Talk:Network TwentyOne

Changes by Financeguy222

1. The link to www.n21guy.com is to an official blog of the company in the article, and thus is an allowable source for information about the company, under WP:SPS. Furthermore that link was merely a convenience link, the actual source is the Achieve Magazine, as per the references.

2. As per the references, from more than one source, Network of Caring is an outreach of Network TwentyOne and is funded primarily by IBOs affiliated with Network 21, as is the FF and Ambassador Fund.

3. Many of your changes (before you wholesale deleted) were not even factually correct. A large number of IBOs affiliated with N21 are not a part of the Dornan's Amway network.

--Insider201283 (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

FinanceGuy222 - This source from World Vision explicitly states that NOC is "Network 21’s humanitarian arm". --Insider201283 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This NOC video states NOC is the largest supporter of FF. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Christian BusinessMan article also explictly states NOC was set up in partnership with N21. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On the official NOC homepage there is no reference supporting that NOC is directly part of N21's business, nor the N21 homepage. The 3rd party reference that NOC is "Network 21’s humanitarian arm" is weak, does not make clear that it is officially part of N21. The only other references given mention that Jim Dornan runs NOC. Since it has a different company name, and reference do not support a direct link, it appears to be a separate company.

The same applies to FF section of Philanthropy section, references confirm that Jim Dornan is involved, but no direct business link with N21.--Financeguy222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

Sorry but that's not true. The World Vision source, a third party, explicitly states that NOC is N21's "humanitarian arm". --Insider201283 (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledged that WV statement above, but noted the connection does not make clear the details of exact business connection, and there is no clear official mention of direct connection to N21 business operations cited on any official references provided, nor any I can find. Financeguy222 (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This source says "IBOs build their businesses for many reasons and when they realize success they share it, as Network 21 does with its global good-works effort, Network of Caring. Through it, IBOs around the world raise money, identify needs, organize volunteers, and take action."--Insider201283 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Network of Caring. Through it, IBOs around the world raise money" IBOs by definition are Independent of N21 and Amway. Financeguy222 (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources refer to NOC as being the charitable arm of the organisation known as Network TwentyOne. Whether there is a direct legal connection or not is irrelevant, there is no claim being made that it is. Even then, the fact you can't find one doesn't mean there isn't one. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Another one - this page refers to the "Free WheelChair Mission". South Africa's Daily Sun, Monday 30 July 2007, p 12 directly refers to this as being a project of Network 21. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Of all the sources I've found it implies these charities are more so a private business interest of the Dornan's, not directly N21. the free wheelchair reference does not mention South Africa Daily Sun article at all??? Financeguy222 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the sources in the article then? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the archive discussion for this article, in which you have been involved in several controversies with several other people? Did you delete it? Perhaps you should provide verfiable sources, not PR/propaganda Financeguy222 (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's under "archive1" in the infobox to the top right. All sources I have provided are verifiable and from multiple places.--Insider201283 (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The whole article seems only notable within the world of Amway, and is sourced in such a manner. Of the controversy section 3 of 4 references and 75% of that section are PR spun statements from the official Amway media blog, hardly independent. The only independent statement only states that a member of parliament was asked a question, with no further detail. Where is all the independent coverage, and non-promotional material? This article is just self promotion. 13:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Financeguy222 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you about the "controversy" section. It has one primary source, and the other source is unacceptable under WP:SPS as well as having no other 3rd party notability. Shall we delete? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If that one sentence regarding parliament gets deleted, then the whole article will be sourced from Amway/N21 related business interests. Notability issue if I ever did see one. Financeguy222 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not true at all, and this has been pointed out to you numerous times. There the Robinson book now (which can replace a number of the others), and before that was added their was World Vision and The Christian Businessman. None of these are "Amway/N21 related business interests". Again, note that sources by the subject of the article itself are generally acceptable.

Funny Stuff

Delete a swathe of well-sourced material, living only a section we're in agreement is badly sourced, and then claim the article should be deleted since it has no independent sourcing! Funny stuff! hahahaha. Now can you please stop with the disruptive editing? It's really getting tiresome. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion

I've requested a 3rd opinion on this topic. There are now 5 references from 4 different sources (World Vision, IBOAI, Network of Caring, The Christian Businessman) that make it clear that Network of Caring is directly connected to Network 21 and relevant to this article. FinanceGuy222 disputes this and has deleted the philanthropy section on multiple occasions. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a reference from one of Amway's corporate blogs that talks about the N21/NOC connection, and Achieve Magazine, Vol 2, Issue 4, 2009 also refers to "Network 21's Network of Caring" (p.9) --Insider201283 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I'm not an expert on network 21, Network of Caring, Amway, Jim Dornan, or other related matters. I've never edited an article on any of these subject matters. I'm not here to judge. I'm only here to help. I've investigated the sources used for this addition, specifically Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. None of these sources follow the policy of sources, meaning reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They certainly do not fall within the guidelines of reliable sources. Articles should not be based on these sources, thoug they can be used in specific, isolated ways. An exception to this policy allows for using self published sources to the extent they are used as sources of information about themselves. For example, we could use World vision as a source that states IBO's and World vision began a partnership called Network of Caring more then fifteen years ago... This would lead to a rewrite of the section, because "world vision" states "network of caring" is a "partnership between them and IBO's", not an "arm of network 21". Their website appears to make a distinction in "an IBO with ILD", and IBO with Internet Associates", and "and IBO with Network 21". However, the "network of caring" "about us" website clearly states the movement was founded and is led by Jim & Nancy Dornan and makes no mention of "Network 21". This conflict should be resolved. For example, if network 21 and "network of caring" are both arms of Jim Dornan, the article could state that (assuming its backed up with sources). Vague references in specific "articles" on these website that claim "network of caring is an arm of network 21" should not be used to justify a direct linkage. The link should be clear from the website of the supporting institution. These websites, collectively, can be used to establish the link and general purpose but should not be used to establish other facts, specifically material that is unduly self-serving. For example, none of the websites provided should be used to state that network 21 has donated over $30 million to the feeding, housing, and education of over 60,000 children in Africa, Asia, South America, and Europe for example their level of giving., unless a reliable third party source supports the statement.—Work permit (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

.

Hi, just a quick comment (more later) but several of the references would qualify under WP:SPS as sources for this article. World Vision I would also consider has a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" - as a major incorporated international organization it's reports will go through numerous editors before publication. This source in particular. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that self published sources may be used in specific ways, and stated so in my opinion. Please read through the limitations on their use. Specifically, the material is not unduly self-serving; and the article is not based primarily on such sources when considering how to use such sources.--Work permit (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The World Vision source isn't N21, so as such the information isn't "self-serving" and neither is the claim in dispute (ie NOC is the humanitarian arm of N21) I think it comes down to whether World Vision reports are considered acceptable as an RS or not. I've posted it up on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#World_Vision_as_an_RS for comment. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

World visions website states IBO's and World Vision began a partnership called Network of Caring more than fifteen years ago. Since then, many Independent Business Owners in 14 countries have sponsored and helped more than 10,000 needy children. The Network of caring website leads me to understand network of caring is led by Donovan, who gets the IBO's to donate money, all of which goes to World Vision. The "sister" charity, Fernando Foundation, is led by David Ruelas and Jerry Frick. Not being an expert, I find the relationships somewhat confusing.--Work permit (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it's a little confusing! For a non-RS explanation - In short Jim Dornan and other leaders in Network 21 around the world formed Network of Caring as a humanitarian arm of Network 21. N21 is a company owned by Dornan, but also refers to the hundreds of thousands of Amway IBOs that are affiliated with it. Many of these are part of Dornan's Amway business, but many are not. NOC has been so successful that at times other Amway organisations have encouraged their "members" to contribute (hence the two other choices on one WV page). So, NOC is an offshoot of N21, and virtually all of it's funding comes from N21 members, but others are not turned away. The Fernando Foundation is an offshoot of NOC, again with virtually all of it's funding comes via NOC. The Ambassador Fund was a project of the Fernando Foundation, same situation re money. (and PS, no, I don't work for any of them, studying this stuff has been a hobby of mine for a decade) --Insider201283 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So N21 a private corporation owned by Dornan? Does he own 100% of the corporation, or just a controlling interest? When you say NOC was formed as a humanitarian "arm", do you mean it is controlled by N21? As a private charity, I assume it has a board of trustees? Who appoints these trustees? N21, or Dornan? I'm trying to understand if NOC is the charitable arm of Dornan, or N21. I understand Dornan controls N21, but there still is a distinction.--Work permit (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe N21 is 100% owned by Jim & Nancy Dornan, or a corporation owned by them, but I'm not 100% sure that's the case, particularly if you look into international markets. Looking up NOC and FF on GuideStar I realised that NOC itself raises funds by directing them elsewhere - so while it is currently a registered 501c, in reality it's primarily a "branding", if you will, for the efforts of Network 21 and N21 IBOs, for example encouraging N21 affiliated IBOs to donate to World Vision. It doesn't actually collect money. This year however a full time staff member has been appointed to directing the efforts of NOC, so perhaps that will change. The FF actually does stuff with the money it is given already. So, as per World Vision, NOC is the "humanitarian arm of Network 21" and it's initial project was focused getting N21 IBOs to sponsor children through World Vision. Since then it's expanded into support of other projects. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just about every reference in the version of the article you keep reverting to is self serving, Amway media blogs, or stakeholders of N21. It's ridiculous.

I tried to find and add some reliable sources for the article, but there is basically no media coverage at all, and the only sources for information I could find that were independent from N21 business interests/self serving I posted, and you deleted. If N21 was worth reporting, mainstream or any other independent media would have. Perhaps the N21 article should be merged into the Amway article. Looking at the list of references, it is completely self serving, not RS. Financeguy222 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, as I mentioned above I wrote to NOC/N21 and pointed out their website didn't make the relationship clear. They've now added some text to the site that should remove this point of dispute - Network of Caring - About Us. That also makes the CBM article an RS directly contributing the notability of this article. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What happens next?

• If my opinion misses the point

Explain why you think I missed the point. Give me a reasonable time to justify or revise my opinion. I'm not an expert on the topic and may have unintentionally overlooked a detail.

• If my opinion needs clarification

Please reply in Plain English. I'd appreciate references to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If I was confusing or you can not see which part of the referenced material applies, then ask me for further clarification. Please remember to remain civil.

• If my opinion is not accepted

If my opinion is firmly rejected, it's probably not worth while going over the same ground again. Ask the non-accepting party to clarify their viewpoint and summarize the current situation. Remember to stay cool and give reasonable time for contributions from other editors who may act as local mediators.

Your next step is probably to consider one of the other dispute resolution options. The most common of these at this stage are:

1. A request for comment, a good solution for agreeing a proposed exception to the guidance, or rejecting it.
2. Raising a Wikiquette alert, a fair way of dealing with another editor who consistently shows what you think is poor etiquette. Going through the third opinion process should demonstrate that you have made reasonable attempts to resolve issues locally before raising the alert.
3. Requesting advice on a Wikipedia noticeboard. For example Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is particularly helpful in those cases where the inclusion of problematic biographical material for a living person is under debate.
4. Requesting advice on a Wikiproject talk page. Nearly all articles fall within the jurisdiction of a Wikiproject, and the members of that project can be helpful in further bringing about consensus on that page.

• If my opinion worked and resolved the dispute

Don't forget to express thanks to everyone involved. Positive feedback is encouraged as it shows that their contributions are appreciated which will help to ensure the future of the third opinion project. If my third opinion was especially thoughtful or particularly helpful, you might consider awarding a Third Opinion Award on my talk page.

Notability

So far I've found significant mention of N21 by the following wholly third parties WP:RS,WP:V sources - World Vision, The Christian Businessman magazine, South Africa's The Daily Sun newspaper, author James Robinson, and Blaze Sports, as well as in the Maxwell/Dornan book "Becoming a Person of Influence" and numerous Amway publications. None of these are publications of either Network 21 or Network of Caring/Fernando Foundation. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

FG222 has numerous times added WP:CORP to the article, despite the listing of independent sources for the article (and the tag saying not to re-add if someone deletes it.) I will be more specific - Network 21 has received "significant coverage in secondary sources", including but not limited to the following independent, 3rd party, WP:V, WP:RS sources -

• extensive mention of the organisation and a number of it's leaders in the book Empire of Freedom by James Robinson
• a 7 page story (plus cover) in the May 1998 issue of the magazine The Christian Businessman
• a half page article on it's charitable work in South Africa's Daily Sun newspaper, July 30, 2007.

I believe this speaks to notability without even discussing whether World Vision is an independent source or not.--Insider201283 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Where can one find back issues of The Christian Businessman? I searched around and this page that includes a mention of it. But when I followed their weblink, http://www.christianbusinessman.com/, I got to a page that said, in big letters, "WorldVision". The archive page for the Daily Sun doesn't seem to be working.[1]   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No idea, ask a christian businessman! :-) Libraries that stock it I guess. I have a PDF scan of the article and cover if you'd like it. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Some copies on AmwayWiki - [2], scroll down to "Media" at the bottom. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the mag lasted till 1999 or thereabouts [3] and spawned a book [4]. this 2007 reference says it's no longer in print, The current site you visited is clearly some amateur site set up a couple of years later that has links to a variety of "christian" websites, including world vision. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that research. I looked at the Christian Businessman PDF but I couldn't find any mention of Network TwentyOne.[5] Which page is it on?   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned several times, but you're right - not by name and that could pedantically be argued as OR. Network of Caring is mentioned by name as are "and his business associates" several times. The CBM reference entered the discussion not through notability but because FG22 was challenging the info on the World Vision site that NOC was directly connected to N21 and not just a Dornan venture. The CBM says NOC was setup together with "other leaders in his business network" and has similar phrasing several times. The World Vision article says it's "the charitable arm of Network 21". N21 sites also also talk about it in this way. The article also refers several times to meetings and growth in various countries, and this info is virtually the same as in Empire of Freedom talking about Jim Dornan and (explictly) Network 21. It's about as OR as 1+1=2. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it would seem to be covered by WP:NOTOR - Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources.--Insider201283 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be used as proof of the subject's notability if it never mentions the subject by name, and only refers to it in passing. Does the Daily Sun refer to N21 by name?   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that sucks ... just found a bunch more references, was listing them all up at Chrome crashed and doesn't save state :(. Anyway the CBM article mentions N21 in more than passing, talking about NOC and also the international expansion, which, using WP:NTOR and other WP:RS and WP:V sources (eg Robinson reports almost the exact same facts about international expansion, but references N21) is clearly talking about N21. The Daily Sun article talks about "Netwotk Training 21" but explicitly names N21 staff. The Robinson book talks about N21 and N21 leaders numerous times. The World Vision articles explictly refer to Network 21. This article [6], apparently from a slovenian journal (see header p.2) mentions N21 as does this article [7] from rsf.org and this Danish newspaper article [8] and this [9] Polish news article (something for the controversy section perhaps - Amway and N21 sued a Polish film maker over an anti-Amway documentary when Amway launched there in the 90s. The filmmakers were found guilty of defamation and the court banned the film, which caused some waves as it was the first film to be banned post-communism). I'm pretty certain I've seen a swedish news article too. No individual article is "proof" of notability but WP:CORP is clearly satisfied. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This source only mentions it in passing.[10] The Danish paper seems to devote only two sentences to N21.[11] I don't see how WP:CORP has been met. Please add the best sources you can find to the article, and rewrite the article so it's based on them. Primary and self-published sources should be used sparingly.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is with Notability? WP:CORP says - If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. I've just skimmed the first 100 pages of Robinsons' book and found 10 pages devoted to N21 and N21 leaders (yes, explicitly mentioning Network 21) - and there's more in the rest of the book. It's unquestionably substantial coverage, independent, third party, WP:RS and WP:V. Then there's the substantial World Vision articles, the substantial CBM article, a substantial newspaper article devoted to an N21 philanthropy project in South Africa, and the Polish news articles (WP:CORP:Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability) plus less substantial but "multiple independent sources" such as a journal article referencing N21 and the various other newspaper articles that (albeit in passing) reference N21. I'm 90% sure other (independent, third party) books I have also reference N21, including an upcoming book on Amway to be published in September. And that's not going in to the various Amway and IBOAI publications - third party publications, albeit not what one would call wholly independent. Mind you, the blogs reference in the controversy section should indicate it's not some simple fawning relationship. In any case, Notability should not be an issue. Rewriting and proper sourcing of the article is, no disagreement there, and I've been making some improvements, but hobbies such as WP are taking a back seat for now. While I've got your attention though, what's your opinion on the "controversy" section and sources - there's one primary source (NSW government) for one item and a few POV and non-independent SPS corporate blogs (not by the topic of the article), and no 3rd party independent sources. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The best place to decide notability issues is AFD. So I suggest spending a week improving the article as much as possible, and if there's still any doubt about notability we can let others decide. As for the contrvoersy section, I'm trying to bring up the NSW citation in the wayback machine.[12] Why are we using Amway Media Blog as a source?   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do with some improvements. As for the blogs as sources, if I recall it wasn't something I could be bothered debating last time I looked at the article. There were far too much other more egregious non-RS, non-V, POV stuff to deal with. The blog "controversy" was at least true! --Insider201283 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

<-Hmm, just discovered if you use an interational google rather than google.com, it doesn't restrict to english. Here's a bunch of books referring to Network 21.[13]. News is more difficult, you have to do by language. Polish news references to Network 21 [14]. A couple of Phillipine news articles [15][16]. Two from california [17][18]--Insider201283 (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just got Empire of Freedom from the library, and I cant' find the extensive coverage of N21 in it. On page 148 there are about 150 words, and it is mentioned in passing a couple of other times. Am I missing something?   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick skim - pp6-8,p59 (on Dornans),pp101-103,p148,p109 (Salas - states their part of N21 in page 103), p.112-114 (N21 in hungary and austria),p.147-148,p.161,p.196-198(Robert Angkasa in Indonesia). There's also info on numerous other N21 leadership (incl Mike & Carla Wilson, Jim & Sharon Janz, Brian & Marg Hays) though doesn't mention N21 explicitly so not really useful. Given all the other references above I don't think notability is really in question any more is it?--Insider201283 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those refs - no index. I won't have time to check those pages or the other refs until next week. But in the meantime, as I wrote above, the article should be based on those rather than blogs and other SPSes.  Will Beback  talk  07:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've checked those refs, but several don't mention N21 at all. The only other significant mention of N21 appears to be on pages 6-8, but since the letters are large and the pages are small it's only a brief mention. So that book alone does not appear sufficient to establish notability.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Manila Standard[19] and Philippine Daily Inquirer[20] just seem to be press releases. "CITY HAPPY WITH ITS BIG NEW HOUSE" appears to be about the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center.[21] I haven't tried to translate the Polish sources, but presumably those are not the basis for the network's notability.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(1)Every Empire of Freedom reference I gave you talks about Network 21 or, in one or two cases, Network 21 leadership who have earlier been identified in the work as being a part of Network 21. I frankly don't understand your claim

(2)The Manila Standard and Philippine Daily Inquirer do not look like press releases to me, and to the best of my knowledge N21 has never done a press release about their conferences. The conferences are private affairs remember, you cannot simply rock up and buy a ticket. The Long Beach article is the same. In short, local newspapers thought the fact a major conference center was booked out for a particular event was notable.

(3)You presume wrong about the Polish sources - not that any single source speaks to notability. As I already outlined N21 and Amway were involved in a dispute with a film maker that received a great deal of coverage in the Polish press, and it involved the first banning of a film since the communists were tossed out.

--Insider201283 (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If the Polish film issue is a significant element of N21's notability then why isn't it mentioned in the article? Why aren't the Philippine sources used, if what they report is part of the subject's notability? I don't see this article making any real progress, and it's still based on weak, non-independent sources.   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the Google translations of the Polish news articles, but none of them are about N21. They concern the documentary and only mention N21 in passing.[22][23][24]   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"...to the best of my knowledge N21 has never done a press release about their conferences" Do you some connection to N21 that makes you an authority on their media relations? How would you know whether or not they've issued any press releases in the Philippines?   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(1)10 years of researching Amway and affiliated companies makes me somewhat knowledgeable on the topic - and as such yes I have made connections with N21 staff - ie I can email them and ask them questions and they usually answer. Mind you, you're free to do this too.

(2) You're questions regarding why aren't things mentioned in the article or "making significant process" is absurd on two levels - one is that the article has been locked the past week thanks to FG222's edit warring, and for the week prior to that it was impossible to do much editing, again thanks to his edit warring. Prior to that the article had been pretty stable but obviously needed work, and possibly relevant info wasn't in it for the same reason relevant info isn't in the majority of Wikipedia articles - it's a work in progress! On the second level, notability of the article is a separate issue to whether something is actually covered in the article or not, though obviously related.

(3) Network of Caring is Network 21.[25] I thought that had been made clear.

(4) I've previously listed most of these on this page, but to make it easy I'm collating and summarising potential references on my talk page - User:Insider201283/Network_21_-_references

So we have a number of unquestionably RS sources providing significant coverage (eg Empire of Freedom, The Christian Businessman, Indonesian Journal article) and numerous other references in books, journals, and news media - and that's before even considering things like the World Vision reports, which received no commentary at all when posted on RS/N [26], or the IBOAI news articles. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been around for years. You've been editing it since 2006. I dispute that the Christian Businessman article is about N21 since it is never mentioned in the article. The Empire of Freedom mentions are also minor. I don't know what Indonesian journal you're talking about - you've never mentioned it before. I'm going to go ahead and send this to AFD and let the community decide.   Will Beback  talk  17:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the connection between the Fernando Fund and N21? Is it simply that they are headed by the same people?   Will Beback  talk  17:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

<-(1)How can something like 8-10 pages worth of info in an RS book be considered "minor"? I suspect your missing a fundamental understanding of the topic - if a page talks about for example, Robert Angkasa's business in Indonesia it's talking about Network 21 in Indonesia - this is not OR or SYN and falls under WP:NOTOR - Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names.

(2)Same applies with Network of Caring. The sources are clear Network of Caring IS Network 21. They are effectively synonymous terms. It's like stating an article about Diet Coke isn't relevant to an article about the Coca-Cola company unless it actual mentions the Coca-Cola company.

(3) Prior to the current edits I made some minor edits a year ago (mostly removing POV non-RS edits much like this year by the looks of it) and some minor edits two years before that, and some edits when I first started on WP 6 months before that. Your involvement has been very similar, so one could just as well ask why you haven't been fixing it! Like most articles, a little controversy can drive improvements :)

(4) The indonesian paper was in one of the google search lists I referenced earlier, but I hadn't looked at it further until now either. I studied Indonesian for several years at school, so I have some understanding of it as well of course google translate!

(5) As per the NOC website, Fernando Foundation is a sister charity to NOC [27], but with it's funding primarily coming via NOC can be considered an outreach of NOC. Indeed the official NOC blog refers to it in this manner ("Network 21's Fernando Foundation") [28] and from what I understand with the recent appointment of a full-time staff member to run NOC this will become more formalised. It's an actual Foundation that spends money, unlike NOC which is the outreach of N21 and N21 IBOs. So like NOC distributes funds to World Vision it also does to the Fernando Foundation. Unlike World Vision thouygh, FF operates out of the same office as NOC/N21 and is primarily funded by NOC. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. The page of E of F are small and the print is large, so "8-10 pages worth of info" implies more text than actually exists. I only count about five or six pages of material that's about N21 by name, and even that is mostly rather minor. You appear to count any mention of anybody connected to N21. Can you link the Indonesian source again? I don't see it.   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

N21 Business System

This section needs rewriting and better sourcing, and is perhaps not particularly important to the article, lacking any 3rd party notability --Insider201283 (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no sourcing. --Financeguy222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

Yes, it is partically sourced to a book "System for Success". Not a third party source though. That would be ok but without anything else probably not notable --Insider201283 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could provide references that verify the claims Financeguy222 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write any of that section, however it is referenced to the Network 21 publication "system for success"--Insider201283 (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

n21.guy.com

This is an official site and blog of Network 21 and would seem to qualify as appropriate under Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links --Insider201283 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources like that may be used as a source, but the article should be based on them. I don't see any secondary sources in the current version. That calls the company's notability into question. If we can't find any then we should AfD the article.   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Will, the blog wasn't used as a source, it was merely under External Links. FG222 has several times added a blogspot personal blog to the site and is of the opinion if it's not allowed neither should the official blog.--Insider201283 (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, that n21guy site WAS used as a source, to show an official Amway magazine's (Achieve magazine) scans inside that site as a source. Insider201283 added Ref 3# ^ Achieve Magazine - Vol 2, Issue 4, December 2009 which links to http://n21guy.com/jn-dornan-in-achieve-1209/

I have only posted that blogspot link once, other people have posted it in the past. I have not added it back, however it appears to be one of the only independent sources of information for N21, which is probably why it gets referred to. I wish there were more credible sources for an unbiased opinion.

Yes, the whole N21 article is severely lacking in any other sources apart from official N21 PR websites, or related businesses. I seriously question the notability myself. If the company is so philanthropic, and successful, where are the articles from independent media and other independent sources without a vested interest?? Surely these would be easy to find for such a company with the description as listed in the article. Financeguy222 (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the n21guy site was NOT used as a source. This has already been explained to you, it was simply WP:CONV. The source is the magazine as cited. World Vison is not a "related business". The Christian Businessman magazine is not a "related business". Of course it's interesting to note the many words you wrote above claiming that NOC and the Fernando Foundation should not be in the article because they're not related ... and now your claiming they shouldn't be used as sources in the article because they are related! Make up your mind. :-/ And yet you don't seem to have a problem with the "controversy" section consisting of info sourced from blogs of a "related" company and not mentioned anywhere by any "independent" sources. If sources like World Vision and The Christian Businessman magazine and Daily Sun newspaper did not exist then I'd agree, the subject of the article is perhaps not notable enough for an article.--Insider201283 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally (or perhaps not) n21guy.com is an allowable source under WP:SPS, the blogspot blog is clearly not - indeed so clearly not it was removed by a wikipedia autobot. In any case, no attempt has been made to use n21guy.com as a source for the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I never implied they were totally unrelated, only that they are not part of N21's business, and the same related person stands to benefit- Jim Dornan

According to your sources World Vision received 30 million dollars in funding from N21, that does not make it unrelated and independent.

The whole article is made up of official propaganda from their own PR sites. Notability issue if I ever did see one.

Resolve this issue first then we can talk Financeguy222 (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you claiming that one of the world's largest charitable organisations is not a reliable source with regard to it's donors? Really? Or are you claiming "notability" rests entirely on the World Vision source, even though the subject of the article is mentioned in at least two mainstream media sources and several independently published books? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

methodology

Section requires better sourcing for inclusion.

Business Methodology

Network 21 provides training programs to help IBOs grow their Amway/Quixtar businesses. The system consists of books and CDs, and organizing seminars where successful business persons, specialists and motivational speakers speak, both from within and from outside Network 21. Network 21 teaches a method of business building which it calls the "TEAM21 strategy"..

The Network 21 Business System

The basic N21 business building system is the following -

1. Define your goal or dream

2. Learn about and become Core (see below)

3. Make a list of potential business partners and customers

4. Learn how to do a professional business invitation, and invite them to see the business presentation

5. Show the business presentation

6. Followup with interested business prospects and customers

7. Evaluate your results with your mentor/coach

8. Repeat

Core

"Core" is provided as a series of activities that IBOs should engage in to order to maximize their potential to build a successful, profitable Amway business. N21 recommends doing the Core activities every month consistently over a period of 1-2years to achieve Silver Producer level in Amway.

1. Show the Business Plan to a minimum of 8 people per month, preferably at least 15

2. Use and learn about the products and generate a minimum level of personal volume each month (including both personal consumption and retail clients)

3. Have a minimum of 10 personal clients

4. Listen to an educational/motivational CD daily

5. Read a personal development book daily (min 15mins)

6. Participate in the N21 system of seminars

7. Work as part of a team

8. good income

Vital Signs

Network 21 uses a method known as "Vital signs" to help measure the ongoing "health" of a business. Data is collated from IBO businesses and those statistics that reflect growing profitable businesses are supplied to IBOs as "goals". Statistics indicate that matching that data tends to result in a business of similar size and profitability. The statistics collected include how much personal volume an IBO is generating (through personal use and retail customer sales), how many retail customers the IBO has, how many IBOs in a group are showing at least 15 business presentations a month, and how many IBOs a group are participating in ongoing education programs. The actual "Vital Signs" statistics vary from market to market.--Insider201283 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Blakey (Again)

As per WP:BURDEN I have removed this (again). FinanceGuy222 is wishing to re-add info based on a paid opinion piece by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Amway and others - a lawsuit it must be noted from which Amway was dismissed. The so-called "Blakey Report" is clearly not WP:RS, failing WP:V and WP:SPS and is being used as a WP:COATRACK. FG222's other "source" is a self-published opinion piece by Evelyn Pringle that was republished on scoop.co.nz and contains verifiable falsehoods. Neither the Blakey Report nor the Pringle piece say anything about Network 21 than it's a "part" of Amway. It has previously been rejected as a source for the Amway_Global article. [29]--Insider201283 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this again under WP:V - Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, this is the only part of the whole Network 21 article that has been covered by independent media, and also the only part of the article that is not self serving. Funny that. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0501/S00232.htm is WP:RS

As for your self serving sources, which are currently under question here, WP:BLP states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

This applies to the majority of the whole Network 21 article including your sources.

If you're going to remove independent news media sources, but leave your unduly self serving self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves then you have a clear double standard and bias.

Also, the Giblin V N21 case is WP:V. Financeguy222 (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1. No, the scoop piece is not WP:RS, it is clearly marked "opinion" and as such are only considered reliable sources for the authors opinion - not for claims about someone elses opinion

2. While I disagree with this and have discussed it on various noticeboards/talk pages, WP:BLP does not apply to companies and organisations (I think it should.) WP:V does however and clearly states, as noted above Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.

3. amquix.info is a self-published website and not WP:RS, the court documents themselves maybe, but would be primary sources and not notable unless reported in 3rd party RS.

4. The info I think should be included on NOC is based on the contention that World Vision is a reliable source. I've listed in on RS/N for opinion. If it's not, then it's not usable as a source to support the idea NOC is part of N21.

FG222, you're new to wikipedia, all of these issues have been discussed more than once on the Amway/Quixtar and related articles. Please read WP:V and WP:RS in particular, but also WP:WEIGHT. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

--Insider201283 (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You criticise the Blakey report for being a "paid" report - a legal expert's report used as court evidence, yet add the World Vision reference, who allegedly received 30 million dollars from N21, WV is already a non WP:RS, but being paid that much likely makes it even more questionable.

The blakey report is widely accepted, and was quoted as opinion, not fact.

The court documents Giblin Vs N21 etc are available from the courts, but the amquix link was given for convenience. Surely you can't possibly question the reliability of court documents. Financeguy222 (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My two cents, FWIW, is that the court case documents are wp:primary, and should be treated as such. The opinion piece is only notable for the fact that its the authors opinion. Evelyn Pringle doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy, and so neither would her opinion be noteworthy. Unfortunately, most of the entire article seems to be built on wp:sps, wp:primary sources, and press releases. "The Christian Businessman and reports from World Vision seem tenuous sources to hang an entire article on.--Work permit (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the article needs rewriting with better sources, as per the above discussion involving Will. At present there's also the Robinson book to be used (it covers most of the basics), and of course corp sites themselves are ok for non-controversial stuff. Frankly I'm pretty astounded that NOC has become "controversial", but that's wikipedia for you ... anyway, as per parts of the discussion above there is a goal to rewrite this week using better sources, however FG222 appears to be in a hurry to have certain views inserted. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A hurry? I have left all your questionable statements and sources in tact, even though they are currently all under question. I'd like a balanced article. The only non official/related business ventures sources of information that seem to exist of the company talk about court cases and criticism, and a lot of negative opinion. It is difficult to find any secondary RS for this company, good, negative or neutral, so again a question of notability. Financeguy222 (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you consider Empire of Freedomn a reliable source? It's an independent work by a recognized author and published by a recognized publishing company and discusses N21 quite extensively. Wholly WP:RS and WP:V. Then we have N21 mentions by the independent PHD paper (by definition peer-reviewed) plus mentions in South African, Danish, and Polish newspapers - not to mention extensive mention in publications by NGO World Vision, which is being used for what to any reasonably person is non-controversial information. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said I didnt consider Empire of Freedomn a reliable source.

The rest of what you wrote is not legible english.

I don't know how many times it has to be said or how clear it has to be explained that the sources for this article are a problem due to all the self promotion, (and the fact that a large proportion of the article is based on official sources that make the article's statements about the Dornan's, not N21 specifically) and lack of any information from sources that are not related businesses or PR articles. If you have some independent RS post them.

Financeguy222 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Miss one word (have) in one sentence and it all becomes illegible? I'll be more careful next time. :-/ As for the rest, as already noted above I'm in complete agreement that the article needs work and better sourcing. The initial issue under debate though is notability - and that is determined even by sources not used in the article. I'm trying to get that issue out of the way first, as well of course as collecting sources during the research process. Then a rewrite can occur. Given the additional references listed (or linked to) are you happy to move on from the notability issue?--Insider201283 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reference you cite that appears to have no financial ties to N21 is the Robinson book reference, and gives the article the following text: "N21 is an education and training company supplying Professional Development Programs to Independent Business Owners (IBOs) working with Amway as well as to the organisation of IBOs affiliated with it"

Do you possibly have a pdf extract of this reference?

As discussed, the other references are official,have financial ties,and a lot categorically state they are talking about the "Dornan's" business interests, not N21 business.

I question the reliability of this Robinson book, since it appears to be Amway promotional propaganda/personal opinion. The author might just be completely independent, but I'm putting the idea out there for someone else to consider.

Still if that ref is 100% RS, to base an article on one brief and obscure sentence seems a bit far fetched. Have you come up with any independent references the last few days? I havnt noticed any added in here. If it really is that hard to find reliable secondary sources there are clear notability issues that are unresolved, and I doubt can be resolved.

With exception to that one book sentence, the article is made up of obviously non-NPOV references, that are from official public relations blogs with a vested interest. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Financeguy222 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC) FG222 - which part of I entirely agree the article needs rewriting and better sourcing are you struggling to understand? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my previous comment, I think that the best way of determining the notability of this topic is to put it through the AfD process. If the best sources have been found, then let's see if it meets the standards. It was deleted once already, in 2005.[30]   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Will, I have read up on AfD, and tried to invoke it previously, but was informed I was not following best procedure. To avoid any issues could you (or anyone else) please start the process, as I'm not sure how to do it in the correct manner. Thanks Financeguy222 (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

FG, I think that AFD may be the best place to resolve issues regarding the notability of this topic, but let's see what can be established before going there. I am concerned that much of this article is about other endeavors besides N21. If the charitable foundation is more notable than N21 then perhaps we should have an article about it instead, for example.   Will Beback  talk  08:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think all views that could be put forward, have been put forward in here, and the issue has not been resolved. I have been unable to find any good sources for notability, nor have any been posted in here by anyone else over the last couple of weeks of discussion, and with it's current bias unfortunately the article reads like an ad. Your point about the charitable activites being more notable I agree with, and might be relevant instead in a Jim Dornan WP article, or Network of Caring perhaps, not N21. However, if Dornan or NOC is notable? I wouldnt think so, may have same issues to this article.

Before going to AfD, what can be done now? Financeguy222 (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the proposed sources offered by Insider I've gone ahead and nominate the article at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network TwentyOne We can continue to improve the article while it's under discussion there.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I have locked this article from editing for one week. Please iron out these disputes here in the meantime; if the issues are resolved, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. There is some very good advice near the top of this page around the third opinion request, especially the section #What happens next?. Please follow those or other steps in dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To do

I've rewritten the lead and history and made some minor changes to philanthropy. The current "controversy" section needs to be tossed (no RS sources) however I'm waiting on some copies of RS sources regarding th Polish film "Welcome to Life". I'm also trying to get a copy of the Indonesian journal case study on Network 21.--Insider201283 (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe some of the UK matter is also covered in the Amway article, so those sources could be used here. I've also got another source for it.   Will Beback  talk  17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking for a source for that, the stuff in the Amway article isn't sourced. I don't think the case against N21 was ever mentioned in the press, either when BERR submitted it or when BERR dropped it. I have an email copy of a press release from N21 about it when the case was dropped, but that's not even on the N21 website let alone anywhere else. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll add the source to the Amway article.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a feeling there might be one around but I couldn't find it showing up on news source searches. I've manually found the articles on mlive.com and used those "live" one. That would appear to be more RS coverage. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged this article for re-write. Here is why.

Firstly, pyramids are illegal in most countries, and therefore Network21 and/or Amway cannot (and do not) operate a pyramid.

Secondly, there is a very sophisticated tiered compensation plan associated with Amway (which is irrelevant) and Network 21 BSM (which is relevant). Unless you are privileged to have access to the specifics on how bonuses for BSM are calculated, and are permitted by the company to disclose this, I suggest you remove statements that presuppose who makes the money, and how the money is made.

Thirdly, almost every second or third sentence presents a controversial opinion. Even the sources appear to be the opinions of the uninformed. There is a section dedicated to Controversy. Use it.

Fourthly, there has been no mention of how many members or businesses Network 21 supports, or how many employees Network 21 has, or what its yearly turnover is, which I would consider to be critical pieces of information.

Fifthly, the founders of Network 21 regularly deliver seminars that provide company updates. These seminars are usually recorded by Network 21 and distributed through the network via audio CD. If you are interested in maintaining or contributing to this page and want some perspective, see if you can find a Network 21 IBO and see if you can borrow some of his audio CDs, particularly CDs by Jim Dornan. The one I would recommend is "UoS 101 and UoS 102".

I would also recommend ibofacts.com as a credible source, as the people who maintain this site are neither Amway employees, nor Network 21 employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.16.61 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

UK Case

The allegations were against Amway, we actually don't know what the accusations against N21 were. Also worth noting that the Muskegon chronicle article is not factually accurate either - neither Britt WorldWide nor Network 21 are "Amway distributors". At the time of the case N21 owners the Dornans didn't even have an Amway business in the UK. The company was supplying distributors there unrelated to their Amway business and it is in fact explictly against Amway rules for IBOs to sell stuff to "crossline" IBOs BTW, here's a link to the case dismissal - [31]

Again, we do not know what the allegations against Network 21 were. If you have a source provide it. I will readd the secondary supporting link for Reach for a Dream. Re MLIVE we must be talking about different links, this one works fine for me [32].--Insider201283 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Mlive link now working.

the reach for a dream site does not link to, no logo mentions n21 nor in any of the logo filenames, does not mention them in text, and has no mention of any activities support offered by any orgs. the n21 official ref does not mention anything about donating wheelchairs to support article statement.

How could a company be investigated by the gov for a year, be brought to trial, if it has, as you say, "no business in the UK". I seriously doubt that.

article's sources state the allegations, and that the gov were trying to wind up n21, also somewhat vaguely supported by the dismissal document you provided. The times article does not mention n21 by name, but is referring to the same government investigation and basis for trial, and the trial's effect on IBOs relates directly to n21. If Amway was shut down, there is no way n21 would have continued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Financeguy222 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) re Reach for a Dream, I readded the other N21 source, which is allowable under WP:SPS. The Reach source itself has the N21 logo listed in the sponsors, as it does with their other sponsors.

(2) You apparently fail to have a basic understanding of the topic. Network 21 is NOT Jim Dornan's Amway business. Large portions of his Amway business, and other's Amway businesses, use and affiliate with Network 21. Jim Dornan's Amway business was not investigated in any way, he didn't even have a UK business at the time (I think he may have one now). The N21 case never even made it to hearings. BERR submitted 3 petitions to wind up 3 companies - against Amway, BWW, and N21. BWW wound up voluntarily. Amway won their case, BERR dropped the case against N21. To the best of my knowledge the allegations against N21 have never been made public, as such there's really nothing that should be said about them in this article, but that's not worth energy fighting about it. As it happens the various examples of people making money given by the judge when he dismissed the case against Amway were *all* affiliated with Network 21, and none of the examples he gave of exaggeration were by IBOs affiliated with Network 21. I asked BERR for a copy of their complant, they refused the request. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is about N21, not Amway, your edits are verging on vandalism. It's incredible that you think entire documentaries, significant portions of books, and dozens of 3rd party references are not suffficient to make a topic notable, but one mention in one paper of a case that was dropped and another against another company altogether - and which that company won - are notable enough for inclusion! At least have some consistency. You (and others) demand standards far in excess of Wikipedia guidelines if an source suits your POV, however if we were to follow Wikipedia guidelines then the case against N21 in the UK, with one media source found, is not even notable enough to be mentioned. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You should take your own advice. You keep reverting sentences I added that are sourced from the source you provided, and adding new ones that don't mention n21 at all to suit your COI. The section mentioning the judge's findings on IBOs relates directly to the investigation of all 3 companies being investigated by the government, as network 21 members are IBOs, and any outcome would affect them, even if findings were directed at Amway itself. Financeguy222 (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so N21 members are IBOs. They're also humans - do you therefore believe we should put in scientific findings on humans in this article? As it is now you have allegations against another company (Amway) that were dismissed and supported in this article by a reference that doesn't even mention network 21. And completely contrary to your claim, apart from in the dismissal of this case and the polish case, I haven't used a single source that does not directly mention N21 or one of it's operations. WP:V one of the core policies of Wikipedia states - "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page". WP:V also states Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited. Even if you had a source that confirmed these allegations were made against Network 21 - and you don't - it would be debatable if they have a place in this article, given the allegations were dismissed. If you persist I will report you for edit warring. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll note from this discussion[33] it wasn't even clear if this case was notable enough for mention in the Amway article, given it was dismissed. I think it is notable enough for a brief mention, but not into details of dismissed allegations. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The additional statements listed regarding the Welcome to Life court case are not POV, they add context to the mention that amway took someone to court. They are not statements about N21, or implying they are fact, but what the court case and film was about and what n21 was defending. Originally the n21 article inferred they were being sued for portraying "happy people clapping". Now there is real context.

It's all sourced, and youre complaining about content ive sourced from articles that you supplied as sources. seriously.

The outcome of the Amway UK case had direct repercussions on N21. If Amway was shut down, n21 would have been shut down. They are exclusively associated with Amway.

You also supplied a NYT reference that did not mention N21, only amway, but used it as a reference to say n21 sued the Welcome to life filmmakers, which "might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations".

Also the citation you are using for the reach for a dream statement, is not at all mentioned in any of the sources provided. Financeguy222 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll check the reach a dream statement. The NYT source re "Welcome" was used to provide context for the case - I did not go into explicit details about what Amway alleged. The article mentioned the "happy people clapping" quote and the documentary, a source in itself, portrayed Network 21 seminars. I tried to write that section in a "balanced" way yet provide some coverage of a notable event. If you want to remove the Amway part of that section I'm fine with that, we can just talk about the copyright violations - which are sourced. You are inserting allegations against Amway in general, proven wrong in a court of law, in an article about an organisation associated with Amway. That is not "balanced" or NPOV. Even then you have NO sources at all about what the case against N21 was about. If you have it, please share. In fact, given N21 was mentioned in just one syndicated news article, perhaps we should delete references altogether? The case was dismissed without even being heard and received minimal coverage. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to note I find it incredible you simultaneously accuse me of biased editing in favour of the topic of the article while attacking my use of sources to support criticism! --Insider201283 (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to the UK - perhaps you are also misreading the article. You are claiming "it was found", when this isn't what the article says at all. It says that's what the plaintiffs alleged - that's not the same as what the court "found". You can't report allegations of the plaintiff as factual - especially when the plaintiff lost the case! --Insider201283 (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have listed the case at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Network_TwentyOne. Please do not change the article until this is resolved. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

<-The source does not even remotely say what is currently written. First of all, DTI cannot "threaten to ban" a company since they cannot ban it - they can petition the court to close a company. If say Amway UK Ltd had indeed been closed, there would have been nothing stopping them reopening as say Amway Europe (UK) Ltd. As it is Amway won the case. The Muskegon Chronicle article is actually wrong on many points. As it states, the complaint was sealed, however the court judgement explictly states with regard the Amway case [34] - "Nor has this case been (as it might have been) about the volume of BSM produced by Amway or by the organisations (like Britt and Network 21)" ... completely contradicting what the Muskegon Chronicle says about the case. Given it was sealed I'm guessing they were fed the story by one of those pushing for the case. Right now the article inaccurately libels an active company, under WP:V these claims should be removed immediately. If someone can come up with better sources to back the claims (which the can't since they're not existent), then it can be readded. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"The source does not even remotely say what is currently written. First of all, DTI cannot "threaten to ban"".

That is exactly what the source says! "British regulators are threatening to ban Amway and two of its high-level distributors"

If the source is libellous, take it up with the source. However you were the one who provided the source in the first place as a reliable source. Your cherrypicking of some statements that suit your view but not others in the same single source is a joke, and clearly not NPOV. Financeguy222 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

FG222 - yes, the source said "threaten to ban" it also said N21 and BWW were Amway distributors and the case was about sale of motivational materials etc. The judge in his findings says the exact opposite - that N21 and BWW are independent companies and that the case was NOT about "tools". In any case, that's not the "libellous" part I was talking about - it is YOU that are making claims that are not supported by the source. The source reports on what the plaintiffs in the case (BERR) *accused* Amway of - not what the court found, which is what you are claiming. Please read it again and it is clearly about what BERR is alleging. Do you think if someone sues you and alleges something about you that it should be in Wikipedia as a "fact", even when the court found in your favour? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me which phrases in the article are not supported by the source instead of wholesale deleting whole sections of the article, including the "threaten to ban" statements, which you previously claimed were not sourced, and now admit are. There is no mention of "alleges" in the article.

Paste any unsourced claims in here, and I will be more than happy to edit them.

Also if you have n21's case findings then supply them. Financeguy222 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed the "threaten to ban" was unsourced. I said it was wrong - there's a difference. The current text is quite different to what I was objecting to as unsourced. In any case The Muskegon chronicle source is actually nonsensical, talking about "the complaint", which makes it difficult to understand what it's saying since it's a legal impossibility to have a single complaint against 3 different companies. As already noted the primary sources available (eg the court judgement) also directly contradict what the article states about the complaint against Amway and N21 and BWW. Of course I'm already aware that if an authoritive source says something different than what you want to believe, and you can find a secondary source to support your belief - you'll ignore the authoritive source. AFAIK the N21 case was never heard, BERR suspended their petition pending the outcome of the Amway case. I provided a link to the dismissal document. So, right now we have serious allegations about a company, from a clearly poor source (which btw does not relate to notability) ... from a case that was itself was dismissed and information for a related case shows are not even an accurate reflection of the allegations. This is a clear case for deletion under WP:V - Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations--Insider201283 (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Independent Business Owner

Is this an American term? It's used in the lede twice but it's not blue-linked to anywhere that explains the term. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually originally had the term italicised however another editor complained about the "weird italicising" and said it was obvious in meaning. It pretty much means what it means, however it's a term used throughout the direct sales/MLM industry. Amway also uses the term "Amway Business Owner" and "Amway Independent Business Owner" and "distributor" in other markets. The term used to be "distributor" everywhere, but with the internet and direct ordering and fulfillment very little "distribution" is done by IBOs these days. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

UK Case

There currently appears to be only the one secondary source with regard N21, Amway and the UK government, The Muskegon Chronicle. The problem is that this secondary source is contradicted by the primary source and other sources. For example, the Muskegon chronicle calls N21 a "high level Amway distributor". Other sources state it is not, including the judgement from the case, which states -

Britt and Network 21 are independent entities which are not owned by Amway or by any of its shareholders or officers. Amway does not share in any of the risks or rewards of Britt and Network 21 (BERR vs Amway UK Para 5) [35]

The Muskegon Chronicle states the case is about "tools", the judgment from the case explictly states it is not about tools (Business Support Materials, or BSM) -

Nor has this case been (as it might have been) about the volume of BSM produced by Amway or by the organisations (like Britt and Network 21) (BERR vs Amway UK para 50)[36]

WP:V states Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page. The claims made in the article is clearly poorly sourced and clearly damaging. Under Wikipedia policy the material should be removed entirely. However, given their was a case I'm hesitant to do so and unsure how to handle it. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Secondary_source_contradicted_by_primary_source --Insider201283 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this whole discussion under WP:DUE. We have one article from a small town newspaper reporting on allegations from the other side of the planet. It falls under Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views and If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.. Unless better sources can be found it should be removed, as per WP:V - Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, in case it helps, the court case has been described in multiple reliable sources. I'll point out first that the piece attributed to the Muskegon Chronicle piece has been misattributed; it was actually written by Rob Kirkbride of The Grand Rapids Press, distributed by Newhouse News Service and was also published in The Star-Ledger and (it appears) in the Muskegon Chronicle. There are also multiple mentions of the case, Norris' judgment, the government's appeal of the judgment in The Times, Press Association and Inter Press Service articles. Not all the articles explicitly mention Network 21, but they all mention the overall case. For what's its worth an associated Grand Rapids Press summary calls Network21 a "mega-distributor", and later articles say that the cases were dismissed. The articles are available via Lexis-Nexis and Factiva. If editors send me an email, I can send copies.--Slp1 (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Part of the issue is I think most of those talk about the case against Amway being dismissed, but don't mention Network 21. In either case useful for both articles. I'll PM you. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

These were petitions, see the court documents plus discussion in RS/N. Primary sources should only be used in support (or otherwise) of secondary sources or for factual information, to introduce new claims requiring interpretation. They should certainly not be used to put entirely novel information in the lead. It was Amway that introduced a revised business model, and even then the judgement and appeal judgement state that the revisions were not necessary to the petitions being dismissed. The basis of BERRS appeal was that the judge erred in considering the changes when dismissing the petition. The appeal judges said it didn't matter since they weren't necessary to the dismissal. We have no idea what occurred regarding the N21 dismissal. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement tag and primary sources tag

I removed these tags added by a new contributor as these issues were hashed to death in the recent AfD discussion --Insider201283 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Submitted to Dispute Resolution

• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-05-02/Network_TwentyOne

--Insider201283 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can involved editors please stop editing this article over issues awaiting mediation. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Documents

If I were to walk into companies court, how exactly could I get my hands on The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v AMWAY (UK) LIMITED, Petition Nos 2651,2652,2653 of 2007 (Chancery Division, Companies Court May 14, 2008) and The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Network TwentyOne Support Systems Ltd, Petition No 2653 of 2007 (Chancery Division, Companies Court April 3, 2009). No convience links to wikis owned by editors here, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Email them and ask them for a copy, that's what I did. Are you seriously claiming the PDFs on AmwayWiki are forged? Forging of government documents is a serious offence --Insider201283 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Or are you claiming that official court documents are an unreliable source for court outcomes? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to claim things are forged, I just need to say they are not reliably sourced. Who do I email, exactly, and what do I ask them, exactly? Actually, why not just send me a copy of what you emailed them so I can write exactly the same thing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have some 40000 emails stored in my accounts spread across a number of computers, many are archived. You have copies of what I received, you refuse to accept them, and have effectively accused me of forging government documents. I am not going to spend my time digging up the original emails to satisfy you. To paraphrase yourself[37] - I bill $1,000 US an hour for wikipedia assignments - payable in advance, minimum 30 hour contracts. Would you like my wire instructions, or are you going to do it yourself? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your unreliable "convience" links as you are unable, or unwilling, to provide reliable sources for those links. Please do not link to wikis as sources, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A convenience link is NOT a source. I have provided you with the sources. I have provided you with copies of the originals. I have told you where you can get the copies yourself. Your edits are little more than POV vandalism. Please do not edit the article while we take this to mediation --Insider201283 (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You first. Also, read WP:NOTVAND. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider the repeated poorly sourced inclusion of allegations against a company while removing the well sourced statement that the allegations were dismissed to be a "good faith edit". As it stand the article is pretty much as it was before the current dispute erupted. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, after you get your 3rr block, I'll be editing the article extensively such that it's a wikipedia article, as opposed to half a marketing piece and half a hit piece. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverts of the type I've been doing are not only allowed but required under wikipedia policy. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Once you recieve your 3rr block, perhaps you'll realize that you can't just keep reverting to your preferred version. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Which part of WP:V Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page are you struggling to understand? --Insider201283 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What damaging material did you remove in #1 revert, #2 revert, #3 revert, #4 revert, #5 revert, and #6 revert? Why do you think that WP:V is an exemption to WP:3rr, exactly? You're wrong, and you're about to get an enforced break from this article to prove it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that deleting the fact a case was dismissed while leaving in the allegations is not "damaging" to an organization? Really? IMO the allegations themselves should be removed, however in the interest of achieving consensus I'm willing to go with that as long as the fact they were dismissed is also included. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That "fact" cannot be verified except via your personal wiki. Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) The documents are not "on" the Wiki per se, merely hosted there. (2) They can be verified with UK Companies Court. Again - are you accusing me of serious fraud? --Insider201283 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The documents cannot be verified with UK Companies Court. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. You are accusing me of lying and, apparently, serious fraud. I do not appreciate it. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm stating the documents cannot be verified with the UK Companies Court. IF you're saying otherwise, your experience with UK Companies Court is obviously different than mine - probably because you know the right contact person in the UK Companies Court. Perhaps you could tell me who to email at the UK Companies Court to get a copy of the sealed decision. Hipocrite (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It took me less than 5 minutes to hunt around with google and find that the entire judgement and appeal judgement of the Amway case is now publicly available online. (When the article is unlocked that should of course be linked to.) The N21 dismissal I couldn't find online - probably because the case never even went to hearings (yeah, it's that notable) - but if you think I'm going to go out of my way to further help someone who is publicly and falsely accusing me of serious crimes, you can go @£%& yourself. I provided you with a copy of the document it says where it's from, that's as far as my WP responsibilities go. At least your consistent - falsely accusing people and organizations of illegal behaviour appears to be your modus operandi here. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to a reliable source hosting the document, thanks, and do try to remain civil. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're accusing me of forging goverment documents and telling ME to be civil? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not accusing you of anything. Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes you are. You are rejecting this document as a real document. I state it came from the UK government and is real. You are rejecting it. The clear implication is you believe it to be a forgery. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting or implying anything. Your document is sourced to amwaywiki.com, not a reliable source. If I were able to contact someone who could explain how to get the document, then I might be able to determine how to cite it as a reliable document. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop lying. THE SOURCE IS NOT AMWAYWIKI. The source is a UK government document. I have a copy of that document, provided by the UK government. I uploaded it to AmwayWiki for the convenience of others. I could have uploaded to google documents, or I could have told you to come to my place to have a look at it. THE SOURCE IS NOT AMWAYWIKI and the fact you keep claiming it is - is nothing more than evidence of your extreme dishonesty. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How does one obtain the document you have without violating WP:OR? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What has WP:OR got to do with it? Do you think going to a library to get a book violates WP:OR? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR - "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" - key words - "reliably published." Neither amwaywiki nor wikimedia commons are reliable publishers for UK Court decisions. Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree. We're not talking about a document published by amwaywiki or wikimedia commons. We're talking about a document published by the UK government. Are you claiming the UK goverment is not a reliable publisher? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) No. Where did the UK government publish this document? Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a reasonable question. Wherever the UK publishes court decisions. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make things up out of whole cloth because you are certain they must be true. That's highly problematic behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I seriously have no idea what that response refers to? --Insider201283 (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked where the thing was published. You said, in effect, wherever it would normally be published. Please don't make things up. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don' understand what you are talking about. What is "made up"? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't know for certain where the document was published, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Outside of what I've already stated ie - the court publishes them and keep copies, I have no idea where it is otherwise published. I've checked the National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk) and it certainly implies it will have copies, but it's difficult to ascertain in which catalogue. The courts website[38] says if it's not on BAILII then contact the court. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Polish Documentary

My opinion is that it's notable, but it's not worth debating. After the edits of FinanceGuy222 it was solely about Amway so I've removed it. It remains mentioned in the Amway article. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

source referencing n21 has been added. Financeguy222 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference actually has to support what your saying. That references mentions Network 21 but says nothing about the contents of the documentary. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Where I've made specific content claims, it is backed up by source. Also, as you've stated the film mention n21 several times even before opening cred. Please state what claims/statements were not backed up by source.

Again, you've added back in a non-existant link. I don't know how many times you have to be told. Financeguy222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

You are using this reference [39] to support the claim -

In 1997, Network 21's training methods were depicted in a polish film Welcome to Life'

The source does says that, it says, rough translation - "The film "Welcome to life" depicts the working methods of Amway distributors, methods of recruitment and training". What non-existent link? --Insider201283 (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

To quote google translation of source: "Producers of the film "Welcome to life" Contra Studio, Polish Television breach of copyright Company Network 21, which distributes training materials to Amway distributors. Łódź court ruled that Contra Studio does not have to destroy the film, simply remove the distorted quotations. The court held that training materials can be cited, but it must do so reliably. "

The article is saying Network 21's training materials were used, otherwise what was the reason for the copyright breach? Financeguy222 (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That is WP:OR. Your quote does not support your claim. Let's not forget you're the guy who believes that saying "The petition was dismissed" is unacceptable OR from "I order the petition dismissed". --Insider201283 (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FG222 - this is a classic example of your POV editing. You've cited a source reporting the original court outcome - but completely ignored the same source that reports the outcome was overturned on appeal, the produced found guilty of defamation and fined. Do you really think you can get away with that kind of behaviour? It's verging on nothing more than trolling --Insider201283 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The source used for the statement "on the condition certain undertakings were followed." which you keep deleting, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1054.html makes no mention of appeal or overturned. If you have a source stating no changes were required, or the appeal ifnormation, as I already asked for, please include it. Financeguy222 (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You're paying so little attention to your edits you're not even discussing the right case. You keep deleting the fact the Polish film makers were found guilty of defamation. The source is the same one your using to say they were not! --Insider201283 (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I specifically stated what article statement I was referring to above (from the banned in the uk case), the same statement which you deleted from the article with an edit comment to the effect of "no changes were required in the appeal". Paying a lot more attention than you when you revert in a non-existant source link many many times. Financeguy222 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re the new polish source, they issued an update the next day [40]. The producers were not acquitted, the case was stayed. --Icerat (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

RIR, the source does not say what you claim. Please provide the original text. As the claim is about a living person I am removing it, discuss it here. --Icerat (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The original source says exactly what is written. Hit translate and stop being disruptive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

My translator is my half-Polish, fluent in Polish wife, not the word scrabble that google translate often is. Even if I look at google, it does not say what you claim. I ask again - please provide the original text - and the google translation too if you wish.--Icerat (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

WP doesn't care about what your alleged wife thinks. The Google translated text says verbatim: "The defendants - director and producer, were acquitted of the charge of disseminating false information."[41] Take a rest edit warrior. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"alleged wife"? Really? Charming. Here's an english language source [42] - "A appeal court in Lodz convicted freelance TV journalist Henryk Dederko and his producer, Jacek Gwiazda, on 11 April of libelling the US direct-sales domestic products company Amway in a programme called "Welcome to Life." The two had won the case in 1999 but the firm had appealed."--Icerat (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And? So what? The source you present above (which may or may not be WP:RS) was published in 2004. The polish media source was published in 2009 and discusses events that happened after 2004, and it says they were acquitted. Give it up and stop wasting resources over such pettiness. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. So you think trying to accurately report the result of a court case is "pettiness". That article is reporting on the original judgment and obviously missed the appeal judgement. Here's another article, dated March 29, 2014 where the producer confirms the court upheld the earlier judgements [43] --Icerat (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And here is the article I thought we were discussing, it's the most up to date from the news source you were using - I forget you deleted it without discussion to revert to the older one. [44] --Icerat (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And another [45]. Sources from 2014 I used to update the Amway article, and which you deleted in preference to a 2009 article. --Icerat (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And now no response? What a surprise. --Icerat (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

1. I did not delete any references. 2. Neither of the two sources you presented discuss the charges of disemminating false information against the producers, for which they were ultimately acquitted. 3. You have no reason to expect instantaneous responses every time you post a comment. You should be patient enough to wait half a day or so without getting bent out of shape. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

you manage to revert my edits fairly quickly. The problem here RIR is that I know the actual facts of the case and am interested in making wikipedia accurate rather than just edit-warring and wikilawyering. The producers were found not guilty, that was reversed in appeals court, and then the supreme court upheld that decision but said (a) the film could be released with the false information removed and (b) removed the requirement the producers publish an apology. That was reflected, with sources, in the text I put in the Amway article you deleted. So here's your opportunity to show you're actually interested in improving wikipedia accurately. I've been compiling lists of references re Amway Poland on a user subpage. I suggest you read them, particularly those that come after the most recent decision. As I've already pointed out to you, in one of them even the producer himself confirms the charges were upheld. You'd think he would know, wouldn't you? --Icerat (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

UK Case

Stop deleting the fact the case was dismissed. We have an opinion given on RS/N by an expert in UK law that the source used is reliable and says what it is used to support, however since you believe I forged it, it needs to get additional verification, which was noted in the article --Insider201283 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You claim I'm adding a non-existence source - what non-existence source are you talking about? --Insider201283 (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This would be simply hilarious if it was so sad and destructive. You're continuously delete the fact the UK court case was dismissed, based on the RS/N commentary that interpretation of primary sources shouldn't be done - despite the fact no such interpretation is occurring - and then go and interpret the other court document and include the information! Have you no integrity at all? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) The business changes were Amway changes, not Network 21 (2) BERR claimed that Justice Norris dismissed the case because of the changes Amway made, and appealed based on their assertion he did not have the right to do this. The appeal court judges affirmed that the case would have been dismissed even without the changes Amway made. I have already added the appeal judgment so you can confirm this yourself. So claiming "the case was dismissed after Amway made changes" is about as relevant as saying "the case was dismissed after the sun came up". By putting it in the article you're implying it was dismissed because of the changes, when the appeal court judges explictly said it was not. In addition of course, this article is about Network 21, not Amway. The Network 21 case did not even go to hearings, and while N21 suspended operations during the Amway case, they are now fully operating again. For the reason that all this explanation is needed I have shortened the lead so that it does not mislead. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

N21 could not operate without Amway, it is based on Amway. Any changes effect N21, especially since the government was trying to shut them both down, and as part of the same investigation. As lord Justice Rimer stated the n21 petition “had been the subject of arrangements between the presentation of the petitions and the hearing of the Amway petition".

Paragraph 1 from appeal doc regarding not winding down due to changes: The trial judge, Norris J...refused the petition...to wind up Amway (UK) Limited. He did so because he considered that the company's new business model...eliminated the defects of the old business model; and also in the light of undertakings which the company offered...the judge accepted as a condition of his order....On the way to that ultimate decision the judge had made some strong findings about the old business model...He said that if the matter had stopped there, he would have wound up the company.

You say "The appeal court judges affirmed that the case would have been dismissed even without the changes Amway made" could you direct me to where this is specifically stated in the appeal doc, thanks.

The "changes were made" statement in the article is still relevant as it signifies changes were made following pressure from regulators during the investigation.

In regards to WTL film makers, I can find nowhere where it even stated outright the "defamation" charge to Amway (that wasnt dismissed), only information on fines and apologies, and is misleading in any case since only copyright issues were for N21. "In addition of course, this article is about Network 21, not Amway.", so statement is misleading. Financeguy222 (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Financeguy222's edits are nonsensical. This is the text he is insisting upon -

In 1997, Network 21's training methods were depicted in a polish film Welcome to Life [26]. The film depicted MLM "pep rallies" and accused the organisation of illegal practices and operating meetings similar to the Communist Party. The film was a best-seller on the local video black market.[27] It was banned while the suit proceeded.[28]

What suit? No suit is mentioned in the text. Financeguy222 is deleting all the other relevant information and making the section complete rubbish --Insider201283 (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This "suit" statement has been removed. You could have just edited it instead of taking it to talk. Financeguy222 (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ROFLMAO!!!!!! Your revert or remove any edit not consistent with your POV pushing. What's the point of editing the article? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

UK Case 2

FG222 - you have rejected the UK court case judgement as a source on what the actual court case is about, but are wanting to use a judges opinion in that case about third parties not involved in the case as a source? Good one. I'll try to resurrect the mediation request. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FG222 - Please review this discussion about the use of court documents in the manner in which you are (mis)using them --Insider201283 (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, primary sources should be used with care and only for factual matters. This is a judges opinion about parties not involved in the case and should not be used (not least because it's wrong on two counts (a) there's no "captive audience" and (b) the sales structure of BSM companies are not remotely "pyramid" shaped). If you disagree then I suggest you take the matter to WP:OR/Noticeboard or WP:RS/Noticeboard for additional opinions --Icerat (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

BAILII is a secondary source with primary documents. No matter, either way "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia", and was posted as directly as possible, without any interpretation, to provide the article with "straightforward, descriptive statements" in line with WP guidelines. The paragraph is very often re-interpreted by pro-Amway zealots to fit a POV, violating WP guidelines. Many of your pro-Amway sources which a good proportion are very often self published, non RS primary sources, so it appears you are cherrypicking to fit a POV. I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT Financeguy222 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you point out the non RS sources I have used. You failed to do so when asked several times by other editors on your bogus COI attack. I have already pointed you to a discussion on the use of court documents in this manner. You yourself several times rejected this very same source when it was referring about itself, yet you feel it's a valid source referring to something else??--Icerat (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually in this instance the judgement is being used as a secondary source, since it's talking about something other than the case. I'm not sure how court judgements are accepted on WP in that instance, my first instinct is yes, my second is no, since there's, I assume, no fact checking for that. In any case while we sort that out I'll fix the other stuff re the court case, since you now agree it's usable as a primary source. --Icerat (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

All the self published sources on themselves you post in the Amway related articles, self-serving etc, the RS status is borderline, although the articles are now using many more secondary sources. Not sure what you're on about in regards to the rest. Can you point me to specific instances (not a 10 page argument that appears to be in my favour anyway like previously done)? this discussion you referred to seemed to support my edits. Financeguy222 (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Court judgement as Primary or Secondary Source?

As per discussion above, editor Financeguy222 has put the following statement -

Through Network Twentyone senior Amway IBOs promote BSM (business support materials) to the captive market represented by the lower levels of the pyramid providing the IBOs at the top with an additional and independent source of income to that derived from bonus payments arising from the sales generated by the lower levels of the organisation.

into the lead of this article, using as source a UK court judgement. Network TwentyOne was not a party in that case, so this would appear to make the judgement a secondary source for the comment, or perhaps a primary source for the judge's opinion. I don't think WP:RS properly covers this use of a source, so I've posted to WP:RS/Noticeboard for comment.--Icerat (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement is quite straightforward, and appear to be acceptable to WP guidelines, and the guidelines breach you refer to do not seem to apply. Not sure why you would challenge a fairly straightforward statement, possibly as you pro-Amwayers/MLMers seem to want to remove every occurance of the word pyramid from the universe. I welcome 3rd party comment. Financeguy222 (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement might be "straightforward" to you but it's (a)poorly sourced and (b)factually incorrect. First of all "captive audience" is generally defined as an audience that have no choice but to participate, which is clearly a silly description in this instance. Secondly, the rebate scheme Network 21 uses to compensate people who promote their products (a rebate scheme I have a copy of, and I'm fairly certain this judge did not) does not result in anything remotely resembling a "pyramid" shape. Finally, and most importantly, "pyramid" when referring to a business has quite clear implications of illegality in both US and EU law, thus it's use in this fashion may be interpreted as implying illegality. Again, this is a judge commenting on a party that played no role in the court case the judgement is about. He even explicitly stated that the case was not about companies like Network 21. --Icerat (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus so far on the noticeboard is that it shouldn't be used. FG222, I note you haven't contributed to that discussion yet. --Icerat (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus is it is in favour of such a source Financeguy222 (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus there is clearly that the source should not be used in this manner. If you disagree then I suggest you make your views known on that noticeboard. That is what they are for. --Icerat (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The RS/N discussion is now archived here. I'm (again) removing the statements based on RS/N consensus. --Icerat (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That is falseFinanceguy222 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A summary of consensus -

• A side comment about an unrelated third party would a primary source the opinion of the Judge, but not a reliable source for a statement of fact about that third party. Blueboar
• They are primary sources. Note that when errors of fact appear in reliable secondary sources, they may be corrected through newspapers, revised editions of books, or by subsequent scholarship. But the facts in judgments are almost never subject to appeal and harmless errors are not corrected. Also, facts which only appear in court judgments lack notability. TFD
• In this particular instance, someone wants to source a statement about company A to a court decision involving company B. I don't think the decision is a reliable source in this instance. Jonathanwallace
• A passing comment in a court document will almost never be an appropriate source for information about uninvolved parties. WhatamIdoing

Apart from yourself the only supporting comment was from Taemyr, and their comments had factual errors. --Icerat (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That consensus argument is completely misleading in relation to this edit as you have presented. They are arguing secondary/primary sources, which is not the issue. Their consensus was also misleadingly based on an "uninvolved party", N21 is very much related to Amway and is mentioned 12 times in the source in question alone, hardly a "passing comment", and further invalidates their opinions in relation to the edit in question. I suggest you seek a more direct and less misleading consensus on the edit Financeguy222 (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question and source were provided on RS/N. I also stated the party was "related" and this is also clear in the article. Network 21 did not partake in the court case and did not give evidence. They were 100% uninvolved in the court case. If you had a problem with other editors views you should have stated that at the time on the noticeboard rather than claim a false consensus. I have taken the issue to the appropriate RS/N and received advice. You chose to ignore that and then mischaracterize it. If you have a problem with it then take it up on a noticeboard rather than continue to edit war. --Icerat (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with their opinion, but applying it (their arguments of primary/secondary) to the deletion of this edit is irrelevant, and I have already shown why, as some are talking about different situation (unrelated parties/sources with passing mention, which is NOT the case here), and they're mostly arguing ONLY if primary/secondary, not reliability/consensus to the used in this article. To apply their consensus as applying to the issue of contention is misleading and inappropriate Financeguy222 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They were given the edit, they were given the source and context. If you believe that discussion was not about this dispute, then I suggest you post something about it on the Noticeboard yourself instead of tendentious edit-warring. --Icerat (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, in this particular instance the actual edit and case were not given by me in the discussion. It was however in early discussions over this same topic. You added that information, and curiously a supposedly uninvolved editor came in and seemed to know about it - I'm wondering how they knew? In any case the opinion is still clear and relevant. If you disagree, list it yourself --Icerat (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"a supposedly uninvolved editor came in and seemed to know about it - I'm wondering how they knew?" What are you suggesting? Financeguy222 (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

merely expressing surprised curiosity. Why? Do you have an explanation? --Icerat (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for re-write

I have tagged this article for re-write. Here is why.

Firstly, pyramids are illegal in most countries, and therefore Network21 and/or Amway cannot (and do not) operate a pyramid.

Secondly, there is a very sophisticated tiered compensation plan associated with Amway (which is irrelevant) and Network 21 BSM (which is relevant). Unless you are privileged to have access to the specifics on how bonuses for BSM are calculated, and are permitted by the company to disclose this, I suggest you remove statements that presuppose who makes the money, and how the money is made.

Thirdly, almost every second or third sentence presents a controversial opinion. Even the sources appear to be the opinions of the uninformed. There is a section dedicated to Controversy. Use it.

Fourthly, there has been no mention of how many members or businesses Network 21 supports, or how many employees Network 21 has, or what its yearly turnover is, which I would consider to be critical pieces of information.

Fifthly, the founders of Network 21 regularly deliver seminars that provide company updates. These seminars are usually recorded by Network 21 and distributed through the network via audio CD. If you are interested in maintaining or contributing to this page and want some perspective, see if you can find a Network 21 IBO and see if you can borrow some of his audio CDs, particularly CDs by Jim Dornan. The one I would recommend is "UoS 101 and UoS 102".

I would also recommend ibofacts.com as a credible source, as the people who maintain this site are neither Amway employees, nor Network 21 employees.

121.44.16.61 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Network TwentyOne. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220170943/http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/appeals.nsf/stable/noc21_history to http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/appeals.nsf/stable/noc21_history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224155614/http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.4923775/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6815749 to http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.4923775/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6815749
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224155622/http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.4923775/apps/s/content.asp?ct=7522119 to http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.4923775/apps/s/content.asp?ct=7522119
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722134910/http://www.plejada.pl/2%2C24876%2Cnews%2C1%2C1%2Cwitajcie-w-zyciu-film-o-amwayu-wycofany-z-wff%2Cartykul.html to http://www.plejada.pl/2,24876,news,1,1,witajcie-w-zyciu-film-o-amwayu-wycofany-z-wff,artykul.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903233612/http://www.amway.pl/news?news_id=11226&back_uri=%2F to http://www.amway.pl/news?news_id=11226&back_uri=%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)