Talk:Forever Living Products/Archives/2012

Inquiries

“Forever living products” is a real company doing business world wide the information on the page is facts and that is why people come to wikipedia to get facts on people places and thing right. I reference wikipedia to my consumers for lots of information all the time, if this change I will have to spend all day looking for a better company to refer info, please keep giving facts! Don’t sell out, I know wikipedia is getting big and people would like to pay to change it to their own will but remember it was founded on the truth and if that changes you will lose all credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.86.42 (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a fluff piece organized by a shill.

It's certainly a company that deserves a closer look - especially from a European perspective.

Intrest Factor:

Having a wide representaion in every english speaking country, those who've heard about it have a right to be able to find out about it. FLP is more than a mere company, in Ireland at least, it is synonomous with Aloe Vera Products, seen on roadsides throughout the land.

Those who have an intrest in discouragging from MLM, with FLP as a focus, can find information to back up their points as well, so this article is of importance to them.

I removed the "Critisism" section in the links, it was simply someone linking to Anti-MLM pages which made little reference to FLP specifically. Also removed a few silly spam links. Diizy 17:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How did this pass AfD???

There is presently a single self-sourced reference, and two external links to the very same company website! I'm waiting a reasonable length of time for this to be substantially improved and, if it isn't, renominating it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the original nominator for the first AfD. I wasn't familiar with the company and the page was largely advert-speak -- so I nominated it. Last night I added some independent references and removed the NPOV material. Does being listed in the top 500 private companies by Forbes make a company notable? If not, it should probably be up for a second round of AfD. I'm primarily an editor that works on WP:PLANTS or WP:FISH articles so companies are along way from my comfort zone (I came to this page after a user spammed the Aloe vera article with links to this company). I'm more than happy for others to decide on it's validity. MidgleyDJ (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Forever Livign Products in the Philippines

Is this the same company who have allegedly victimized individuals in the Phililppines. I learned a lot about this company from their moduz opernadi, style of recruitment, some of their personel and of course their fake multilevel business company.. Is this the one? just asking? let us know.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.168.72 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For NPOV are these links of interest:

• 1
• 2

?130.155.35.84 (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from placement at top of page

Forever Living is a credible company and not a fluff business or pyramid in disguise. ALL people who join buy the product at the same price regardless of position in the company. The 'company' itself then pays a bonus. this is based on how much you sell, and that might mean recruiting people below you... its the easiest way, but you don't have to recruit and if you are not consistant with sales you do not lose your possition as some companies do. The products are also exceptional and most people who work for the company first use the product and were so impressed by the health benefits that they joined... thats part of my own story. <spamlink redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phornixx (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tidbits

The Hungarian arm (franchise?) of the company was fined $310000 in 2004 due to selling stuff with expired permissions, phony permission id's and running advertisements which have suggested that the stuff they sell is medicine and not a dietary supplement. The ruling was attacked but in 2008 the highest court rejected the claim. The articles sold without permission consisted approximately 70-80% of their total local sales. --grin ✎ 18:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Have some links to reliable sources? Feel free to add any content that is reliably sourced.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I had to wait for the source to be published. ;) Until then I have to restrict myself to talk page, for your enjoyment. :-) --grin ✎ 17:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)