Talk:Mongol Rally

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is still much information to be added to this article. I am quite surprised that there wasn't a page on this already, but I searched and didn't find one...if you'd like to add more info please feel free--this article has Featured potential. Paul 19:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Photos 2 Layout of the article 3 Other rallies 4 The Organisers

[edit] Photos

We could do with a few photos of previous years. Hopefully I'll have a few of my own photos when I get back from the 2006 rally, but until then it would be nice if somebody with their own photos could put one or two up here.

If you are interested in more information, videos, and photos, visit our website at http://www.badcolonies.org/rally.html. We participated in the 2006 Mongol Rally and have posted extensive information pertaining to our journery. Sb13c 17:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Stuck a picture of our car up. I'll try and get a better quality picture off my brothers computer to replace it but that will do for now.--Santahul 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout of the article

It seems strange to have a early history section for an even that is only a few years old. Perhaps the paragraph could be incorporated into the lead somehow? Also I don't think we should quote the website, quoting people is much better. What do people think? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the layout (and not using it as smoke screen to delete content!). I agree about the early history, however, other users seemed to keep inserting the section albeit without quotes so it has stuck. I also agree that the list of teams for 2007 should not really be present, but the page was frequently being edited to insert links to individual teams and this generic link had the effect of preventing these links from being added.Sce1313 18:22, 3 July 2007 (GMT)

I have restored the deleted "Early History" section as these references do not appear elsewhere in the article. This content could probably be better placed somewhere within the article, but editing rather than simply deleting them would be the best way forward. --Sce1313 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other rallies

Added information on other rallies to Mongolia. These keep being deleted by the organisers of the Mongol Rally as spam but are not. The concept of rallies to Mongolia is broader than one organisation and Wikipedia should not be used as an advert simply for the one organisation listed here.

Newzjunkie (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about one specific and clearly notable rally. Can you show that the other rallies are also notable enough for Wikipedia (eg. because of non-trivial coverage in mainstream media)? If so, then they should get their own article. If not, then we don't need to mention them here either. --Latebird (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Latebird, this article seems to be being spammed to advertise other events. Please show that the other rallies are also notable enough for Wikipedia and create a new article. Bluetack (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a question of WP:NOTABILITY but relevance to the article. There are a lot of points that appear to make this relevant: there is choice; there are differences; the Adventurists have sent mass emails about the Mongolia Charity Rally; many of the teams on that rally (at least by looking at their forums) do appear to be ex-Mongol Rally people or those that did not get places on the Mongol Rally; and there is clearly confusion amongst people between the rallies. The statement that has been removed does appear to clarify those points and is therefore of interest and relevance. To clarify otherwise is an analagous to claiming that any reference to pepsi on the Coca-Cola page is spam. I don't see how an event can spam a wikipedia article. The wikipedia page isn't an advert for the Mongol Rally or anything else. Users who think so may have a bias that could negate the NPOV of the article. --Sce1313 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The requirement of relevance doesn't replace the requirement of notability, they both must be met. Comparing any of this with Pepsi (a 6 bln USD global corporation) is ridiculous at best. Please show that the competing rallies (assuming the actually happen and are not just organisational straw fires) have significant coverage in mainstream media. Because if they don't, then nobody has heard about them, which means nobody can get confused, resulting in irrelevance on top of non-notability. Note that mailings by one of the organizing teams are self-published first-hand documents, which don't count to establish either notability or relevance. --Latebird (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Organisers

I have restored this section to largely as it was before the last revert. Important references in this section keep getting deleted with erroneous references inserted. The key issue here is what is the organiser? Is it a Social Enterprise? It would appear not. The reference for the statement that the League of Adventurists International Limited is a Social Enterprise is actually only a link to the register of Companies at Companies House. This clearly shows that the company is a UK private company limited by shares. This may be a social enterprise, but not necessarily. A company does not register as a social enterprise with Companies House, there is no label as such, it is dependent on several factors not least who owns the shares in the company and what restrictions are placed on them in the governing documents.

Who owns the shares?

I have restored this statement that keeps getting deleted from the article: "According to the annual return submitted on 3 December 2007, the company shares are owned by (and hence therefore any dividends distributed to): 70% by Mr Thomas Morgan, and 10% each by Ms Jenny Hunter, Ms Lamorna Trahair and Mr Daniel Wedgwood."

The annual return is a public document that must be filed, by law, each year in the UK (and hence is certified as accurate by the directors as at that date). This document can be obtained for a small fee by any member of the public or through Companies House Direct corporate accounts (such as law firms, Universities etc).

The League of Adventurists International Limited does not appear to be a social enterprise if the company shares are owned by a small number of individuals. Normally the shares should be owned by a community or the charities that benefit from the events.

Are there any restrictions on the distribution of profits?

A social enterprise requires that "the surplus goes towards one or more social aims which the business has". There is plenty of more detailed guidance for this on the website for the Cabinet Office http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/third_sector.aspx The only way the League of Adventurists International Limited could be a social enterprise is if their governing documents restricted profit distribution. The governing documents appear to be in the standard form with no restrictions (these can be checked in the same way as the annual return).

There is nothing on the legal record to suggest that the company is a Social Enterprise, in fact the legal record shows the company is a straightforward private company limited by shares. It may well have a Corporate Social Responsibility policy - even the biggest and nastiest corporations in the world have one - but this does not make it a Social Enterprise. Any further edits to the article suggesting otherwise would need to show that the legal status of the company has changed.

For the avoidance of any confusion, page 39 of this document http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/documents/guide.pdf states that in the case of a private company limited by shares "the Memorandum of Association, which contains the objects and powers of the company and, in the case of a social enterprise, will often include a non-profit distribution clause; and the Articles of Association, which set out the internal management procedures and the roles of members and directors. All limited liability companies have an ‘objects’ clause in their constitution that sets out the company’s aims and purposes – for example, to operate the business of recycling furniture. The social or public interest which the company aims to meet is usually underpinned by a constitutional requirement that profits are not to be paid out to members but must be put towards the company’s social purpose. There is often also a requirement that any assets remaining after the company is dissolved have to be applied for similar purposes and not distributed amongst the members."

--Sce1313 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're filling about a page on my screen, digging up all kinds of legal documents, none of which actually answers the question at hand? That really makes it look like someone has an axe to grind. Drawing our own conclusions from the interpretation of governement regulations would be Original Research (except for really trivial cases, which this one doesn't seem to be). There must be a registry of Social Enterprises somewhere, which would directly answer the question, and make all this mumbo-jumbo unnecessary. --Latebird (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no central register for Social Enterprises. A quick phone call to http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/ or a 2 minute chat with a lawyer (both need to see the relevant documents) is the only way to confirm it. Also try: http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/documents/guide.pdf The bottom line for a social enterprise is to look at where the profits go. This problem of a lack of a central register can be confusing for charities too. Charities have a central register controlled by the charity commission but small charities (<£5000 annual income) are exempt from registration. It is then necessary to dig into the legal documents to work out what the organisation really is, and unregistered charities can similarly take a number of legal forms. Not easy and sadly very open to abuse. Returning to the article itself, the statement that it was a social enterprise kept being inserted without a supporting reference: just a link to Companies House. For all this is worth, the statement may as well have been that they are a charity (also often incorporated and registered at Companies House). If it was clearly stated (even on their own website) that they are a social enterprise then that would be a start, but this is not the case. It is therefore curious why Bluetack keeps inserting a fact that is both unsupported, and with a little basic research, appears to be false. --Sce1313 (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This all seems very bizarre. The article is suffering because SCE1313 seems to be determined to make a point with lots of vague statements! Here you are using lots long winded quotes that prove nothing to justify trying to defame a company that raises money for charity and where there is absolutely no evidence that they are not a Social Enterprise. I have been reliably informed by people at Social Enterprise Coalition that using a normal Memorandum and Articles is fine and in fact pretty common for a Social Enterprises. In the article you are putting in very speculative remarks about profit distribution to the shareholders when you have no evidence of it or even that there is any profit. Few other article on Wikipedia go into such obscure detail about a company's make up! Articles should be neutral not trying to make a point.Bluetack (talk)

I have reverted the article again. This isn't an issue of netutrality but of fact. Please discuss here and find adequate references before making further edits. Bluetack is repeatedly editing the article to include references that simply do not support the claim that the company is a social enterprise. There are no references to prove in the positive that the company is a social enterprise, only evidence that the company is a "socially conscious company" (on the basis that it raises money for charity??). The legal status of the company (which takes a little analysis - see above) proves the negative. So not only are there no references to prove the positive, but the discussion above also proves the negative! This is not a social enterprise. There are all sorts of professional fundraisers around, but they are not social enterprises unless they fit the legal criteria (see above for details). This company is not a social enterprise. FWIW a 2 minute phone call to the Social Enterprise Coalition legal team confirmed that it is not a Social Enterprise (which makes sense given the the quoted material above) and it also shows that phone calls aren't a reliable source... Finally, Bluetack states that "In the article you are putting in very speculative remarks about profit distribution to the shareholders when you have no evidence of it or even that there is any profit." This is not speculation, but legal fact. Have a read of the wikipedia article on what is a privately owned company limited by shares. It is a legal fact that the company is legally owned by the shareholders who receive distributions of profits. They may choose to give those profits away, but it is their property, hence not a social enterprise! If we applied bluetack's flawed logic we could argue that the Northern Rock bank article should state that it is a non-profit organisation because the company won't be paying dividends to shareholders this year! Clearly nonsense. Northern Rock may be worthless, may be worth billions, but that isn't the point when it is a fact that it is a (publicly) owned company whose shareholders own the company and receive dividends (if any). Returning to this article, a more interesting question is why is the company divided up in the way it is? Is this for control or for profit distribution? For the League of Adventurists International Limited to be a social enterprise, the beneficiaries of the social enterprise i.e. the charities would need to be the shareholders, alternatively if the shareholders are the management of the company (for control purposes) then there must be a restriction on profit distribution (this is all explained above or look at the wikipedia article on social enterprise: "the surplus goes towards one or more social aims which the business has"). Without these restrictions, this is not a Social Enterprise, just a 'professional charity fundraiser' where, on a winding up or a sale of the company, the assets would be distributed to the shareholders. --Sce1313 (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your opinions about the legal status of the company have no place in this article. Find a reliable source which shares your views or makes any of the statements you're making and it may be possible to include the information. Otherwise, please stop edit warring to include the inappropriate material. Shell ^babelfish 08:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As there are no references that support the statement that it is a Social Enterprise, you are correct in that it should not be stated as such. However, what you refer to as my opinion is actually a basic legal fact that is easily checked on the legal record and proves the negative that the company is not a social enterprise. To reinsert references to a Social Enterprise requires a reliable source that corrects the legal record and proves the positive. --Sce1313 (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how it works and since you re-added the text calling it "mention awards" you seem to think you can simply get away with violating Wikipedia policy by being sneaky. Unfortunately since everyone can view the history and your edits, these types of things don't work. It is, in fact, your opinion of how certain legal texts would be applied to this organization. Wikipedia only reprints what other sources have said first -- find a source that's said what you'd like to see included and go from there. Shell ^babelfish 11:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the edit summary was overly brief, but I'm concerned you might have mistook the edit as a hidden revert. You've removed the references to Social Enterprise, which appears to be agreeing with my point, so I'm not sure how I was being sneaky. The restored text largely related to the awards won and references to those. Fair enough if you want to omit it all, it just leaves the section a little sparse now. As for the share ownership, as at the date of the annual return, it is as much a matter for the legal record as the name, company number, and so on, so I don't understand how this is original research. --Sce1313 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the legal documents is Original Research. It would be sufficiently sourced only if you could find a reliable published source explicitly stating those conclusions without your interpretative participation. From your contributions, it is fairly obvious that you are trying to prove something. That is not acceptable in Wikipedia. You can only cite proof published by others (except in very trivial matters, which this one isn't). --Latebird (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)