Talk:Network TwentyOne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Creating this article

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

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

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

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

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

EdiThor 19:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article reads like an advertisement

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

[edit] Advert?

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

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

I agree with the reads-like-an-add comment. I've flagged it as such.
I'm actually quite tempted to tag it for deletion. The article mentions few sources and no criticism of N21. It's certainly not enclyclopedic.
- arkenstone 21:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It's true, I couldn't find many news articles about N21. But I expect to find some about the important persons involved in it. I suggest we wait a bit and see if that is possible.
If it doesn't work out, then putting all this in a common article on all Amway/Quixtar support systems like N21, Britt World Wide and others would be a good idea. --Knverma 09:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess it is fine now to remove the advert tag. --Knverma 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] definately biased.

this 'article' is definately 'pro' NetworkMarketing. the pro/cons listed read like reason to joinup?! someone please completely redo this.

if you have something WP:RS valid to add, then why don't you do so? --Insider201283 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article makes claims that it cannot verify

Statements like: "Network 21 operates in nearly 100 countries with over 1 million members around the world." are completly wrong. Can you please provide verifiable evidence that this number of people belong to the program? Even if there was one representative country from which information can be extrapolated. Otherwise, it might be just three guys in their back bedroom.Withit 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds wrong to me too. Given N21 works with Amway, and Amway's not in "nearly 100 countries" it's definitely wrong! I'll look at fixing it over the weekend. --Insider201283 06:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I was at a N21 business seminar yesterday, and there were easily a couple of thousand in attendance (This was at Royal Crowne resort at Benowa, Gold Coast, Australia). There were also two simultaneous seminars being held, one in Melbourne and one in Canberra. So having over a million members wouldn't be that difficult. Also Withit and Insider - can you provide proof that there ISN'T a million members? And before you attack me for being blind, easily led, marketing whatever etc - Yesterday was the first time I've encountered N21 in any major sense besides what someone else in my family has been telling me about them, and I'm not exactly a marketing fan - to say I have a burning hatred for marketing would be accurate. But facts are facts, and you can't use your own personal biases as the backbone of an argument about the alleged number of members. "Statements like [statement] are completely wrong" - back that up for me, would you? 203.14.180.98 05:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
can you provide proof there IS a million? Wikipedia is about sourced facts, or at least should be --83.251.148.101 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

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

n21global.com appears to provide links to all other sites national sites, therefore the other regional sites aren't necessary. If there is worthwhile free content on channel-21.info then please link to it directly. -Will Beback · † · 22:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
n21global.com does not link to the public home pages of the other sites listed. I have not tested others. The relevant Channel21 info is on the home page linked to. --Insider201283 23:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
There's no content on the home pages of the regional sites, just links to the national sites, many of which appear to be password protected. What content is on the home page of the video site? A listing of products available for purchase isn't useful content. If you want to link to the video of the founder then link to it directly. -Will Beback · † · 23:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
You are correct re password protection and content. That didn't use to be the case, my mistake. The video and information is both on the home page of channel21. A common query regarding PDPs is what type of training the offer. I will write a paragraph about this and link to channel-21 as a source --Insider201283 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I just checked out the free video, and it's just an advertisement for subscribing to the site. -Will Beback · † · 23:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Instead of re-writing the paragraph yourself, I suggest you propose the changes here and let someone who is not in a business relationshoip with this company to make the actual edit. -Will Beback · † · 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
That's hardly fair, who died and made you god? Someone in a business relationship with N21 would naturally be in a better position to provide information and links to relevant resources and material. If people like you could just put their egos in their pockets for 2 seconds you might realize that being in a business relationship with someone, be it person or company, doesn't automatically make everything that person says suspect or a shameless plug for the business. Get a little perspective. 59.100.3.78 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOS

Any idea about LOS of Dornan? I heard from unreliable sources that he joined in the downline of Yager. -- Knverma 07:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read conflicting info, but I think the answer is no. QuixtarWiki says upline diamonds are Johnny & Jo Edwin, who I'm pretty certain were not downline from Yager. Edwin's are affiliated with International Connection, which is run by Brian Hay's but was created from a bunch of LOS's, most of whom, but not all, were downline of the CA Marsh's (yagers upline), but not Yager. Bernice Hansen who is upline of all of them is a Crown too, so there were plenty of other legs outside the one with yager for the Edwins to be in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Insider201283 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Yes, surprisingly few websites talk about Dornan's LOS. For the moment I am looking at all sources, reliable or unreliable. For example this page [1] has a list of tapes, and there is an entry "DBR-377, Jim Dornan, Making the List". "DBR" seems to the code for tapes from InterNET (Yager's system). But nothing is confirmed yet. -- Knverma 08:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on the speakers, that list is probably ProNet (gooch/foley) which has worked with both britt/yager and other organizations like N21. --Insider201283 13:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing clear can be said from these links. Meanwhile I found two other pages mentioning this tape to be used in Yager's line [2] [3]. -- Knverma 14:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but we in N21 get tapes from outside N21 too, so it really doesn't say much re a persons LOS. I'd still be fairly certain that first list is from a Pronet IBO.--Insider201283 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blakey Report

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

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

[edit] Philanthropy

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

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

[edit] Gospel Films

I took the information from this page [4], but I would prefer to link to a better source. --Knverma 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I don't think this meets the very specific requirements of our Notability Guideline for Companies ("WP:CORP"). I did some Google News searches and didn't find much:

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

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