Talk:Network TwentyOne/Archive 1

Creating this article
This entry is controversial, because it relates to network marketing (NM). Some people are biased for NM, and will take any opportunity to market themselves. Others are biased against NM and will use any excuse to delete NM-related material.

In the same way that the Amway article exists to show both the pros and cons of the organisation, so too this article will do the same for Network 21.

Network 21 operates in nearly 100 countries with over 1 million members around the world. There are many more people who have the opportunity to join N21 but don't! The point I am trying to make here is that the article is relevant to many people, and as long as the material is factual and represents the views of both sides, then it is a valid Wikipedia article.

Many companies have fact sheets about themselves. And there are many highly specialised articles on Wikipedia that address topics of interest to small communities. So let's please keep a context here. I agree that not everyone is interested in - or even believes in - NM. I also believe NM can be seen as a specialised field.

So if the protagonists and the antagonists can work together to create an unbiased article - then that would be a great outcome.

EdiThor 19:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement
This article currently reads like an advertisement. I cannot find the template tag for this but this is not suitable for Wikipedia as it is. AdamDobay 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Advert?
No, I don't think that's right. Take a look at the wiki articles of other corporates - and compare what's acceptable with what's not.

This article doesn't just talk about the company and how wonderful it is. Instead, it covers neutral items such as history, and it has sections on principles & tools. It includes external links - both for and against.


 * I agree with the reads-like-an-add comment. I've flagged it as such.
 * I'm actually quite tempted to tag it for deletion. The article mentions few sources and no criticism of N21. It's certainly not enclyclopedic.
 * - arkenstone 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's true, I couldn't find many news articles about N21. But I expect to find some about the important persons involved in it. I suggest we wait a bit and see if that is possible.
 * If it doesn't work out, then putting all this in a common article on all Amway/Quixtar support systems like N21, Britt World Wide and others would be a good idea. --Knverma 09:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess it is fine now to remove the advert tag. --Knverma 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

definately biased.
this 'article' is definately 'pro' NetworkMarketing. the pro/cons listed read like reason to joinup?! someone please completely redo this.
 * if you have something WP:RS valid to add, then why don't you do so? --Insider201283 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/network21.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.187.82 (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This article makes claims that it cannot verify
Statements like: "Network 21 operates in nearly 100 countries with over 1 million members around the world." are completly wrong. Can you please provide verifiable evidence that this number of people belong to the program? Even if there was one representative country from which information can be extrapolated. Otherwise, it might be just three guys in their back bedroom.Withit 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds wrong to me too. Given N21 works with Amway, and Amway's not in "nearly 100 countries" it's definitely wrong! I'll look at fixing it over the weekend. --Insider201283 06:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was at a N21 business seminar yesterday, and there were easily a couple of thousand in attendance (This was at Royal Crowne resort at Benowa, Gold Coast, Australia). There were also two simultaneous seminars being held, one in Melbourne and one in Canberra. So having over a million members wouldn't be that difficult. Also Withit and Insider - can you provide proof that there ISN'T a million members? And before you attack me for being blind, easily led, marketing whatever etc - Yesterday was the first time I've encountered N21 in any major sense besides what someone else in my family has been telling me about them, and I'm not exactly a marketing fan - to say I have a burning hatred for marketing would be accurate.  But facts are facts, and you can't use your own personal biases as the backbone of an argument about the alleged number of members.  "Statements like [statement] are completely wrong" - back that up for me, would you? 203.14.180.98 05:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * can you provide proof there IS a million? Wikipedia is about sourced facts, or at least should be --83.251.148.101 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Links
The n21europe and n21asia pacific sites are not directly linked to from the other sites. the n21global site links only to the logon page for access to secure areas, not to the home pages which offer guest access. The channel-21.info site offers valuable information outside of the password protected area in the way of (1) listings of the type of materials N21 offers and teaches (2) video of N21's founder talking about N21. Neither of this information is publicly available anywhere else and is quite obviously valid for external links. Your wholesale deletions without discussion are starting to verge on vandalism. --Insider201283 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * n21global.com appears to provide links to all other sites national sites, therefore the other regional sites aren't necessary. If there is worthwhile free content on channel-21.info then please link to it directly. -Will Beback · † · 22:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * n21global.com does not link to the public home pages of the other sites listed. I have not tested others. The relevant Channel21 info is on the home page linked to. --Insider201283 23:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no content on the home pages of the regional sites, just links to the national sites, many of which appear to be password protected. What content is on the home page of the video site? A listing of products available for purchase isn't useful content. If you want to link to the video of the founder then link to it directly. -Will Beback · † · 23:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct re password protection and content. That didn't use to be the case, my mistake. The video and information is both on the home page of channel21. A common query regarding PDPs is what type of training the offer. I will write a paragraph about this and link to channel-21 as a source --Insider201283 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just checked out the free video, and it's just an advertisement for subscribing to the site. -Will Beback · † · 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of re-writing the paragraph yourself, I suggest you propose the changes here and let someone who is not in a business relationshoip with this company to make the actual edit. -Will Beback · † · 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's hardly fair, who died and made you god? Someone in a business relationship with N21 would naturally be in a better position to provide information and links to relevant resources and material.  If people like you could just put their egos in their pockets for 2 seconds you might realize that being in a business relationship with someone, be it person or company, doesn't automatically make everything that person says suspect or a shameless plug for the business. Get a little perspective. 59.100.3.78 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

LOS
Any idea about LOS of Dornan? I heard from unreliable sources that he joined in the downline of Yager. -- Knverma 07:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read conflicting info, but I think the answer is no. QuixtarWiki says upline diamonds are Johnny & Jo Edwin, who I'm pretty certain were not downline from Yager. Edwin's are affiliated with International Connection, which is run by Brian Hay's but was created from a bunch of LOS's, most of whom, but not all, were downline of the CA Marsh's (yagers upline), but not Yager. Bernice Hansen who is upline of all of them is a Crown too, so there were plenty of other legs outside the one with yager for the Edwins to be in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Insider201283 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, surprisingly few websites talk about Dornan's LOS. For the moment I am looking at all sources, reliable or unreliable. For example this page has a list of tapes, and there is an entry "DBR-377, Jim Dornan, Making the List". "DBR" seems to the code for tapes from InterNET (Yager's system). But nothing is confirmed yet. -- Knverma 08:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the speakers, that list is probably ProNet (gooch/foley) which has worked with both britt/yager and other organizations like N21. --Insider201283 13:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing clear can be said from these links. Meanwhile I found two other pages mentioning this tape to be used in Yager's line . -- Knverma 14:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but we in N21 get tapes from outside N21 too, so it really doesn't say much re a persons LOS. I'd still be fairly certain that first list is from a Pronet IBO.--Insider201283 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blakey Report
This is the entire extent of the mention of N21 in the blakey report - "the Dornan family (aka Network 21);" Not a single other mention in that report or any of it's references. It has no relevance at all. --83.251.148.101 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A textual search for "Network 21" gives only one match, and there is a second mention of Dornan in the diagram. But consider also the following points.
 * "DeVos and VanAndel family" is just one of the 14 circles in the diagram. The circles of DeVos/Van Andel family, Britt, Yager, N21 etc all are given equal status in this diagram.
 * Britt and Yager are repeatedly mentioned as two "large families". The other 11 or so families are mentioned only once. So can we ignore 11 of these and consider only 2 or 3.
 * Even if the names of these families are not repeated, there are other references to "tools business", comments about "upline", "downline", "eight lines of sponsorship" controlling groups of distributors, etc etc. These cannot be selectively applied to just some of the organizations. --Knverma 06:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * the lawsuit in question had nothing to do with N21. I think youre correct - the report has nothing to do with the "11 or so" other families. All references refer to only 2 or 3 "families". Many of the comments Blakey makes about "the tools business" etc do not apply to network twentyone at all. For example - "The "upline" assume virtual "parental" control, and distributors are urged to "counsel" on all aspects of their life, including topics such as which car to buy or how to handle marital problems." Completely contrary to N21 teachings. The whole section on "control" has no relevance. This inclusion in this article is as relevant as saying "network twentyone is one of the organizations named on google when you do a search for Amway". It's just describes the major organizations within Amway, this is not new information. Including this is section is scurrilous and obviously only included by whoever included it for the sake of "guilt by association".
 * The report is just being quoted, no claims are being made. In the extreme case, the accusations could be false, and may not apply even to Britt and Yager, depending on the knowledge of an expert. But we as editors are never supposed to make such judgements. I asked for the opinion of an experienced editor (an admin) about this link, and you can check his response on my talk page. We can remove this link if we find that any Wikipedia policies are being violated. --Knverma 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Philanthropy
The sources were press releases on the N21 corporate site. As such they are primary sources, but they are on the subjects website and there is no interpretation required they should be valid sources.--83.251.148.101 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't insist here strongly, only independent sources are better when somewhat "positive" statements are being made (I mean those are statements from N21, not some newspaper articles?).
 * Also just a small clarification: are you also a registered user of Wikipedia? --Knverma 06:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you happen to be Insider201283, and if it is in your capacity to do so, then you may also like to change the name of the Brian Zima file from "affadavit" to "affidavit". --Knverma 09:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * no, but i'll let him know. --83.251.148.101 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Gospel Films
I took the information from this page, but I would prefer to link to a better source. --Knverma 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability
I don't think this meets the very specific requirements of our Notability Guideline for Companies ("WP:CORP"). I did some Google News searches and didn't find much:
 * "Network TwentyOne":
 * Google News search: zero hits
 * Google News archive search: 3 hits, none meeting the requirements of WP:CORP
 * "Network 21":
 * Google News search: zero hits
 * Google News archive search: 10 hits, 4 of them in English:
 * Article about distributors' kids enjoying Hawaii while parents' attend convention
 * This article is behind a paywall. The Google capsule description reads "It also found he had inappropriately invited the client to Network 21 meetings and encouraged and permitted her to buy an Amway business pack with him and …" I suspect this is mostly an article about sexual impropriety and not relevant for our purposes.
 * Reliable source?
 * One paragraph about libel litigation involving a Telewizja Polska documentary and Amway. Network 21 gets a sentence.
 * Reliable source?
 * One paragraph about libel litigation involving a Telewizja Polska documentary and Amway. Network 21 gets a sentence.
 * One paragraph about libel litigation involving a Telewizja Polska documentary and Amway. Network 21 gets a sentence.
 * One paragraph about libel litigation involving a Telewizja Polska documentary and Amway. Network 21 gets a sentence.

This article should perhaps be merged into the Quixtar or Amway articles. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This subject is only notable within the world of Amway. The sources are very thin, and if we cut it down to properly sourced assertions we'd have only a stub. Deletion isn't necessary -merging is fine. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection, and while we're at it, Quixtar is being merged back into Amway over the next 12 months, so those articles need to be merged too. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Giblin suit
I removed this material because there are no reliable sources for it. If we can find such sources then we can add it back.  Will Beback   talk    00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Leslie Giblin, author of the book Skill with People sued Network 21 in 2002 for copyright infringement through unauthorized printing and selling of his book in several countries . In a related case against Yager Internet Services, Leslie Giblin's grandson, Brian Zima, stated in a court affidavit that he had inadvertently published an incorrect date of first publication for the book on their website www.skillwithpeople.com, and apologised for any misunderstandings this may have caused.	 Network TwentyOne and Giblin subsequently settled the case out of court .

Blakey Report
From discussions elsewhere it would seem the alleged Blakey Report does not pass WP:V either, and given the very brief mention of N21 it wouldn't seem notable with regards this article. The Amway Media blog stuff would seem to be inappropriate too. Is a brief internal spat on a corporate blog notable? --Insider201283 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like anything, it's notable if it's been noted in reliable sources.   Will Beback    talk    18:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blakey I can't find it noted in anything notable, only self-published sites. Closest is a self-published Op-Ed by Evlyn Pringle that was reprinted in Scoop.net.nz, but still labeled opinion. Even if notable though (and this is more for my wiki-education than anything else) I would think a passing mention in such a document would not merit much comment anyway, certainly it would have WP:UNDUE considerations. Re the Media blogs, the same would apply re notability. It's not mentioned anywhere else. No objections to removal? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Recommend pruning it down to a single sentence with the Op-Ed piece rather than outright deletion to satisfy WEIGHT. Shot info (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On what basis? What we have is an otherwise non WP:RS clearly POV "source" (written for payment for a court case), that mentions the subject of the article only in passing and otherwise makes no reference or claims about the subject of the article. That non-RS source has as support for it being "RS" only one article, an opinion piece by a non-expert on the topic area who does not even refer to the subject of the article and is likely not RS itself. So on what basis does it deserve mention at all? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * oh, and for the record the original edits were not done "in good faith". I know the editors and their POV and what they're trying to achieve. It's unfortunate they seem to get WP admin support for it, who consistently seem to have a much tougher standard for some edits rather than others, I suspect a manifestation of confirmation bias.--Insider201283 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * quote from WP:V - I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.–Jimmy Wales--Insider201283 (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And in BLPs such unsourced info is moved. What I can suggest that you possibly need to broaden your Wiki-experience a little away from Amway and the like such that you can gain more understanding on where other editors are coming from - and don't make the common mistake of thinking that BLP issues apply universally across the project.  While it's only a guideline, here's a helpful article to explain the way more experienced editors operate.  Also I suggest that you have a read of WP:TALK to understand the purpose of these discussion tabs and especially the point about frivilous discussions about not improving the article.  Enjoy Shot info (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Shot Info, WP:V clearly states Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page. Excuse my frustration but I went through a great deal of effort and time in the past dealing with this exact problem - an admin challenging edits that are following the rules (at least arguably) and defending edits that are very clearly not. A couple of years ago I had another admin defending the use of a PDF of a persons resume as reliable source for a topic for which the person wasn't even an acknowledged expert! And here you defending an entire paragraph of dubious relevance that is in violation of WP:V, is unsourced, and damaging to the reputation of an organisation, and is entirely based on a PDF circulating on the internet that doesn't even come from a WP:RS or WP:V source. And this right after you've been deleting links to verifiably authentic document! And you defend this because this PDF is mentioned in a non-WP:RS oped article? How exactly do you propose I interpret that kind of action?--Insider201283 (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really care how you interpret that kind of action?. I can see that you have some real ownership issues here with these suite of articles - and how bent out of shape you are getting when your insertion of your hobby sites are challenged.  I recommend you try editing some other articles for a while and let other editors have a go at this topic area.  Shot info (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How long would you suggest? It's been nearly TWO YEARS since I last edited this article. But let's get back on topic shall we? As per above WP:V clearly states this material should be removed. On what basis do you dispute that in this case? --Insider201283 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As per above, WP:V clearly states this material should be removed completely, not even for talk. User:Shot info clearly disagrees but has decided to not converse with me on his concerns. As a compromise I'll move the text here for discussion. For unofficial background, Proctor & Gamble sued Amway and a number of distributors over spreading of a "satanism" rumour and paid Robert Blakely to be an expert witness for them and provide an opinion. The court dismissed Amway from the case. After years of back and fourth appeals over multiple cases in multiples states 4 former Amway distributors were ordered to pay damages. Evidence given in the original case, including the alleged Blakey Report, was sealed. Someone however "leaked" what is supposed to be the document and it was published as a PDF on a number of anti-Amway websites. As best I can tell there is no WP:RS copies of the report, and no WP:RS references to the report. The PDF doing the round barely mentions Network TwentyOne, referring to it, as noted in the quote, simply as one of the organisations (Blakey calles them "families") that works with Amway. Leaving aside Blakey's opinion, I'd note that Blakey's report also makes a number of factually incorrect claims as to how Amway operates.

So, in summary what we have is a PDF source document hosted on some non-WP:RS sites (which Shot Info has made clear elsewhere is not allowable), that is also inherently unverifiable (the original is sealed) and unlikely to be WP:RS even if it was, and there are no other sources. It's content also does not appear to have been referred to by any secondary WP:RS sources. What's more, in my opinion it's relevance to this article is so minor as to not merit comment. Here's the text I've removed -

''Network TwentyOne is named in the Blakey Report as one of the organizations that works with Amway. The report was used as an expert witness report in P&G vs Amway case number H-97-2384 (S.D. Tex. 1997)and claims that the Amway business operates in a manner that is parallel to that of major organized crime groups. The report was prepared by G. Robert Blakey who was retained by P&G to support its RICO claim against Amway. It also figured in the Amway vs. P&G case number 1:98cv 726. . It is claimed that Amway unsuccessfully tried to prevent the appearance of this report on the internet.. These cases did not involve Network TwentyOne. The Britt and Yager Organizations are the two main groups mentioned in the report, while Network 21 and several other IBO organizations are mentioned only as other organizations within the Amway "family".

Courts in both Utah and Texas dismissed Procter & Gamble's claims against Amway. ''

comments? --Insider201283 (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's come to an agreement on this before making more edits.   Will Beback    talk    05:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

May be I should provide some input since I originally added this report here. This is a somewhat unusual situation. That's why at the time of adding the report I also tried to consult Will Beback and showed him this link explaining the circumstances, though I am not sure whether he was able to go through the details of the situation. The above link should provide sufficient information to decide whether to include the report in the article. --Knverma (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the document clearly doesn't even approach WP:RS and WP:V standards, so on what basis did you need an opinion? It's an unverifiable paid (and thus very POV) opinion piece that appears to have little notability of it's on (one potentially RS mention by the look of it, another court case involving the same litigants) I'm also curious as to why you even thought to add it since it's relevance to the subject of the article is negligible? --Insider201283 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Will's opinion at the time was that opinions from experts in the given field are acceptable, though caution should be exercised in BLPs.
 * I will not be able to continue the discussion. I hope other editors will provide their inputs. --Knverma (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I was suprised by Will's opinion, which completely ignores the clear guidelines as I outlined below, but unfortunately I'm not. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For more clarification re WP:RS-
 * (1) Blakey is not a recongnized expert on the subject of the article, so his opinion on N21 is not notable - even if he had given it, which he did not. Same applies for Amway or Quixtar articles btw.
 * (2) As supported by the judges comments in the Michigan Bar link, Blakey's claims are clearly "extremist" with regards Amway and there is no evidence to support a claim it is prominent enough to mention (there are no other WP:RS mentions of it) thus including it even in the Amway article would violate WP:WEIGHT, let alone this article.
 * (3) This from WP:RS says it all -
 * Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
 * A paid opinion piece submitted by a litigant does not have a "reliable publication process" and even if it did, Blakey is not generally regarded as "trustworthy or authoritative" in relation to the subject at hand - Network TwentyOne. Nor indeed for Amway.
 * Then we look at WP:V -
 * The document, assuming it's authentic, is under seal. It can not be verified. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So we don't even have to get into a discussion of notability or opinion pieces etc etc etc
 * This really is very cut and dried and I'm not quite sure what there is to discuss? --Insider201283 (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that on a discussion on his talk, the other interested party, Shot Info has accused me of a bad faith edit warring in moving this text to the Talk and indicated he wishes to "disengage" from any conversation with me, so I'm not sure if we're going to get any further discussion there. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had to search to find what Knverma was referring to. Back in 2007 he asked me about this source and I responded on his talk page.   Will Beback    talk    01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, doesn't that apply if they're an acknowledged expert on the subject at hand - ie on the topic of the article? Is anyone suggest he's an expert on N21 (or Amway)? This also doesn't explain the clear WP:V violation.

--Insider201283 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One would also think that claims a 50 yr old award-winning multinational company and it's associated organisation operate as a crime syndicate would fall under "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Yet there's not a single other WP:RS source. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here it is SP:SPS - "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."

Blakey is clearly not an established expert on the topic of the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Insider...will you please allow other editors a chance to have a comment without you flooding the talkpage with your post(s)? Shot info (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So I shouldn't provide evidence and support to backup my positiong? That certainly explains your position ... ;)--Insider201283 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeeze dude, you might need to try to let other editors have a go at making comments such that we can let this thing called "collaboration" a go. The fact that you need go on (and on and on and on and on) says more are you than anybody picking you up on it :-(.  Shot info (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)