Talk:Qnet/Archives/2014

Edit request on 17 January 2013
Vihaan Direct Selling Pvt. Ltd. is QNet Ltd.'s new franchisee carrying QNet brand name in India.

Source: Copyright at http://www.qnetindia.in/ Also: http://issuu.com/qnet/docs/faq__india

Rakesh.goyal2019 (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Huh? I don't know what you want changed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to highlight that there is a relation between Vihaan and qnet-india. So I want following line to be appended to first section of article:

Vihaan Direct Selling Pvt. Ltd. is QNet Ltd.'s new franchisee carrying QNet brand name in India.

Rakesh.goyal2019 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have something in the way of a reliable source for that? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did find a source but I'm not sure everyone will like it... The first reliable source that pops up in a Google search for "Vihaan Direct Selling" is an article in an Indian magazine called QNet: The “money game” played by MLMs to lure the gullible. More importantly, if I understand the article correctly, Vihaan Direct Selling is a company created and controlled by Qnet so this is technical info that might be footnote worthy but certainly does not belong in the lead. Pichpich (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

haven't ever seen compensation plan like this before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paone.avu (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2013
QNet is still operating successfully in India and various middle East countries.

14.97.31.38 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 February 2013
The business model described by you is factually and contextually wrong. The fact that it was illegally banded in Indonesia is also wrong, as Qnet is successfully running this model in Indonesia. There is so much other out of context information on your page,n which misleads people. Find out the details and facts from Qnet authorized people and edit. Don't write baseless facts.

Manoj9120 (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please read WP:Secondary sources. That explains why we get information for stories from third-party sources and not just with what "Qnet authorized people" have to say about the company. Please also note the footnotes that appear throughout the story, where we cite the sources upon with we base the facts presented.


 * With regard to Indonesia, if APLI has reversed its position, please provide a link to where an updated statement has been published. —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2013
please change Qnet to Pnet

Hothothot143143 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

QNET is not a scam. it is indeed a great project to work on
Qnet has changed its name several times.

Companies change their names frequently for reasons such as branding, variations in lines of business, and marketing. In our case, this was done for strategic business purposes. When Qnet was founded in 1998 it offered only one product, commemorative gold coins. As the company added more products to its portfolio and the e-commerce platform evolved, the name GoldQuest was no longer suitable and it was changed to QuestNet and then shortened to QNet. Hundreds of companies all over the world have done the same sort of thing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldfrazier/2012/12/18/followup-on-the-news-internet-spat-breaks-out-over-qnet-and-multi-level-marketing-in-india/

Disparaging information about Qnet must be accurate, because it’s in the Wikipedia entry.

We strongly dispute the credibility of the Wikipedia entry on Qnet. But we can’t do much about it: Wikipedia’s policy does not allow a company representative, a PR agency or anyone with a stake in the matter to edit entries. We have lodged a complaint with Wikipedia administrators about the heavily bias of the entry and a debate has been opened up on their ‘Neutral Point of view’ noticeboard, that you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Qnet_ltd

Please also note that Wikipedia is not considered an authentic source of information. Wikipedia is a public forum where anyone, even you can edit an entry. Unfortunately this has led to numerous quality problems for the portal which its founder Jimmy Wales admits himself. This has been acknowledged by leading media including the New York Times. You can read these two articles on the subject.

Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/

Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04seelye.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldfrazier/2012/12/18/followup-on-the-news-internet-spat-breaks-out-over-qnet-and-multi-level-marketing-in-india/

Arunangshu.sakar (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am closing this edit request as I do not see a specific request to edit this article, only ramblings as to its quality and the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Information Placement
Is the placement of the below information correct as business model? Should this be moved to History or the main section, as this does not seem to be the correct placement.
 * RYTHM foundation -derived from the acronym 'Raise Yourself To Help Mankind'- is a charity organization created by QI Group.
 * QNet is one of the sponsors for the Marussia F1 racing team.[15]
 * QNet is a member of the direct selling association of Malaysia,[2] and the direct selling association of Singapore.[3] In 2007, APLI, the direct selling Association of Indonesia, considered GoldQuest or QuestNet a pyramid scheme.[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanujd (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ''QNet is a Pyramide scheme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.189.21 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why this information are removed now completely from the article? Its obvious, that some of it are significantly relevant for the subject (for example, information about membership in specialized organizations.) I would like to ask, which place is better for it in the article? Vpucik (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Movement of Eswaran Cases
The 2007 Indonesia case and 2008 India case in the Controversies section are related to fraud charges brought against Vijay Eswaran not QNet or Gold Quest. I contend that the cases be removed from Qnet and moved to Vijay Eswaran's page where they meet notability standards.Blueskymorning (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Blueskymorning


 * Weren't the cases brought against him because of his involvement with Qnet? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup. The cases are specifically relevant to Qnet. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

About Edit 06:22, 29 November 2014
What is wrong about its sources? As far as I can see, apart from qnet's website it's all shoud be worthy. Which one is not good? Vpucik (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)"


 * Referring to this edit: Information from QNet's own web-site is WP:PRIMARY, and can only be used to support non-controversial details, or to supplement significant info that has been established by secondary sources. Neither "network-karriere" nor "obtainer-online" appear to be WP:RELIABLE sources, since neither demonstrates a clear editorial process, nor a reputation for fact-checking. Furthermore, the articles are likely only slightly modified press releases, which means they are still primary. Grayfell (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sponsorship
QNET now is the sponsor of a multitude of organizations. In addition to Formula 1 here is some examples: http://www.taarana.org.my/about-us/ http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/August/QNet-partnership http://www.qiup.edu.my/index.php/about-qiup/our-bckground I think it is important for an understanding of the organization, so I would like to ask experienced members to tell, where is better to add this information. Thank you! Vpucik (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before. The fact that QNet can write a check to sponsor this or that organization is of limited interest and it would be atypical for an article about a company of this importance to include this information. If you want to update the current article, I suggest including the latest twists in the investigation against QNet by the Economic Offenses Wing of the Mumbai Police. For instance, it appears that some of the defendants forged documents for their bail hearing. Weirder still, the investigation has made all QNet representatives persona non grata in Café Coffee Day.
 * http://www.moneylife.in/article/qnet-ferriera-six-others-misled-court-by-submitting-fake-document-says-eow/38384.html
 * http://www.moneylife.in/article/qnet-eow-tightens-rope-around-agents-meeting-places/39300.html
 * Pichpich (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, why this is not important? I think now the article look biased because of that. If somebody is a sponsor not like "this or that", but very popular or big organisation (like fc manchester city, it have to be mentioned here. I hope no one tries to push his point of view here, we just need to mention facts. The sponsorship - is fact. And since we do not try to write only about the bad, we need to write about it, because it gives an idea about the company. How it works, how it advertise itself. But the question - where is better to put this facts? Vpucik (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources about this? The sources you have presented are from the organizations themselves, which are not neutral. Wikipedia favors secondary sources, not primary ones. Secondary sources help to establish WP:DUE weight, and without them, these sponsorships are just advertising, and are not worth mentioning at all. Grayfell (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, there are a plenty of that kind of sources. For example about MCFC: http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/August/QNet-partnership
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11065644/Manchester-City-FC-have-plans-for-global-brand-domination.html
 * (found with 2 minutes searching). So... where is better to put information about it? I seriously think this is important Vpucik (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The first is a press release, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. If you are unclear on what this means, please review that article. The second is an extremely brief passing mention which doesn't establish due weight. It's just a single sentence in a much longer article about something which is tangentially related. Not nearly good enough. Grayfell (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * First is official webcite of MCFC, so it's RELIABLE (and I think this is enough in this case). Second is the article in The Telegraph, which is SECONDARY and also reliable, and very clearly says about partnership of qnet and MCFC. And here are more and more secondary sources, if you think that previous two are not enough. - https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=qnet+manchester&oq=qnet+manchester&gs_l=news-cc It's obvious, that they have a partnership (MCFC says about it), and there are plenty news about it. Why do you trying so hard to prevent the publication of it? Vpucik (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Who said it wasn't reliable? Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVERTISING. The first is not usable, and the second is a single-sentence passing mention. Not every single promotional factoid belongs in the article. You might want to look at WP:COI if you happen to be a QNet distributor. Grayfell (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that I could be a qnet distributor? I'm not. I don't have a COI, but I'm very surprised why are you insist, for example, that MCFC official website is a bad source in case of confirmation of sponsorship. Do you really doubt, that qnet is a sponsor of MCFC? Here is some other sources: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/sport/inside_sport.asp?xfile=/data/nationsports/2014/August/nationsports_August101.xml&section=nationsports http://gulfnews.com/sport/football/man-city-fans-catch-up-with-their-trophies-1.1411526 http://www.indiansportsnews.com/tennis-news/34575-rishika-shweta-qualify-for-main-draw-of-qnet-open http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/business/article/qnet-inks-3-year-deal-with-manchester-city http://www.goal.com/en-za/news/4633/soccerex/2014/08/13/5033555/manchester-city-add-qnet-tmlewin-to-extensive-list-of  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpucik (talk • contribs) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course Qnet does advertising deals like this, nobody is denying that. Major sports teams have many, many sponsorship deals, and they only very rarely become significant. As I said, not every detail of the company's promotional history should be included in this article. You have only ever edited this subject, and only in a promotional way, so of course I'm going to be concerned that you're a distributor. The Khaleej Times article is a press release. The Gulf News one is a blurb about an advertising event which has nothing to do with Qnet as a company. The Indian Sports News one is... not really usable itself, but since QNet Open actually has an article, I've added it to the "see also" section since is might, possibly, be a source of confusion. The Malaysian Insider and Goal.com briefs are promotionally written, and list no authors, which suggests that they're also press releases, or are heavily derived from such. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not really interested in Wikipedia before. I liked to read it, but not to write. But when a saw this article it changed my mood. It so happen that I'm a little familiar with subject. And I'm interested why things that really matters could be so easily removed just because it make company look better. And other things you could easily add if it make company look worse. I'm not defending anyone, just trying to make article a little bit more objective - thats all. If company involved in sport and social life (not like once or twice in decade, but seriously involved) - I think that matters. I insist. And this kind of events are easily confirmed. Of course you could always find fault in sources, even if it is The Telegraph or FC official website. But it seems to be strange to me. Vpucik (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However, "insisting" that routine, promotional content be added to an article is counter to Wikipedia's philosophy of WP:CONSENSUS. Past discussion, on this talk page and many other places, has come to the conclusion that this information is trivial and not significant to understanding the topic as a whole. Companies advertise with sports teams ("sponsorship") all the time, but this is not typically added to articles without a good reason. Qnet does this for advertising, and Wikipedia is not a platform for free advertising. This is nothing. It's just a deal that gives them a little branding, and gives the football team some more cash. It's a routine business transaction, and mentioning it doesn't help anybody get a clearer idea of who the company is. In fact, it would make the article less clear, because mentioning it would imply that it's uncommon or special, when it isn't. Further, if you find any counter-examples of other companies' articles that use sponsorship in such a way, let me know so I can remove it. Grayfell (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed - sponsorship is a normal business transaction carried out to generate publicity for a company, and accordingly generally of little encyclopaedic interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand your point now. So, last question - is this source good enough? http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/manchester_city_add_qnet_t.m.lewin_to_extensive_list_of_sponsors Vpucik (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Sponsorship deals are generally of little encyclopaedic interest, and a report on a website specialising in "sports marketing, events, deals, sponsorships & endorsements within the sports industry" is no indicator that this deal is any different. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Associations
Where is better place to add some informations about membership in professional associations, such as the Direct Selling Association, etc? I think this should be mentioned in the article about a company that is engaged in direct sales. Is it OK if I mention it in the History section? Vpucik (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless such membership is discussed in third-party sources, it doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not so big for news, I think. But isn't this relevant for direct selling company's article to note about such a membership? Vpucik (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please stop asking the same question again and again. If third-party sources don't consider such things relevant, then neither will Wikipedia - this article, like any other, isn't intended to be a complete record of every single trivial fact concerning the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

slanderous information about founder in first paragraph
It promotes its products on its website using claims "that would not pass official muster in much of the world."[2] Eswaran serves as a motivational speaker to those selling Qnet products, holding sessions that feature "lasers, dry ice, [and] pyrotechnics".[2]

These two lines have been taken out of context and placed in the first paragraph with deliberate intent of negative propaganda about QNet. Donald Frazier's lines appear in an entirely different context in this original article for Forbes. This is against Wikipedia's NPOV. Anyone reading only this information would automatically assume the worst. There is plenty of other negative propaganda already in the entry that creates bias against the company. This seems like a concerted and continued attack. (Freudianr (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC))
 * we present content in the manner which represents how the subject is viewed by the experts in the field. Do you have any other sources that would indicate it is viewed otherwise? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)