huge chunk of the 500 million revenue will be expenses, so it wouldnt surprise me if the average is more like $4000 per rep. And of course, bare in mind that most of the money will be made by people at the top, so the median salary is going to be next to nothing. And mike, if you say this is point of view and that I have no figures then you might be right. But I can't get the figures from ACN. That is unreasonable. If I wanted such figures from Microsoft, for example, or McDonalds, I am sure I would get it. It wouldnt be hard for ACN to provide their profit figures, the median average earnings of representitives and the number of representives.

What kind of calculator were you using for that? I think its batteries must have been close to dead or something. Your math is a "bit" off. 600 employees each making $20,000 comes to $12,000,000; your answer of $488 million is embarrassly and ridiculously off. 1,000 employees each making a more reasonable $60,000 per year (including benefits, Social Security contributions, etc) still only comes to $60,000,000, which is 12% of a half-billion revenue. ACN does not claim $500,000,000; it's "in excess of" that figure -- and though ACN does not say so, if their claimed revenue growth is consistent with past claims, they are probably creeping up on a billion in the next two or three years. The figures you're looking for at Microsoft and McDonalds are easily obtained because they are publicly held -- US securities laws require a great deal of disclosure, and the stockholders want to know what's happening, too. ACN is privately held, and virtually all privately held companies are extremely stingy with financial information. Check out the WP article on Privately held company. Especially the part about reporting obligations and restrictions. Lots of private companies hugely larger than ACN that keep their financial info quite private. Mike (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said Mike, most people at ACN make jack all. Everyone at McDonalds and Microsoft etc make money. It seems quite obvious why ACN does not disclose such figures, regardless of their private company status. And if you were smart then you'd know working for ACN is a waste of time, money and will make you go bankrupt. This company should be destroyed and fast. I might also point out I was never duped into believing it was a good scheme, in fact, as soon as I heard it was a multilevel marketing scheme I was VERY sceptical. Watching the ACN video only confirmed my scepticism. Some guy gave me the DVD, and I arranged for him to come over and give a presentation. The first thing he does when he comes is play the DVD again. A DVD that tells you nothing about what you do, and just shows you a bunch of people on holiday telling you how great their lives are. After the DVD the guy asks "any questions" at which point me and my brother gave him a real grilling. Almost every question he responded that he "didnt know", which is the real embarassment to be honest Mike. If you're selling a business you need to know your figures. If you were on Dragon's Den then the dragons would make mince meat of you. Anyway, this guy left in such a hurry that he left his projector behind. One other thing...pay $500 dollars for what? ACN don't even let you use their branding in any adveristments you put out. Also, you call it a franchise or whatever, but at least McDonalds vet their applicants. All ACN want is YOUR money. The customer is the representive. Another thing Mike. You say you dont make any money yet. Here's a fact: The moment you start making money, you'll have LOTS of reps below you not making money. The moment they make money, they'll have lots of reps below them losing money. It multiplies down very quickly to more people than there are on the planet. Sounds like a pyramid.

Next, Fox News did a segment on this group titled "ACN: Good Opportunity or Pyramid Scheme?" found here. Quite harsh tone in it all and the Head Council flat out says a majority of reps. don't make a profit. That link should _really_ be in the article somewhere.

So why don't you put it there instead of crowing about it? It's a fact that most reps don't make a profit! See, I admit it! The question however should be: why not? Has anyone checked that out? I know why I'm not making a profit: because I'm not doing much! Examine this, if you will. I have about ten personal customers with a combined monthly bill of about $350. That averages out to $35 per customer per month, right? If you supposedly attended a recruitment meeting, then you must have seen the figure of $38 per customer per month trotted out -- this makes me about average. At that level I make 1% of my personal customers' bills every month, or $3.50. Woo hoo. I have about 20 downline reps, and none of them have as large a customer base as I do. About a third of them have no customers at all, not even themselves. My question to you is: WHOSE FREAKING FAULT IS IT THAT THEY AREN'T MAKING ANY MONEY? ACN'S? I DON'T THINK SO! (Sorry about the all caps, I'm trying to make a point) I have three reps who paid the $500, and then vanished, figuratively speaking, from the face of the earth. No, they were still there, they just dropped their half a grand and apparently when they realized that they would have to actually get customers (surprise!), they got cold feet and stopped answering the phone, even when I left messages telling them that if they weren't going to do the business, at least call ACN and get their joining fee back (one has 10 days to do so). None of them did. Of course, that's ACN's and their sponsor's fault. Mike (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Though people frequently say that ACN has been mentioned in Magazine X ought to read these articles first:

Fortune - "Yet the public image of direct-selling companies is largely negative. Studies by the DSA show that many consumers don't trust the industry. What's more, unethical players still exist."

USA Today - The only link I can find saying anything about this says "ACN is running a series of advertisements in the Life section . . ."

Success from Home -- Is a magazine (sold on Amazon ) but seems to be written/funded by the DSA so certainly not an encyclopedic source. The issue I received (Vol 5, Issue 4 , June 2009) features 130 pages including both covers. Of those pages roughly 30 _do not_ feature ACN/Video Phones/Donald Trump as a topic. (Most of the pages that don't are ads) Notably the readership page disclaims that "Success as an ACN Independent Representative is not guaranteed . . .". Why that is featured in that page is a mystery to me . . . On a related note, the ACN DVD features several of the same people that the magazine does. . . this all just seems wholly shady.

Odd, isn't it, that the company would feature the people who have been successful? I mean, just because a successful baseball or football team has successful players, that's no reason to make a big deal about them is it? Mike (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, given Trump's recent Donald_Trump#2008_financial_crisis situation situation, it seems very pertinent as to whether it was a paid endorsement. The association between his name and wealth and prosperity is clearly a feature of ACN advertisements. Trump made his $$$ in real estate anyway . . .

Does the WP article mention Trump's endorsement? No. Why is this pertinent then, whether or not he got paid to endorse the company? Most endorsements revolve around quid pro quo, anyway. Mike (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The BBB link is really the most telling. D rating 200+ complaints. Wowsa . . . as an honest and take home message, I can not find _anyone_ who has something positive to say about ACN who is not in some way tied to their revenue stream. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this! --Meawoppl (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, the D rating appears to be stale -- and 200+ complaints over a 36-month period, with the vast majority resolved, does not seem bad at all. Given that ACN does not operate in Detroit, but in North Carolina where it's BBB rating is A+, you stand corrected. Mike (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

New America Media

I'm going to revert the edit with this source as it is so poorly written it cannot by any measure be considered reliable. For example it refers to agents of MLM companies as "employees" - someone with even a basic knowledge knows that's not the case. Other glaring errors - "In 1976 the Federal Trade Commission sued Amway, an MLM based in Michigan, for earning more revenue by selling motivational products to their employees than the soap they produced." The FTC sued Amway in 1975, not 1976, and the case had ZERO to do with "selling motivational products". That wasn't even mentioned - which isn't surprising since Amway doesn't make any money at all selling motivational products! Such clearly poor fact checking leaves the whole article questionable. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That it is a "poorly written" article is your opinion, and will not be taken into account when considering reliability. The source is impartial, documents experience by an ACN representitive and this aspect of the article has crediblity worth noting in this wikipedia article. --TheEditor22 (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not an "opinion", it is fact. Sources should be judged as to their quality. This one is of obvious poor quality. Are MLM agents "employees"? No. They're not in "jobs" either. Was Amway sued over motivational materials? No. More - No higher education or any education is necessary to be employed by multilevel marketers. - you don't get employed by MLMs. Most MLM companies claim to train you before you start working -- for a small start-up fee, usually averaging $250. Where did this info come from? ACN's startup is $499, Amway is $50. Does he have a survey? Statistics? Today,hundreds of MLM companies operate in the United States, and it’s perfectly legal for them to earn money based solely on start-up fees. No it's not. That makes them an illegal pyramid.'In 2002 Pre-Paid Legal was fighting for its life in a class action lawsuit for fraud filed by plaintiffs in several states. - 2002? It's 2009. Don't you wonder what happened? The suits were thrown out. I could go on. The whole article is bogus. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Insider, I think you are taking language too literally in your reading of the article. Somewhat deliberately I suspect. One can use the word "employed" and not mean that they are employees. For example, my time could be employed. As in, my time is being "put to use". There is no employer here. Second to which 'employed' in this article is being used for lack of a better word. Amway was sued over motivational materials, and you are twisting the facts here in order to present the article as being false. Most MLMs do claim to train you before you start, and the average of $250 has been sourced in the article if you care to read it. It is legal for MLM companies to earn money purely on startup fees. You didnt think that that ACN makes money off of telecommunications did you? (that is supposedly for the reps). The Pre-Paid Legal case was mentioned, and in the context of the article does not need to explain the life story of the company. Please refrain from adding bias to this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a multileval marketing brochure. --TheEditor22 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of a better word? How about "agent", "rep", "distributor". There are more than enough alternatives that reflect the relationship. Amway was NOT sued over motivational materials, that's complete BS. Here is the entire case, FTC vs Amway, please show me where motivational materials is even mentioned once? And no, it's not legal for the companies to be making money of startup fees - that would be evidence they were an illegal pyramid. I have no idea what makes up ACN's revenues, but if they're primarily startup fees then they are operating illegally (see what happened to YTB recently). Putting claims that a company is illegal in a wikipedia article is a strong move that requires MUCH stronger sources. As for claiming that it's OK for a journalist to say a company has been sued for some illegality - but neglect to mention the cases were dismissed ... well, it makes it clear where *your* bias lies. I'd suggest YOU stop adding bias to this article. The source you are using is clearly not up to wikipedia standards. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read the case, and your interpretation of motivational materials is clearly different from that of an impartial person. You don't know what makes up ACN's revenue...exactly my point! But this arcicle documents a former representitives experiences with the company, reflecting what MANY other former reps have said in numerous forums throughout the internet. As a forum is not an encyclopedic source I have not referenced any. However they do serve as obvious verification of the New America Media article. It is also extremely obvious that if ACN had nothing to hide then it would be in their favour to release information on what makes up their revenue.

This NAM article is from a source completely unrelated to ACN, and as such is far more impartial than any of the ACN sources used in this wikipedia article. Take your pro-ACN propaganda elsewhere. I've warned you before. --TheEditor22 (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I know you're not even being honest, let alone impartial. FTC vs Amway had ZERO to with "motivational materials" as is clear to anyone who has read it. You're either lying about having read it, or lying about what it says - which is it? Either way it's pretty silly considering the whole complaint and conclusion is available in numerous places on the internet, there's even a summmary on Wikipedia - In_re_Amway_Corp.. The article you are wanting to use as a source is (a) clearly unreliable (b) doesn't say what you says it does and (c) even if it did wouldn't belong in the lede. I have not added an "pro-ACN propaganda" at all, indeed I'm not a fan at all of ACN's business model, for all sorts of reasons. I'm also not a fan of people putting up personal opinions from shaky sources on wikipedia articles. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, are you saying that we're both being dishonest? I'm glad you've finally admitted your deceit but there is no need to bring me down with you. I know you are pro-ACN, I have seen your previous edit history. I can see you totally ignored what I said in my last message so I shall say it again. In fact i'll quote myself; "this arcicle documents a former representitives experiences with the company, reflecting what MANY other former reps have said in numerous forums throughout the internet. As a forum is not an encyclopedic source I have not referenced any. However they do serve as obvious verification of the New America Media article. It is also extremely obvious that if ACN had nothing to hide then it would be in their favour to release information on what makes up their revenue." It is an impartial journal article. If you're so sure that the elements of the article I have highlighted for this wikipedia article are incorrect then by all means, find a completely impartial non-ACN/MLM related news source. I might add that I could find several more news sources that back up the citation I added to Wikipedia. And yes, that is what I'm going to be doing shortly.--TheEditor22 (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... that first sentence seems to indicate you admit being dishonest. I categorically deny it. I'm interested in having factual well-sourced articles, not opinion pieces. If that happens to end up putting pro-ACN stuff, then so be it. I am not pro-ACN, if anything I'd lean towards anti-ACN. You are however trying to use an incredibly badly written piece of journalism into the article. It seems your desparate to get the "forum"-like opinions in, so will take anything you can get. Your claim that the millions of private companies around the world must be hiding something, since few reveal their revenues, just goes to show the absurdity of your thinking. The simple fact is, the source you are wanting to use is of incredibly poor standard. Since you believe the ACN claim to be accurate, and widespread, then you should be able to find a better one. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is well sourced, however you are determined to twist the facts in order to present the opposite. I have said that I can find additional sources, and I intend to do so. As I said before though, I expect you to find a reputable independent news source that proves that the information that I took from the New America Media article is incorrect. I can guarantee that you won't find it. Every independent news source on ACN that I have seen has denounced the company as being a scam, giving false promises to representitives. I said it before and I'll say it again, take your pro-ACN propaganda elsewhere. --TheEditor22 (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm ... the New America Media article doesn't have a single source - how can you claim it's "well sourced". I've already provided you with sources that show the article has factual errors. I've no idea whether the ACN claims in the article are correct or not - but given who much else in the article is wrong, it clearly is not a reliable source, and as such shouldn't be used. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're a fan of Amway arent you Insider. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot31XhgE_XE

An Amyway presenter says "this is the best opportunity in the world, that exists, period". This article just clafifies how deluded you are, or indeed, how incredibily biased you are. I am almost certain that you are in some way renumerated by presenting this MLM companies as being legitimate. Yes...I've looked through your history. You are a truly evil character, to want to deceive somewhat naive people into believing that these MLM companies are a good opportunity. In fact, you truly sicken me. --TheEditor22 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? A video of someone, not me, giving their opinion about Amway somehow shoes me as "deluded" and "biased"? Wow. Nice logic. The last little rant however does show that your perhaps not even capable of an NPOV approach to this article. I suggest perhaps you shouldn't be editing it at all. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You think something with a 99.9% failure rate is a good opportunity. Because you clearly do if you're pro- Amway...which I know for a fact you are. You are really intelligent arent you. I notice how you didnt even comment on the video. The undercover recording really shows the lies and deception that go on. Just what you've been doing --TheEditor22 (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even bother looking at the video. What does it have to do with me and my opinion of ACN? Anyway I've raised the issue for comment on the RS/Noticeboard. It's an interesting problem, when an article from what would seem to be a RS is so full of errors.--Insider201283 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how you ignore things that you just have absolutely no answers for. It is a reputable source. Oh and, I also know your name now. Seems I was right all along about you. You are paid to promote MLM companies, and you know it. Keep your propaganda to yourself...--TheEditor22 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but may think you can lie all you want about anything here, but I do not appreciate lies being spread about me. I am categorically NOT paid to promote MLM companies (or any particular MLM company) - that is utterly false. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How you can deny that I do not know. We both know that you are paid, and anybody reading this article only has to do what I did, which is investigate your name, in order to find that out. You and your lies are an embarassment to the human race.--TheEditor22 (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I can deny it easily - because it's not true. Apparently you believe everything you read on the 'net - if you want too. You shouldn't.--Insider201283 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm obviously nowhere near as gullible as you if you believe a 99.9% failure rate for an opportunity is a good opportunity.--TheEditor22 (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "failure rate" for ACN is, and as it happens my personal opinion, albeit somewhat uninformed and several years outdated, was that it wasn't a good opportunity (at least back then when I last looked at it some years back). I do suspect however that it's like most MLMs and indeed most "volunteer" tasks - the majority of people do little or nothing to "succeed", and don't. I don't call "not trying" a failed attempt, you apparently do. If you're a fan of the Fitzpatrick/Taylor school of MLM mathematics, which I suspect is the case, you probably also believe that someone who signs up as an agent, purely to get agent pricing, and does so succesfully, should nevertheless be called a failure. Pretty weird perspective if you ask me. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me show you the failure rate for the company you so dearly love, Amway.

Quixtar reports that the average income for an "active" Quixtar IBO in 2005 was $115 a month ($1,380 annually), as documented in The Quixtar IBO Compensation Plan[ and on a Quixtar website. The average annual Quixtar income for an IBO that qualified at the Platinum level in 2005 (0.1683% of IBOs) was $47,472 and for a Diamond (.0120% of IBOs) it was $146,995. The largest single annual bonus (in addition to monthly incomes) for a Diamond was $1,083,421

Like I said, 99.9% failure rate. Learn to listen.--TheEditor22 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The youtube link I posted confirms the figures I posted above. It also shows the effort that many people put into their businesses, and the losses the incurred. These people are trying, it is just not a feasable system and you know it. Get real. --TheEditor22 (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you like to do magic math as well as magic reading. There's nothing in what you said that even defines "success" and "failure", let alone gives numbers for it, nor that gives any figures on who is seriously "trying". But hey, why bother when you can just make stuff up, huh? Anyway, this article and discussion has nothing to do with Quixtar, or me. I think you've put in a claim with a lousy source, you think it's ok. Let's what and see what others say. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)#

Success is doing better than an employed salaried job. Earning $115 dollars a week, the average for Amway, is not success. --TheEditor22 (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, so if someone joins Sam's Club, buys some stuff at a discount, they're a failure because they didn't make as much income as "an employed salaried job". Yeah, that makes sense. :/ --Insider201283 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Everything AMWAY sells to it's reps just lines the pockets of a select few individuals at the top of the pyramid. Yes, pyramid! And the products the reps sell? Exorbitantly expensive. You can get way cheaper products through non-mlm channels. It's quite pathetic that you still think you're in a postion to defend yourself, and the fact you constantantly ighore the points I make just clafifies this to me further. --TheEditor22 (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk Pages Guidelines

This is patently absurd. TheEditor22, have you read the guidelines for Talk Pages? I suspect not. Have a look. I'll make it clear to you: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." You, however, seem to be under two impressions. First: that Wikipedia's purpose is to provide a soapbox for editors hostile to their subjects. Second: that negative views about a subject are the only valid ones. I've read your exchange with Insider201283, and it suggests strongly that you respect opinions only if they totally agree with your own. This is not a good place for this kind of thing. I have observed your editing history, and since 26 June 2008, when you created your user account, you have restricted yourself entirely to ACN. This tends to confirm my first impression of you, namely, that you come here with a specific agenda and that's the only thing you're here for. The strongly suggests unreasoning bias. Mike (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Mike, you are well known to be an ACN representitive and so you are clearly biased towards ensuring that this article says nothing bad about wikipedia. I heard you say that before. You said "I nothing good can be said about this company then nothing bad can be said either". You obviously dont understand the concept of NPOV. It does not mean you must find a piece of good info for every piece of bad info. Otherwise how would we write about The World Trade Centre collapse. The fact is there is considerably more negative media surrounding ACN inc and as such I am documenting it in this article. It is correct and accurately portrays what thousands of people have been saying not just in forums but in news reports regarding ACN. This is not an ACN brochure mike, and I KNOW that you have tried to make one on your userpage before. 99.9% of people fail at ACN. By fail I mean, not achieve a living wage. --TheEditor22 (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice lecture. You "KNOW" I have tried to make one on my user page before? Oh, that's rich. It's still there in case you haven't noticed. Another anti-ACN editor tried to have it removed. And failed, because the others brought in for the discussion decided that it was within guidelines for use of a personal sandbox. It's still there, and since you make such a point about it, I think I will keep it there, instead of deleting it myself as unproductive, which was my original plan. On the other hand, you make my case for me just brilliantly with your paragraph above. I want to see an accurate article in Wikipedia on ACN, which means hewing to a neutral point of view. Since I am a fan of the company, I realize that I have to be careful about my facts and my presentation. You, on the other hand, appear to have an active animus against the company, but do not seem to be capable of recognizing that attitude as a potentially dangerous bias as well. You're right that I once wrote that if nothing good can be said, than nothing bad can be either. By saying that I did not mean that there must be one good thing for every bad thing in the article. I meant that if factual positives were not permitted to be written than neither should factual negatives. Do you not see that if no positive facts about ACN are permitted in the article, then the article becomes an anti-ACN brochure, which is just as bad as a pro-ACN brochure? If you don't see it, then this discussion is useless. Mike (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can find positive facts from a non-acn related news media source, then by all means include it. As far as I am aware, all the news articles covering ACN have negative things to say. The NAM article that I sourced is staying because it's from a reputable news source. I notice plenty of references to ACN produced material. That is obviously not impartial. The NAM reference is staying, and you will come to realise that. The majority of people on Wikipedia are not gullable enough to concider ACN a good business model and will clearly see that the NAM article has a lot more credibility than any of your ACN related sources. --TheEditor22 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually did include what positive things from ACN I could from the fox news broadcast. I included ACN's defence. As for the NAM article, I expect the wikipedia community will see it as the reliable source that it is.--TheEditor22 (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Last lede edits

TheEditor22, you cannot simply keep adding serious accusations against a company without proper sourcing. The only source you put in these last edits was a youtube video, and they're explictly not allowable as sources on wikipedia. They should also not being going in the intro, which is a summary of the article --Insider201283 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think the source is incorrectly labelled then label it correctly. It is a genuine Fox News article and you know it. You dont delete things you disagree with. If you think it shouldnt be in the main article then create a subheading called "accusations". Also, I dont think I intended to have Youtube as a source. Merely as a place people could go to view the news broadcast because, last time i checked, people dont record the news. I also maintained NPOV by inluding ACN's defence to the allegations in question. If this was the cold war I can tell that you would be Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditor22 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also Insider, the youtube link comes under convenience links. I suggest you look at the rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_format_citations

"A "convenience link" is a link to a copy of your source on a webpage provided by someone other than the original publisher or author. For example, a copy of a newspaper article no longer available on the newspaper's website may be hosted elsewhere. When offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary, and that it does not infringe the original publisher's copyright."

It is obviously genuine, and I could find other sites that host this article. You either don't know the rules around here, or you're making them up to suit your purpose...which clearly is to hide the truth.--TheEditor22 (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious unsourced allegations should NEVER be put in an article, particularly for living people or active companies. The claims you are inserting would go reasonably under a "criticism" or "controversy" section. As for the fox news, find an article. Key tenets of wikipedia is that claims, and sources, have to be Verifiable and Reliable. Youtube videos have been declared unreliable (that may change). Without some print or other official Fox source, the allegations are unreliable. Even if they're 100% true, wikipedia policy is without verifiable reliable sources, it shouldn't be included. This is especially so with controversial issues. From WP:V - +

- ::The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. + Also Insider, the youtube link comes under convenience links. I suggest you look at the rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_format_citations - :--Insider201283 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The youtube video is also a copyright violation, so again not a usable source. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont need to provide a link as a source. I have provided the name of the broadcaster and the individual who read the article. By your reasoning you can't reference the radio. Get real will you....you've lost.

You're also contradicting yourself because by acknowledging that the Youtube video violates copywrite you accept that it is a genuine Fox 11 News publication. I am going to take you down Insider....I 100% am going to strive to present an accurate portrayal of ACN on this article whatever it takes. And if you keep this up I'm going to include Amway in my to do list...--TheEditor22 (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

How am I contradicting myself? Youtube videos are generally not allowed as sources, and definitely not allowed if they are copyright violations. The source you are claiming is NOT VERIFIABLE. Television shows generally aren't, so they can't be used unless the video is available from a reliable, verifiable source. it doesn't matter whether the show and allegations are real or not - you can't put them in wikipedia without a reliable, verifiable source. Furthermore, that's just ONE of the claims you've got in the section you've added. The others have no sources at all. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Insider. I've changed the source to the official Fox news website. In your face...--TheEditor22 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Bravo! Now your getting it. That's an allowable source. Nothing to do with my face or your face. Still should be moved into the body of the article, and you still need sources for the other claims. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The following information is all sourced from the Fox News article:

A report by Fox news in December 2008, claims ACN has left "a trail of people misled about money-making opportunities". [12] Former representitives also describe how there is "no emphasis on selling the product" and that they are only interested in getting representitives to recruit. Robert FitzPatrick, the author of False Profits, described ACN as being similar to a pyramid scheme because it is based on the endless chain theory. A legal consultant for the company has defended ACN by declaring that it is simply offering business opportunities and that it complies with multileval marketing law. ACN independent representities are prohibited from guaranteeing any income from projecting earnings. Undercover video evidence from Fox 11 News shows an ACN recruiting pitch that says ACN representitives could within six months be earning a $33,000 a month salary.

It's your opinion that this should be moved to elsewhere in the article. I'm not sure that most people viewing the ACN article would agree with you. Will you keep your propaganda out? You have deliberatly been extremely difficult.... --TheEditor22 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ACN is well known for having a pyramid scheme type structure, and high failure rate - I think there is no reason not to include these controversies on the site.--Martin Ford (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin - Wikipedia needs reasons to include, not reasons not to include. Unless you can follow [[WP:V] and WP:RS then something shouldn't be included, doesn't matter how "well known" it supposedly is. TheEditor22 has now provided a source for his edits, however the sumamry of the Fox show it still requires work to achieve WP:BALANCE. The article currently makes no mention for example of the interviews of people who were making money and happy with the company. As to the "pyramid scheme type structure" Iv'e been looking through ACN documents, and as best as I can tell you don't get paid a thing for recruiting people, which is a requirement to be considered a pyramid scheme. If there's any ACN reps reading this, I'd appreciate it if you can direct me to info on what the $499 TC joing fee gets you? And what's it get that the $99 fee doesn't? The site and docs are rather hard to interpret. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've told you already Insider, it is all cited. First to the NAM article and second to Fox report. What is wrong with you?--TheEditor22 (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

TheEditor22 - what is wrong with you? I've stated you've now got an allowable source. I still don't think the NAM source is usable. Why on earth do you think an article rife with errors is a reliable source? Also, you might like to explain why you left out the positive interviews from the FOX article? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no proper response from anybody leaving the ACN meeting other than "we're not allowed to speak on the companies behalf". It's an accurate description of the video. It does not need any changing. It's an impartial source and i've documented it accurately. I included the lawyers defence for the company. What more do you want? Will you just leave it alone....--TheEditor22 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There was an interview with one guy saying he was unemployed and was now making more money than he could believe or some such. There was another with a lady saying it was a fantastic company. Fox was "balanced" enough to include that kind of stuff, if the show is going to be described then that shouldn't be left out.--Insider201283 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh but their opinions arent credible Insider. I mean, like you said with the previous source I included...they're just one opinion. The invidivuals that I did reference have a reason to be referenced. IE the lawyer for ACN, or the author of a book on companies that offer false promises. I'm not going to reference that "some woman said the company is fantastic". That is as bad as referencing forums....--TheEditor22 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. You added the following In an article by the New America Media, the majority of the money made directly from customers by representitives goes to representitives above them. A former ACN representive explains how the "real money" is made by signing new representitives. Entirely apart from the poor grammar, neither of these is citing anything other than gossip. It appears you think it's perfectly OK to quote such (poor) sources when it fits what you want, but not when you disagree with it? --Insider201283 (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Court Cases

Let's review wikipedia consensus on these types of things - (1)Primary source documents are to be avoided whenever possible. (2)Allegations made against a company or person in a court case should not be reported unless receiving significant coverage in 3rd party sources (3)A court case where allegations were made, and found to be false, should not receive extensive coverage, if covered at all. The Australian case received media coverage and deserves coverage, but as ACN won the case, focusing on the allegations would not follow WP:BALANCE The Pennsylvania case appears to have received very little 3rd party coverage, as such it's notability is questionable. Nevertheless I found a better source and more relevant information about the settlement - and you deleted it. The French case is fine as is - however words like "further" and "finally" are unencyclopedic words that are not simply reporting facts, but rather used to "build a case". As for the article as a whole, this is a multi-million dollar company that's been around for what, 15 years in multiple countries involving hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people. In the interest of WP:BALANCE 3 "lawsuits" (one isn't), 1 of which was won by ACN, and one of which is barely notable, should not occupy so much of the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're twisting the wiki rules again... Court cases in and of themselves are not always notable. Seeing as they are related to ACN, a notable company, all the court cases are clearly notable. The details and allegations in the court cases are very important in understanding why the courtcase came about in the first place. If you want to add a better source for the settlement then go ahead. As long as you dont delete any of the court material this time. The article is pretty underdeveloped as it is. I have noticed numerous attempts to increase the length. I guess you have a problem with the fact that most news sources related to ACN have something negative to say....--TheEditor22 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Insider / Editor, firstly thanks for both putting in the effort and time to update this marvelous article. From this discussion it shows you both have a lot of intrest in this fine establishment, and care a great deal. I do just have one comment - I am inclined to graciously concur with TheEditor22 on the previous subject. You should not in fact reference obscure comments from unnamed participants of video clips. Please do both continue you splendid and magnificent work. Post-hence I leave my abode, I notice, Insider, that you initially removed the court information giving the reason "weasel words". You now appear to have a completely different reason for removing it. Please refrain from adding bias to this article. Muchas Gracias —Preceding unsigned comment added by CabbageMan57 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

CabbageMan57 - I notice this comment is your sole contribution to Wikipedia. What encouraged you to comment on just this? --Insider201283 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring and Sockpuppetry

I have just reported TheEditor22 for Edit Warring and Sockpuppetry.

Check here for the report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring These three new WP editors all appear to be sockpuppets:

• 16:29, 28 June 2009 Martin Ford - edited the ACN Inc. article at: Special:Contributions/Martin_Ford, and was also used as a backup for TheEditor22 in a discussion.
• 19:16, 28 June 2009 CabbageMan57 - used to provide an opinion (false consensus) backing up TheEditor22 on the ACN talk page at: Talk:ACN_Inc.#Court_Cases
• 21:31, 28 June 2009 David J Steadson - used to provide an opinino (false consensus) backing up TheEditor22 on the ACN talk page at Talk:ACN_Inc.#Court_Cases

In short, TheEditor22 is editing Wikipedia in bad faith, with an implacable bias, and is creating a veritable sockpuppet army to achieve his ends.

That is a blatent lie. I have been completely independent in this discussion.--TheEditor22 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"...completely independent..."? Oddly enough, that's completely true! If Martin Ford, CabbageMan57, and David J Steadson are your sock puppets then it's a case of "you, yourself, and you" -- completely independent of anyone else. In short, you just did a Freudian slip. Now, it's possible that three brand-new editors who are not you just happened to show up at around the same time and did nothing but edit the ACN article and talk page in your support. I admit the possibility. But I don't think it's likely, unless these three people are friends or relatives of yours and you're asking them to come in and back you up. The admins can check the IP addresses of these users to see if they are likely to be sock puppets or not. I'll apologize if they turn out to not be your sock puppets.

But you're still edit-warring. Mike (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I came to look at the issue from the Edit War noticeboard, and I have made some minor changes to make it less POV (in either direction).Martinlc (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)