Talk:Amway

RFC: Wording of Lede Paragraph

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A clear no consensus. --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

---

There have been several proposals as to how a paragraph in the lede section as to whether Amway has been said to be a pyramid scheme. In the Survey, select A, or B, or C, or provide another proposal. (If there is no consensus, then this RFC may be relisted by choosing only two options.) Robert McClenon (talk)

Proposal A: Amway has been subject to several investigations whether it runs a pyramid scheme. The investigations took place in the United States[1], the United Kingdom[2], and two states in India.[3][4][5]. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom[6] cleared the company of the charges.

Proposal B.: Amway has been examined by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States,[7] the High Court in United Kingdom,[8] and governments of two states in India[9][10][11] for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States[12] and by the High Court in the United Kingdom[13] cleared the company of charges.

Proposal C.: Amway has been described as a pyramid scheme and has been the target of several lawsuits for unfair and deceptive business practices. A 1979 FTC case concluded that while Amway was not a pyramid scheme, the company was guilty of price-fixing, making exaggerated income claims, and selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors.[14][15][16][17] In 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against Amway claiming that the company was running an illegal pyramid scheme.[18][19] Amway settled the case, paying out $150 million for restitution to consumers and reform costs. The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[20] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[21][22]

Specify which option you want in the Survey. Do not engage in threaded discussion. Threaded discussion may be in the Threaded Discussion section. Be civil and concise in both the Survey and the Threaded Discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Well, option C (or a variant thereof) obviously, since it is the only version that comes close to meeting the requirements for WP:LEAD; i.e., specifically to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies...mention of significant criticism", appearing in the body text. Not sure what a straight up vote accomplishes though (especially with 3 WP:SPAs representing the entire opposing side of the dispute). It's the details that matter. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• If the authors are permitted to leave their opinion too (and as per the previous commentary I assume we can), I prefer version B as it is the most accurate one. Version A is my second choice. The prominent controversy around Amway (according to the coverage in the published sources around the world) is clearly only one issue, i.e. a pyramid scheme accusation, as it is a global controversy that was raised in several countries. One-time issue such as price fixing which occurred 40 years ago in one country is clearly not a prominent controversy given that Amway now operates in 100+ countries and territories. The settled case doesn't tell us anything because there was "no admission of guilt" clause (which is ommitted in the version C). All these other issues can be found in the article body. If they were considered prominent, then where is the information about $830M Vioxx case in the Merck_&_Co. lead? Or €211M price fixing case in Procter_&_Gamble lead? Or Microsoft? Or Apple_Inc.? Why should we treat Amway differently?

Moreover, the version C is misleading as it is presenting the half-truths by using inaccurate and misleading quotes about what the media really said about the India case, which makes the version C non-NPOV and non balanced. (Where is the information about the reaction of Minister of Corporate Affairs? Where is the court's decision that said the Act did not prima facie apply, etc.?). FTC found that Amway had been selling overpriced products? How can we say this when the fact is that the FTC found the opposite?! The version C would only serve one purpose - to create a bad impression on Amway by using misleading statements and to disseminate even more misinformation about the company. It's been five years already that this article has been under a strong negative POV pushing attack and I am sure that this is not what Wikipedia was meant to be. I hope that the truth (not half-truths) is what really matters and that it eventually wins.--Historik75 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Version B is probably the best, though I'm doubtful "allegations" in a couple of Indian states that never went to court deserve a place in the lede. As mentioned in the earlier discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard, version C is not only factually incorrect and unsupported by RS, it does not remotely reflect the prominence of coverage in reliable sources.--Icerat (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, per Rhode Island Red, since WP:LEAD is pretty clear, and the multiple cases are all significant and well documented, C is the best choice. A isn't too bad, but B is far, far too whitewashed to be usable. Trying to downplay this complex issue in order to exonerate Amway is unacceptable. Grayfell (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• A or B as C is argumentative in esse. The clear summary is that no court has found Amway to be a "pyramid scheme" operating contrary to law. The snark that it is "overpriced" could easily apply to many companies, and "overpricing" is not specifically a violation of law with regard to Amway. The goal of any Wikipedia article is neutrality in point of view, and the fact that editors "know" how horrid Amway is, is something Wikipedia policy states is not to be used as a factor in editing any article. The arrest of Pinckney is of very marginal value to Wikipedia readers [23] "While Kerala police have perhaps have taken the fight against MLMs to a new level by publicly placing a CEO in handcuffs, it’s another matter whether they can outlaw MLMs altogether." is clear in tenor - other companies have, in the past, had people arrested in India without convictions. Coca Cola was "ordered" to hand over its formula in the past [24] and have an India company control the formula with Coke having to hand over 60% control <g>. So Coca Cola was illegal in India for close to two decades. There is a slim possibility that arrests might have been made on the basis of commercial interests in some regions of this world. (multiple business sources available elaborating thereon) Collect (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not simply whether a court has or has not found Amway to be a pyrmaid scheme. The issue is that the current version of the lead fails to adequately summarize controversy and criticism covered in the body text of the article as required by WP:LEAD. The pyramid scheme detail is but one aspect of the controversy and criticism that Amway has been the subject of. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to include text in the lead that simply says the FTC found Amway to not be a period scheme, since the second part of the FTC ruling was that Amway was "guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims" and that these transgressions were "false and misleading".[25] Furthermore, Amway received a court order to stop making such claims, but they subsequently violated the CDO and were fined as a result. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Clue: Arguing in a section which is specifically designed to not hold extended colloquies is unlikely to either be read by anyone, sway anyone's opinions here, or elicit any extended response from me. Collect (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Neither; I was summoned here by the bot, and I am pretty sure after reading over the discussion below, none of the options presented above are completely satisfactory to the community. I suggest we try to make some concessions and come up with another draft. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with FoCuSandLeArN. I think I would go with A, but add in the 1979 case from C. EllenCT (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The first half of C, definitely including the FTC findings and also including the settlement. But not the India cases which are just charges. Though no court has found it to be a pyramid scheme, a regulatory agency has found it guilts of illegal trade practices. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Version B or A. And I would remove India beause of all the reasons described by others in the threaded discussion. I agree with Icerat that the version C is factually incorrect.--Plantium (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Both of the SPAs that have commented in the survey so far have made virtually identical hyperbolic claims -- i.e., "Version C is misleading as it is presenting the half-truths by using inaccurate and misleading quotes"[26] and "version C is not only factually incorrect and unsupported by RS, it does not remotely reflect the prominence of coverage in reliable sources"[27] -- but in neither case did these editors make any attempt to provide one iota of evidence to support such an assertion (thus bypassing the ultimate purpose of Talk page discussion, which is to reach a valid WP:CONSENSUS -- not simply to take a straight up/down vote vote). Nor have they addressed the fact that Versions A and B (their preferred whitewashed versions) do not even remotely satisfy the requirements of WP:LEAD with respect to coverage of controversies and criticism contained in the body text of the article, while Version C does so quite fittingly.

I already provided the evidence to show that the Version C (or perhaps a slight variant thereof) is well supported by a plethora of sources with respect to Amway India[28] -- the evidence was simply ignored. If there were any inaccuracies of NPOV problems in Version C, they could have been pointed out by now, in detail, so that they could be corrected. In no scenario would it be valid to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater, and especially not in the absence of a counter-proposal for a version that adequately sums up the body text of the article (which happens to contain a significant amount of controversy/criticism as reflected by scores of WP:RS).

In addition to the content previously proposed in Version C, and in keeping with the retirements of WP:LEAD, the Canadian tax fraud case would also merit inclusion in the lead.[29] Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by WP:DUE per coverage in sources, which may not directly match assumptions about significance. Comparisons to price fixing at Microsoft (a company at least ten-times as large under a hundred times the scrutiny) falls under other stuff. Including mention of the anti-trust accusations in the lede seems like a valid idea, actually, but that would have to be decided based at that article's talk page, based on other problems, other sources, and other details. Trying to compare Amway to other popular but controversial companies is transparently misleading and pure distraction. Amway isn't the same as Apple Inc and its labor problems, or Microsoft and antitrust, or whatever. This needs to be judged on its own merits. Reliable sources about Amway tend to mention this, a lot, and so should the article. Grayfell (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The examples I used were there to demonstrate one important point - that the Amway article is treated differently and based on the opinion of relatively small number of people who back up their edits with invalid arguments. Remember that this dispute arose because of one edit that deleted the information about FTC case because according to the editor, some other countries found Amway to be a pyramid scheme.[30] The other editor, apparently without any verification, agreed and the change was allowed.[31] When I questioned the information upon which the edit had been made and requested a source that would prove it, I was ignored. I suggested the article to be reverted to its original form or changed to the version that would include FTC case. This is well documented on the Talk page and this is also the reason why we are now here.

Re India: in no way the version C can be considered NPOV and balanced, as it fails to mention the facts that put a whole different light on what this case is really all about:

a) In fact, none of the sources cited ever said that "Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act." or "Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway." Instead, they said: "Pinckney and the two other directors were arrested in connection with a case filed by a certain Visalakshi of Kozhikode" and "he was arrested by Andhra Police in connection with criminal cases against the firm in the state".

To say "Being arrested for violating PCMCS Act" is an offense as it implies that he actually did it which was not confirmed by the court. Moreover, there is much information missing from the Proposal C, which put a whole different light on what this case was really all about, such as:

b) Commenting on the Amway incident in 2013, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot said that it "is disappointing that such an eventuality came about." and he also said: "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible."[32][33][34][35]

c) The charges in India were based on an outdated 38 years old Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, which had been created 20 years before direct selling companies entered the market.[36][37]

d) The state High Court issued an injunction against the CID and stated the Act did not prima facie apply.[38]

e) After the Amway incident, India is now pressured to create the separate regulation for direct selling which is still missing there.[39][40][41]

In short, according to the sources above (and others [42][43][44][45]), including the Indian official,[46][47][48] the case is clearly a misuse of the Act that could only take place because of absolutely no regulation for direct selling in India. India promised to create it years and years ago, but nothing happened. Amway, in its statement regarding this issue stated: "It is pertinent to note here that content of all the recently filed FIRs is identical to each other and have been filed by advocates or activists."[49] So all of these events appear to be one person's activity.

In the light of these facts this incident could hardly be called "a controversy" (unless we want to call the outdated Act controversial) and thus it is not worth mentioning in the lead. But I am willing to make a compromise and mention that there was some investigation in India, based on the fact that it got some coverage in the newspapers, if the much more important, relevant and landmark FTC case is also mentioned.

While I've mentioned these facts for several times, any of the opponents ever addressed these issues, they were simply ignored. So, the question is: do we really consider the harassment of Amway India by police[50] to be called a controversy that should be in the lead? Nobody has ever answered my questions.--Historik75 (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate however, that you wrote that the version A was not too bad. Would you be willing to make a compromise and change the current version to this one?--Historik75 (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red claims I provided no evidence to support the claim Version C "does not remotely reflect the prominence of coverage in reliable sources", however the reality is I provided examples of 4 different RS - include 2 independent books entirely devoted to Amway, one by a well-respected business academic - that devote significant coverage to the FTC case that virtually ignore the price fixing and income claim issues (and make no mention of his product pricing and business support materials claims) . Professor Charles King Book on network marketing , The New Professionals, references Amway and the FTC on some 20 pages. The price fixing and income claims findings are not mentioned. Professor Nicole Woolsey Biggart's well regarded book on the Direct Selling Industry in America, Charismatic Capitalism discusses Amway on 19 pages and the FTC on three. The price fixing and income claims findings are not mentioned. Even Amway critic Steve Butterfield's off-cited self-published book, Amway: The Cult of Free Enterprise doesn't mention these findings .. I can provide many many such references. While I'm open to being corrected I suspect Rhode Island Red and Grayfell have never even read any of these seminal works on the topic. These two issues clearly barely even deserve mention in the body of the article, let alone the lede.

Rhode Island Red also claims I provide no evidence to support the claim Version C is factually incorrect. This is because Historik75 had already done that, with a direct quote from the FTC case that contradicted his claim about "over-priced products". His claim regard business support materials is proved by simply reading the decision - the topic is not even mentioned once.. To put even more emphasis on this, the wikipedia article entirely devoted to the case doesn't mention these claims at all, let alone in it's lede. Why? Because they simply don't exist. Furthermore, he provides four "sources" to back up his claim - two of which are non-RS opinion piece and one of which is a non-RS review of a self-published book - and none of them actually support his(or her?) claim --Icerat (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

References

I would add that the direct quote proving that FTC did not find the Amway products to be overpriced has appeared in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and it went like this:

"On a cost per use basis, in 1967, SA8 was less than 3 cents and Tide was about 7 cents. At this time, SA8 use direction was 5/32 cup per washload and Tide was 1.75 cup. The cost per use drew close in 1968 when the use direction was changed: SA8 1/4 cup and Tide 1.25 cup. In 1972, Tide again changed its use direction to 1 cup per washload, in response to 'phosphate down the drain' legislation. (CX 561­ Z­11­12) Since then SA8 has cost about 1 cents to 2 cents per use more than Tide and the other leading laundry detergents. Sold in the large size (100 1bs.), however, SA8 has a lower per use cost than any laundry detergent. (CX 561­Z­14) In 1973, Amway introduced SA8 Plus, selling at retail for about the same as SA8, but apparently superior in cleaning power to either SA8 or Tide. (CX 561­Z, Z­3 to Z­4) And, unlike detergent purchased at the grocery store, Amway's products are delivered to the consumer's home. (Max, Tr. 6045)"[51]

I surely would like any editor to explain here how this can be seen as a proof for the claim that Amway sells "overpriced products".--Historik75 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: "2 independent books entirely devoted to Amway, one by a well-respected business academic - that devote significant coverage to the FTC case that virtually ignore the price fixing and income claim issues."[52]

This is one of the weirder arguments presented so far: i.e., essentially saying that it doesn't matter if a statement (about price fixing for instance) is supported by reliable sources if other sources exist (2 books about Amway in this case) that don't mention that same detail. That's simply not how WP works. If necessary we can go through every line of proposed version C and discuss in detail whether the WP:RS presented do or do not support the proposed text. I have already presented a plethora of valid sources that discuss the legal issues with Amway India, for instance, and the response has basically been "no you're wrong" without specifying clearly why it's wrong, and if it is wrong, how it should be modified for accuracy. Again, WP:LEAD requires that significant controversies/criticism discussed in the article be summarized in the lead. There have been no specific proposals coming from the 2 WP:SPAs that come close to doing so. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

So I will ask again: Would you please answer my questions? Why you ommitted the details re Indian case? Do you consider the above mentioned statement to be proof that Amway sells overpriced products? Thank you.--Historik75 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a pointless question. If you feel that some significant detail has been omitted and have an alternate version to propose, then simply make the proposal. That's how this process works. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I of course already have proposed an alternate version. In fact, I proposed several of them with two of them being here as Proposals A and B. Pointless question? The point is very simple and I am sure everybody understands - your version is clearly non-NPOV and non-balanced and incorrect and I gave you a chance to back it up with some explanation as to why you ommitted the most important points. Silence is an answer too.--Historik75 (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

au contraire, Red, that's precisely how WP is supposed to work. WP:WEIGHT - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". In this specific case you are wishing to give undue weight to a minor event, as evidenced by it's lack of prominence in RS. Indeed this entire article fails the test of proportionality, which also needs to be addressed. --Icerat (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If you continue to insist that the information presented in Version C gives “undue weight to a minor event” with respect to Amway India, then it is clear that you understand neither the meaning of “a minor event” nor “undue weight”. I have already presented roughly a dozen sources[53] that support Version C (or a close variant thereof). They cannot be arbitrarily dismissed in such a manner, and if that’s the approach you’re going to take with this discussion then I am afraid the chances of this being a fruitful exercise are roughly zero. Having no interest in wasting still more time re-explaining the obvious to a brick wall, the next logical step will likely be a user conduct RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I was about to point out I wasn't even talking about Amway India, and then you respond below by making it very clear you knew I wasn't talking about Amway India. --Icerat (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Version C -- 1979 FTC decree: "Price fixing" and "exaggerated income claims"

Re: Proposed Version C, sentence #2 – “A 1979 FTC case concluded that while Amway was not a pyramid scheme, the company was guilty of price-fixing, making exaggerated income claims, and selling overpriced products and business support materials to their distributors.”

Countering the inexplicable objections to this proposed text raised by the two WP:SPAs, the simple fact is that the details about price fixing and exaggerated income claims in this sentence are unambiguously and overwhelmingly supported by WP:RS, including both the FTC court docket (the primary source) and follow-up statement by the FTC, as well as by 4 other reliable secondary sources. It is an airtight slam dunk and their objections carry no merit whatsoever.

• “In 1979, the FTC cleared Amway of operating a pyramid scheme but did find it guilty of price-fixing and making exaggerated income claims.”[54]
• “Amway's tie to the phrase "pyramid scheme" dates back decades to when the company was investigated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in the late 1970s. The federal agency ruled Amway was not an illegal pyramid scheme, but was guilty of price fixing and overstating income potential.”[55]
• The Federal Trade Commission found Amway guilty of price fixing in 1979 and ordered the firm to stop misrepresenting potential earnings to new salespeople.[56]
• "Conclusions: We conclude that respondents have agreed and combined with each other and/or Amway distributors to fix the resale prices of Amway products, at both wholesale and retail levels, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Respondents have also made earnings and sales claims which have the capacity to deceive the potential distributors to whom they have been made; this too is in violation of Section 5. We have decided that it is appropriate and necessary to order respondents to cease and desist from these violations, and from certain offenses reasonably related to them.[57]
• "The Commission held that, although Amway had made false and misleading earnings claims when recruiting new distributors, the company's sales plan was not an illegal pyramid scheme.[58]
• “The FTC in 1979 found that Amway was not a pyramid scheme but ordered the company to stop making misleading earnings claims and fixing prices and to disclose information on the average income for its salespeople.”[59]

Furthermore, Amway was found to have subsequently violated the 1979 FTC consent decree and was ordered to pay a $100,000 penalty, which is also noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in the lead:

• “In 1986, Amway agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty in a consent decree for violating the 1979 ruling, after Amway placed ads that represented higher-than-average distributor earnings without stating the actual average results or percentage of distributors who actually met the represented claims.”[60][61]

Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You're arguing a straw man here, Red. Nobody has denied they are supported by RS, indeed the contrary. The issue is with balance and prominence, particularly with regard to the lede. I can probably provide you 1000 RS talking about Amway that don't mention these issues, or if they do, spend exactly one or two phrases on them within a much much larger article. Indeed, your very examples support my case, with not a single one of them devoting anything more than this to the issue. As it happens I believe the price-fixing issue deserves more coverage in RS, and this is something I've raised in other forums. Amway being found guilty on this -and why - has a direct influence on the manner in which MLMs can track independent agents retail customer sales, a matter of some controversy in recent years (eg HLF and Bill Ackman). It's a topic that deserves discussion. Wikipedia however is about reflecting what has been said in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. In the meantime, how about answering Historik75's questions?--Icerat (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is purely WP:TE. The text is supported by both the FTCs documents (primary sources) and various secondary sources. It doesn't matter if other sources fail to mention the facts -- and these are facts because they are explicitly stated verbatim in the FTC documents. Arguing about this is ridiculous and will get us nowhere. If you cannot cede even the most obvious points and continue to eat up resources like this, we will have to pursue alternate avenues of DR. A user conduct report for WP:DE, WP:COI, and WP:SOAP is warranted at this point, especially in light of potential WP:SOCK issues at play here.[62] Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Again you fail to address the concerns and issues I (and Historik75) have raised, instead simply spouting threats. If your "resources" are unable to actually participate sensibly in the discussion, then may I suggest you take a break from editing wikipedia? --Icerat (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if you answered the questions about India you wouldn't need to hide behind warnings for disruptive editing. And of course how you could reach consensus with Arthur Rubin when there was absolutely no way how you could verify that in some countries Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme. It didn't happen. Yet, you agreed and allowed the FTC case to be deleted from the lead. I only wanted to add it back or revert it to the original version - i.e. improve the article. You were the one who not only engaged in WP:DE but refused to communicate. Sorry.--Historik75 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This thread is not about Amway India. It is conspicuously labeled as referring to specific text in Proposal C regarding the FTC's ruling on "price fixing" and "exaggerated income claims". Your comment is off topic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't noticed it. Copied the message below.--Historik75 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Version C -- India non-balanced irrelevant text + pyramid issue

RIR, perhaps if you answered the questions about India you wouldn't need to hide behind warnings for disruptive editing (see the preceding section). And of course how you could reach consensus with Arthur Rubin when there was absolutely no way how you could verify that in some countries Amway was found to be a pyramid scheme. It didn't happen. Yet, you agreed and allowed the FTC case to be deleted from the lead. I only wanted to add it back or revert it to the original version - i.e. improve the article. You were the one who not only engaged in WP:DE but refused to communicate. Sorry.--Historik75 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that nonconstructive comment pertains to content regarding Amway India in the lead or why it was necessary to post it twice. Also, not interested in re-ligating your account of how we got here; only goal here is to come up with suitable text that satisfies the requirements of WP:LEAD regarding summary of criticism and controversy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In other words you are saying that Arthur Rubin is allowed to make any change he wants regardless the fact that he backed it up with an invalid argument and no source and you will not allow me to revert such an unjustified edit and you will not explain anything to me. Instead you will propose another biased lead containing the half-truths to present the company in the worst light and will not accept the arguments that would explain to the readers that according to the published sources (e.g. [63][64][65][66]), including the Indian official,[67][68][69] the case is clearly a misuse of the PCMCS Act that could only take place because there is absolutely no regulation for direct selling in India.

Okay, I understand. This is certainly not the way to reach consensus. I hope the other editors will read the whole discussusion and will make their opinion based on the validity of arguments.--Historik75 (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Amway India in Lead

According to WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies...and significant criticism". Towards that end, I proposed the following text (c.f., Version C) in regard to legal cases against Amway and its executives in India, which unarguably represents a “prominent controversy”:

“The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[70] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[71][72]

The proposed text above is well supported by numerous sources that have covered the Amway India cases, as detailed below:

• "Amway India Chairman and Chief Executive William S Pinckney has been arrested by Andhra Pradesh Police in connection with a criminal case registered against the direct-selling company. The CEO has been booked under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, besides charges of cheating as well as extortion under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This is the second time that the Amway India CEO has been taken into custody. Kerala police had arrested Pinckney as well as two Amway directors last year for alleged financial irregularities. The AP police, in a statement, said in 2006, the CID Police of the state, on a complaint, had registered a criminal case against Amway which in turn approached High Court of AP requesting to declare that its scheme does not fall under the provisions of "The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978…However, a division bench of the High Court held that the scheme of Amway is illegal Money Circulation Scheme and falls within the "mischief of definition of Money Circulation Scheme" Subsequently, the Supreme Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Amway, the AP police statement said."[73]

• “Pinckney was arrested on May 26 from Amway India’s headquarters at Gurgaon… He was subsequently arrested in other criminal cases registered against him in the state on allegations of financial irregularities by Amway.”[74]

• “William S Pinckney, the chief executive officer of Amway India, was arrested yesterday by the crime branch of Kerala Police along with two other directors of the company...The company is said to have been violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.”[75]

• “Kerala Police on Monday arrested William Scott Pinckney, managing director and chief executive of direct selling consumer products company Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, for allegedly duping members of its direct sales network in Wayanad district. The police also arrested two of his Indian colleagues, Sanjay Malhotra and Anshu Budhiraja, vice-president and director, and chief financial officer, respectively, at Amway India. The accused face similar charges of overpricing products and fraudulent practices in nearby Kozhikode district, too, police said… Also, they were involved in money chain, which is prohibited under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978.”[76]

• "This is not the first time that Amway India has come under scrutiny. In 2006, Amway offices in Andhra Pradesh were shut on allegations that the company was running a pyramid scheme. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also observed that company's business model was identical to money circulation schemes and termed its operation as illegal."[77]

• “Last year, Kerala Police had arrested Pinckney and two company directors on charges of cheating. Although Pinckney was released the next day, the other executives were booked under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.”[78]

• “William S Pinckney, Amway's India CEO was arrested on Monday on charges of cheating and other financial fraud and jailed in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh where he has been remanded to custody till June 7. Charges were framed against him under section 420 of IPC (cheating) and sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978. This is not the first time Amway has courted controversy in India. It has been in news intermittently since 2006 when its offices in Andhra Pradesh were shuttered on allegations that Amway was running a pyramid scheme. A chargesheet was also filed. In 2013 as well, Pinckney and two India directors were arrested by the Kerala police after a case was filed against Amway for alleged unethical practices of money circulation.”[79]

• “The legal pursuit of Amway in India goes at least back to September 2006. After a public complaint from the Reserve Bank of India, the company’s business practices came into question. Police in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh raided the offices of various Amway distributors. Officials said Amway had violated the "Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act of 1979," which outlaws pyramid schemes and similar money circulation scams. Distributor offices were shut down and the company’s Indian headquarters were forced to cease operations.”[80]

• “The police said charges had been filed against Pinckney under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. This was the second time Pinckney has been arrested in this country. The Kerala police arrested him last year on similar charges.”[81]

• "Amway India CEO William S Pinckney has been released on bail, two months after he was arrested by Andhra Police in connection with criminal cases against the firm in the state."[82][83]

Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

RIR, you are apparently missing the point. He was not arrested for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, he was arrested because there were allegations that he did so (which were not confirmed). And that is a big difference! So no, the text is not supported - none of your sources mentioned that Pinckney was guilty which is what you say in your proposal. Understand?

Your interpretation is clearly negative POV pushing and it is certainly not balanced because it fails to mention these sources:

Amway chief’s arrest comes exactly a year after Kerala police took him into custody[84]

• Last year’s arrests had attracted a lot of attention and several business and industry organisations had criticised the arrests as, they argued, would send out a wrong signal to international investors. The then Union Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot was incensed by the arrests. He publicly criticised the Kerala police for the way it had handled the arrests of the top brass of the Indian subsidiary of an American multinational corporation.

Probe ordered into Amway India Chairman’s arrest[85]

• State Home Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan directed North Zone Additional Director General of Police (ADGPA) Shankar Reddy to probe the circumstances that led to the arrest of the three key officials Pinckney, Sanjay Malhotra and Anshu Budhraja by the Crime Branch. The order for inquiry followed widespread criticism from various quarters about the need for arresting top officials in cases that involved only a small sum and the manner in which the arrests were made. Union Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot had on Thursday termed the arrest unwarranted and argued that such incidents would ‘adversely affect the country’s prospects as an investment destination’. He said the arrest may have been due to ambiguities in the rules governing direct selling and added that the federal government would remove them as “early as possible”.

Clearer laws on tackling fraud schemes soon: Sachin Pilot on Amway issue[86]

• Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot today said the government will remove as early as possible the ambiguities in laws aimed at tackling fraudulent investment schemes. "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible," Pilot said. "While steps should be taken to crack down on fraudulent companies running dubious investment schemes, companies that are reputed and abiding by the law must be delineated," the Minister said. "Such events (like Amway) might negatively affect the prospects of our country as an attractive investment destination," he noted. "While we take strong actions against ponzi schemes, we need to be careful not to create a vitiating atmosphere for reputed and law abiding companies," Pilot said.

Corporate Minister Sachin Pilot pitches for distinction between ponzi, genuine schemes[87]

• "While steps should be taken to crack down on fraudulent companies running dubious investment schemes, companies that are reputed and abiding by the law must be delineated," the Minister said. Commenting on the Amway incident, he said that "it is disappointing that such an eventuality came about. Such events (like Amway) might negatively affect the prospects of our country as an attractive investment destination". "While we take strong actions against ponzi schemes, we need to be careful not to create a vitiating atmosphere for reputed and law abiding companies," Pilot said.

Government to work on preventing a Amway repeat[88]

• "We will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law as soon as possible," corporate affairs minister Sachin Pilot said. "While steps should be taken to crack down on fraudulent companies running dubious investment schemes, companies that are reputed and law- abiding must be delineated," he said. Commenting on the Amway incident, Pilot said that "it is disappointing that such an eventuality came about. Such events might negatively affect the prospects of our country as an attractive investment destination". "While we take strong actions against ponzi schemes, we need to be careful not to create a vitiating atmosphere for reputed and law-abiding companies," he added. Amway's business model involves direct selling of various consumer products to their customers, who in turn get incentives for bringing more clients and further expanding the network. While ponzi schemes also follow a kind of network marketing model, these businesses lack any real products in many cases.

Kerala government orders probe in Amway India head William S Pinckney's arrest[89]

• In the backdrop of police action against Amway, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot had stated in Delhi yesterday that the government is looking to remove the legal ambiguities to differentiate between fraudulent ponzi schemes and genuine businesses run by "reputed and law-abiding" entities. "We (Corporate Affairs Ministry) will work closely with concerned ministries and industries to remove the ambiguity in the law (related to tackling ponzi and other fraudulent schemes) as soon as possible," he had stated.

US body seeks amendment of Act[90]

• The contention of the Amcham-India, a trade body of American companies operating in India, supported by American Embassy, is that the PCMCS was a law enacted much before the direct selling companies came into existence and could not distinguish the direct selling industry and the pyramid schemes. The body said that Amway is a direct selling company that uses multi-level marketing to sell its high quality products through independent distributors instead of from a shop or a mall. The distributors earn income from the sale of products and not by recruiting members as in pyramid schemes, it said.

Post Amway, Hindustan Unilever reviewing strategy for direct selling venture[91]

• According to Chavi Hemant, General Secretary of Indian Direct Selling Association, a body representing the direct selling companies, the PCMC Act is a major hurdle for the industry and should be amended at the earliest. “The Act was implemented at a time when there were no direct selling companies in India. This Act is detrimental to the industry and India is losing out on huge investments from several international direct selling companies.”

Amway back to business in state[92]

• HYDERABAD: Amway India dealers will now resume their business operations in the state after the Andhra Pradesh high court on Friday granted injunction to the company against CID proceedings. The court, in its order, ruled that prima facie the provisions of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (banning) Act of 1978 does not apply to Amway and ordered police not to interfere with the lawful business of Amway and its distributors, Amway's corporate communications head Rajat Banerji said speaking to reporters on Friday.

Post Amway, direct sellers seek separate policy[93]

• Mohan R. Lavi, Member, Ficci Sub-Committee on Direct Selling, said direct selling has not been defined in any Act. Because of this, other Acts (such as the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Act) are being misinterpreted and applied to such cases. This, he said, is unfortunate as the PCMC Act is primarily concerned with distribution of monies while in the case of Amway there are underlying products involved. I do not see money being circulated amongst Amway members without the sale of an underlying product, he said.

India pressured to change laws after Amway leader jailed for alleged pyramid scheme[94]

• Business groups are pressuring the government to update its 35-year-old the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978 (PCMCS), enacted against illegal lottery and money circulation schemes 20 years before legitimate direct sellers entered the market in 1998. Direct sellers shouldn't be grouped under this law, say business groups. "The Act in its present form is unable to distinguish genuine direct selling companies from pyramid or Ponzi schemes. Like other countries, India needs to amend this act and create a conducive legal environment for the Industry," Amcham India Executive Director Ajay Singha told the Hindu Business Line.

IDSA wants govt to stop harassment of direct selling industry[95]

• Hyderabad, Jun 4: Indian Direct Selling Association (IDSA) said on Wednesday that it wanted the state government to amend the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act of 1978 and provide a clear policy in the wake of arrest of Amway India head William Pinckney.

Other available sources:

• Amway CEO arrest: IDSA to write to Modi Govt
• Arrest of Amway India CEO 'big blow', govt must clarify policy: IDSA
• IDSA seeks clear law for direct selling industry
• IDSA for clear policy framework for Direct Selling Industry in India Request to Government for Immediate Operational Clarity

You can see that the case is clearly a misuse of the Act that could only take place because of absolutely no regulation for direct selling in India. India promised to create it years and years ago, but nothing happened. Amway, in its statement regarding this issue stated: "It is pertinent to note here that content of all the recently filed FIRs is identical to each other and have been filed by advocates or activists."[96] So all of these events appear to be one person's activity.

In the light of these facts this incident could hardly be called "a controversy" (unless we want to call the outdated Act controversial) and thus it is not worth mentioning in the lead.

If you'll (again) fail to understand, I am willing to explain this as many times as you want.--Historik75 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Historik75: "none of your sources mentioned that Pinckney was guilty which is what you say in your proposal. Understand?"

No, I don't understand. My proposal did not include the word "guilty" anywhere -- the accusation is a straw man. Secondly, I see that most of the sources you are quoting above are either canned responses/opinions from Amway or from the International Direct Selling Association (which represents Amway's interests), both of which are highly partisan sources, objecting to the outcomes. It's not even clear from your comment what those sources are supposed to be rebutting or what text you would propose as an alternative to the well supported text I proposed above. To say that the events involving Amway India do not represent a prominent controversy is patently absurd and violates WP:NPOV. The details are exactly what WP:LEAD refers to when it says that the lead should summarize controversies and criticism. If there are any details in my proposed text that you think are factually inaccurate, present the evidence in a clear and concise manner and it can be modified accordingly if necessary. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Historik 75: "He was not arrested for violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, he was arrested because there were allegations that he did so"

I think I finally see what you're getting at with this line of reasoning. The fix is simple enough. Instead of saying he was "arrested for violating...", the text should read "he was arrested on charges of violating...". Not a big deal. It would have saved time if you had simply suggested making that simple change instead of arguing around the point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hooray!!! I appreciate that you finally see what I have been trying to explain for several days. Now, the second part - the problem cannot be fixed simply by saing that he was arrested on charges. Although it would be accurate, it would not provide BALANCE to show the context, i.e. that the law is outdated, the police actions were criticised by both Minister and IDSA and finally, that the court decided that the Act did not prima facie apply. Your objection about IDSA representing Amway interests is irrelevant as it is covered by reliable sources and thus deserves mentioning. Moreover, neither Minister Sachin Pilot, nor the court are in any way connected with Amway. All of this is documented in the sources I have provided. These facts cannot be ommitted when you say Pinckney was arrested. But when we mention all these details, the only message would be that India have not implemented the rules re direct selling. It then raises the very basic question, whether Indian case is really of the same importance as the FTC case, i.e. to be considered a prominent controversy that would be worth mentioning in the lead. I doubt it.

Second, if we add all these details to make this information balanced, it will become so long that it would certainly not be proportional to the article body content. We would have to include many other details from the other parts of the article. The question is: isn't it better to only mention those investigations that resulted in the court decisions? All the other cases deserve their own paragraph in the article, but this is the lead and it should meet the following criteria:

• The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.
• A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows.

This is why I recommend the Proposals B or A. They mention FTC, UK and India while briefly informing the readers about the most important decisions regarding this pyramid issue. It is NPOV, though I would doubt it is well balanced as it mentions only the accusation and not the result in the case of India. But I am willing to make that compromise.--Historik75 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Your position on this untenable. Versions A and B fail to even remotely summarize prominent criticism and controversy as required by WP:LEAD. The events that took place with regard to Amway India, as described in my proposed text, are facts on the record. What you are saying is that Amway's and the ISDA's complaints about the charges somehow negate them. They don't. WP:LEAD says to summarize controversy and criticism. Amway's complaints about getting busted repeatedly in India, and the ISDA efforts to get the laws changed, are neither controversy nor criticism and not notable enough for the lead, except arguably, perhaps through inclusion of maybe one sentence saying that Amway and the ISDA protested that the charges were unfounded, or something along those lines. Space is not a critical issue. The lead can be up to 4 paragraphs. It is currently one paragraph in length and one additional paragraph has been proposed to summarize criticism and controversy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Again you are missing the point. It's neither the reaction of Amway nor IDSA which negates your arguments, it's the reaction of the court and Minister of corporate affairs and the lack of any other decision which would prove Pinckney or Amway were guilty which does so. Amway's and IDSA's reaction explain why it happened (the activity of one consumer advocate, not the activity of government officials, in combination with lack of regulation). All of this information is required for the reader to understand the specific situation in India. I can see no legitimate reason for this situation to be included among prominent controversies of the same importance as FTC case. And for those who care enough there are details in the article body.

Now, the text you proposed contains 166 words (without the details about India, such as reaction of court, Minister, Amway and IDSA) while the rest of the lead contains only 129 words. That is unproportional to the article body (2318 for controversies vs. 2882 words for the rest). Your proposal reduces the information to 7.1% while the rest is reduced to 4.5%, so your version already contains 58% more text. Including the details about India would only result in a more unproportional text. My proposals, on the other hand, reduce the controversy to 63 words (B) or 52 words (A). Then we can include something like: "In India, the court said that the Act did not prima facie apply and the state issued an order stating that genuine direct marketing should not be disturbed while investigating cases against money chain frauds.[97][98] India is now pressured to amend the Act and create the regulation for direct selling sector.[99][100][101]" (which would add 51 words) That would be 114 words (4.9%) for B or 103 words (4.4%) for A which is perfectly proportional to the rest of the text (4.5%). This will make my versions balanced regarding India and they will be self-explaining as to what happened there and also proportionally reduced in comparison with the rest of the lead. And I am willing to leave out the reaction of the Minister provided the text will contain the above mentioned sentences.--Historik75 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Historik 75: “Then we can include something like: "In India, the court said that the Act did not prima facie apply and the state issued an order stating that genuine direct marketing should not be disturbed while investigating cases against money chain frauds.[146][147]..."

What you are suggesting is that the well-supported purely factual text in Version C, which is as follows:

• “The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala and charged with violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[102] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[103][104]”

…should be amended to include your proposed sentence suggesting that a court decision was shot down. The first article you linked to (#146, Amway Back to Business In State)[105] in support of your suggestion was published in 2006, prior to Pinckney’s two arrests (in 2013 and 2014), and it therefore obviously has no bearing on those events. Additionally, it is superseded by a news article published in 2014 ("Amway India CEO arrested, remanded in judicial custody"),[106] which discusses Pinckney’s arrests and contradicts your 2006 source, as it says:

• “The AP police, in a statement, said in 2006, the CID Police of the state, on a complaint, had registered a criminal case against Amway which in turn approached High Court of AP requesting to declare that its scheme does not fall under the provisions of "The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. However, a division bench of the High Court held that the scheme of Amway is illegal Money Circulation Scheme and falls within the "mischief of definition of Money Circulation Scheme". Subsequently, the Supreme Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Amway, the AP police statement said.”

Secondly, citation number #147 [107] in your proposed text was published in 2011 and does not even mention Pinckney (it was published prior to his arrests in 2013/2014); and the only reference it makes to Amway is stating that there were 1,000 charges registered against the company (a point which, incidentally, should probably be included in the body text of the article). It mentions nothing about the courts shooting down any legal decisions. In other words, it too is a spurious source as it has no direct bearing on the controversy under discussion.

Historik 75: “''Then we can include something like..."India is now pressured to amend the Act and create the regulation for direct selling sector.[148][149][150].''"

The article numbered #148 in your reply[108] is simply irrelevant: it merely contains a quote from the former chair of a lobbying group (the Consumer Coordination Council) and a rep from the International Direct Selling Assoc (an Amway lobbying group) saying that they thought Pinckney’s arrest was unfair (so what!) and that they were seeking greater legal protection for MLMs (again, so what!). Similarly, the other 2 articles you cited merely contain after-the-fact reactions/protests from partisan sources like Amway, the IDSA, and business trade organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce who have a vested self-interest in the matter. The fact that Amway and the IDSA don’t like one of the laws (Banning Act) under which Pinckney/Amway were charged, and that they subsequently complained that that particular law should be changed, does not negate the preceding legal events nor exonerate any of the parties involved. It might not be entirely out of line to suggest including such partisan responses in the body text of the article, although even there the value would be questionable, but they certainly don’t merit inclusion in the lead, unlike the factual details of the events in India.

In summary, your proposal falls flat, whereas the text I proposed meets the requirements of WP:LEAD to summarize prominent controversy and criticism. It does so concisely, factually, and with widespread support from WP:RS.

Historik75: “That would be 114 words (4.9%) for B or 103 words (4.4%) for A which is perfectly proportional to the rest of the text (4.5%). This will make my versions balanced regarding India and they will be self-explaining as to what happened there and also proportionally reduced in comparison with the rest of the lead.”

It's not clear what you’re trying to say here. The current version of the lead is very short – far less than the 4 paragraph maximum specified in WP:LEAD. If your feel that additional general information about the company in the lead would help to balance the proposed text summarizing criticism/controversies in the lead, then have at it. That's not an issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

RIR, first let me clarify that my previous post was not meant to be a proposed modification to version C as you mentioned in your edit summary. It was a proposal of changes to the versions B and A.

Now, I must say, I am a little confused. You haven't found it necessary to expand the lead when it was reduced here: [109] - in fact you even supported the reduction when you immediatelly agreed, even though the argument upon which the edit was made had been invalid. Even more recently you haven't objected against keeping the lead as it is now, i.e. "Amway has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme." (10 words) [110]

Yet, now you somehow suddenly imply that the lead should have 4 paragraphs. May I ask how is this consistent with your previous attempt to keep the reduced version?

Back to the point: all the articles I have cited are relevant as they were published in WP:RS and cannot be ommitted in order to keep the lead NPOV. They explain what the result of the very first accusation in India was, i.e. ZERO. I assume you want a balanced lead, so it is necessary to mention the India case from the very beginning, not just the most recent event. You apparently haven't noticed it, but in my proposals there is a reference to that 2006 case. Therefore, both 2006 and 2011 articles are of course relevant. You mistakingly thought that it was meant to be an amendment to version C. No, it was meant to be an amendment to the versions B and A. Understand?

The reaction of the industry is very relevant as it puts light on where the problem was. It mentions the fact that there is a need to amend the Act as it is 38 years old and it was instituted before direct selling companies came to India. And it has to be noted that nothing has changed with regards to the operation of Amway India. It still operates in all of these states, it was not expelled from India and no court found Pinckney nor Amway guilty. So again, do you really consider this incident to be of the same importance as the FTC case where FTC itself accused Amway of being a pyramid scheme and then concluded that it was not? I can't see how the charges of one activist/group that resulted in an inevitable action of the police (yes, in India, they have to arrest you if you are charged with running a pyramid scheme) can be compared to the FTC case.

Anyway, that was only suggestion just in case you really wanted to expand the lead (which is something I am not sure about based on your posts here[111] and here[112] where you supported a short version.

Moreover, there is no direction which would order that the lead has to have 4 paragraphs. WP:LEAD only says: "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs", i.e. a sentence which limits the length to 4 paragraphs or less. One paragraph (or two as we certainly can divide it to two paragraphs if you want) is certainly less than four, so my proposals perfectly meet this condition.

If you want to expand the lead, we can expand it proportionally to the article body as I suggested (keeping the % of reduction same), but if you don't like it, I am okay with the proposal B or A as it is.--Historik75 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I explained in painstaking detail why the text you are proposing would not be suitable for inclusion in the lead. The 2006 source you cited (#146) has no bearing on events that happened in 2013 and 2014 and was directly contradicted by a later source (#160) that explained the legal outcome in detail. The other source you cited (#147) to support your proposed text did not actually support the proposed text. Hopefully, you can see why, on that basis, your proposed text would be unacceptable based on logic and WP policy.

I also pointed out that the fact that Amway and the IDSA complained about the outcome and how they think the law is unfair/unclear has no bearing on the facts surrounding the events that were described in my proposed text for the lead (Version C). Their self-serving partisan comments in reaction to the cases might arguably be worthy of inclusion in the body text (maybe) but they are relatively trivial and certainly not lead worthy (i.e., it wouldn’t make sense to include something like “Pinckney was arrested...and Amway and the IDSA complained that (one of the two) laws under which he was charged was unclear and should be changed” (especially given the concerns you have expressed about keeping the lead concise).

It is also of critical importance that the specific law that Amway and the IDSA were complaining about (The Banning Act) was not the only statute under which Pinckney was charged. He was also charged criminally with “cheating and extortion” under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,[113][114][115][116][117] which is completely distinct from the Banning Act and received no specific comment from either Amway or the IDSA.

As for the length of the lead, I have stated from the outset that WP:LEAD specifies that the length can be up to 4 paragraphs. The current version is short at only one paragraph, so inclusion of details about controversy and criticism, as required by WP:LEAD would not be a problem with respect to overall length of the lead. I also suggested that you could expand the lead to include additional general details about the company that do not pertain to criticism/controversy, which would obviate any concerns about balance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Re your source #155. Amway petitioned the High Court and an injunction was issued against the CID, allowing Amway to reopen. Amway then went further and asked the High Court to dismiss the CID case completely. The High Court rejected that request, stating:[118]

41. The complaint submitted to the CID Police, Hyderabad in this case is exhaustive. The complainant graphically described how the scheme run by petitioner No.1 through the other petitioners and various distributors in the country constitutes money circulation scheme. The gist of the complaint has already been extracted herein before. From the conclusion arrived at by us on the analysis of the admitted material available before us concerning the scheme, we have no doubt whatsoever that if the allegations contained in the report of C.No.1474/C-27/CiD/2006 dated 24-9-2006 are taken on their face value they make out an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.

As you can see, your source cited Andhra Pradesh police statement which misrepresented what the court really had said (you can compare their statement directly to the High Court judgement). Such misrepresentation should not be allowed on Wikipedia.

What the High Court judgement really says is if what the Police claim is true, then Amway is in violation of this act, so the case shouldn’t be dismissed and the allegations should be investigated. In August, 2007 the Indian Supreme Court ordered the Police to complete their investigation within 6 months, so the case could proceed. After 9 years it still has not been completed which says pretty clear how valid the complaint was.

So no, the High Court never said that Amway was a pyramid scheme. Understand?--Historik75 (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Historik 75: "the High Court never said that Amway was a pyramid scheme".

You are now invoking a straw man, as no one has proposed including text saying that the High Court found Amway to be a pyramid scheme. To recap, you had proposed including the following text:

"In India, the court said that the Act did not prima facie apply and the state issued an order stating that genuine direct marketing should not be disturbed while investigating cases against money chain frauds.[146][147]...""

I pointed out that one of the sources you provided (#147) did not support the proposed text, and the other, which was vague at best, presented details that were contradicted by later reports, as follows:

"The AP police, in a statement, said in 2006, the CID Police of the state, on a complaint, had registered a criminal case against Amway which in turn approached High Court of AP requesting to declare that its scheme does not fall under the provisions of "The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978." However, a division bench of the High Court held that the scheme of Amway is illegal Money Circulation Scheme and falls within the "mischief of definition of Money Circulation Scheme". Subsequently, the Supreme Court had also dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Amway, the AP police statement said." (Source: Zee News -- Amway India CEO arrested, remanded in judicial custody -- May 27, 2014)[119]

"The Andhra Pradesh CID, under IPS officer V.C. Sajjanar had filed a chargesheet against Amway in 2006. They went to Andhra Pradesh High Court but a division bench ruled that the business model is illegal. The company then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court in 2007 but the top court upheld the decision of the High Court. The state government also issued a government order (GO) in 2008, saying advertising products of Amway is illegal." (Source: NDTV -- Amway India CEO Arrested by Andhra Police – May 27, 2014)[120]

This is cut and dried. The text you proposed clearly is unsupportable and does not merit inclusion in the lead. Kindly concede the point and refrain from making any further tendentious arguments. In contrast, the text I proposed below (Version C) is well supported and merits inclusion in the lead as it adequately summarizes controversy/criticism relating to Amway India, as per the specifications of WP:LEAD, and is well supported by sources that are both reliable and secondary.

“The company has faced similar claims in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. In 2013, Amway India CEO William Scott Pickney and two other company executives were arrested in Kerala and charged with violating the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.[121] In 2014, Pickney was arrested by Andhra Pradesh police for operating an illegal pyramid scheme and for financial irregularities by Amway. Pickney was jailed for two months until being released on bail.[122][123]” Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest getting some agreement on the body text for Amway India before we worry about the lede?--Icerat (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I was just about to answer, but I would only repeat what I had said before. So let's summarize. Has any court (in India or anywhere else) decided that Amway is a pyramid scheme? Yes or no? This was the basic question and the answer should definitely be included in the article body. As the most important are the results, i.e. the court decisions, not the charges or what AP Police said about the court decision, I'd suggest that the overall tone of the paragraph should reflect the outcomes.--Historik75 (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. WP:BLPCRIME Non-notable living persons who are not convicted of a crime should not be mentioned in any manner suggesting that they committed a crime. The person whose name I removed is 100% "non-notable". Collect (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Agreed.--Historik75 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC) I didn't check the specific text, but I disagree in general. Even if the person is not notable, the crime might be notable, and the fact that a specific person is indited for the crime might be notable. He should probably be identified only by position, rather than by name, but there is little question that such a statement probably should appear in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC) The basic relevant statement is in the article - I had removed the person's name which another editor then re-added. And the crime was not "notable" - it was about a decade-old arrest warrant. It was, in fact, never even prosecuted per sources as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Hmmm, just realised the Amway India stuff mentioning William Pinckney is BLP to. Also allegations and no prosecutions. Could you have a look at it please, Collect? --Icerat (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Pinckney at least has court dates it appears - so not as clear a case at all. Collect (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Amway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/20061213/amway-mlm-business-model.htm Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/stay-order-against-former-ghmc-chief-174 Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deccanchronicle.com/hyderabad/hc-no-stay-raju-questioning-289 When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024). If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)