Talk:Qnet ltd

Article has multiple problems - please discuss

I have tagged the article with multiple tags, such as "Cleanup", "POV", "Unreliable sources" etc. The article is very messy and is impossible to read. Facebook is not considered a reliable source, nor is the company's publications for most information. The article is badly formatted. Please see Wikipedia style guide for standards on how articles should be organized and written. Also see Wikipedia:Citing sources for help in adding references to articles.

The editors of this article should discuss the needed changes to this article on this talk page before editing further. It would be helpful if you could get help from other, uninvolved editors.

The articles is way too long and confusing. It needs to be shortened considerably.

Large parts of it seem to be copy/paste from sources and not rewritten by the editors. Also, sources in foreign languages are not preferable on the English Wiki and should be supported by sources in English.

I am only mentioning some of the problems. Please, all editors work together to create a concise, readable article that follows the rules of neutral point of view and no original research.

Best wishes, KennethSides (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree for the most part but I strongly disagree on the foreign language sources. Maybe that's not what you meant but your sentence says something like "foreign language sources should be backed up by English sources". That's not what our policies say. Qnet is a multinational company/scam that has being doing business/damage all over the world and if the only coverage of its Afghan successes/misdeeds is in Pashto, we should definitely use that. Pichpich (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for help. I want to note that this source' URL -#53- has the word "FaceBook" but its an article in a well-know newspaper in Egypt, I don't know why it contains "Facebook", most likely it's the username of the article's writer, but the URL doesn't lead to a Facebook page at all.

I also agree with Pichpich considering the point of (foreign language), the The view of Islamic law for example, can't be sourced by any English source, as all the Fatwas are in Arabic, Arabic is considered a part of religion in Islam.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've started a section about this article at WP:NPOVN, to get wider input about the state of the article. The discussion (while active) is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Qnet ltd. —C.Fred (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

cleaning up

content from controversies section nothing more than a list of potential sources

The France24 news report about the beginning of its illegitimate business in Africa

and The Register magazine in an article clarifies the so claimed "Contract" between Qnet and Microsoft, the article also describes the company as a 'pyramid' company.

Some of the World Press News have published the criminalization, closing and arresting such company's managers for fraud in many countries, including , Sri Lanka,Nepal, Philippines, Indonesia, Rwanda,Afghanistan, Armenia,

placed here to hold for review for potential use Gnangarra 13:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sudan

and in Syria where QNet has opened a branch there in 2008 and closed in 2009.

more potential sources for information but no prose to warrant keeping within article Gnangarra 14:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• such sources can't be ignored, specially when the headline is "According to many international newspapers and video news reports, the company follows a Pyramid Scheme"--Peterjmikhail (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said they are potential source but they were just dumped into the article without any prose, As you can see from me recent edits I've been the existing prose with detail from sources, removing unnecessary information. the text above is not encycopaedic and just adding it to the article is meaningless. Gnangarra 15:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can you suggest a way to write a prose for them, please. I don't want all these evidences to be ignored, please.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• I have modified that sector. Kindly, check it out and give me a feed back.

• Used source #1 France 24 to describe the business model, balance that by also including Qnets response to the article Gnangarra 03:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• source 2 The register not used Gnangarra 03:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• source 3 already in the article
• source 4 not substance to offer any detail, maybe useful as general ref in the future
• Sorces 5 & 6 see below better fit in the possible parent company article QI Group Gnangarra 03:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• source 7 rwanda added -- wording feels a little kludgy(ackward) may need a copy edit to clean up Gnangarra 04:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• source 8 Kabul was added, its gives a slightly differing perspetive, balance to the section. Gnangarra 04:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• source 9 armenia not added the source isnt sufficiently strong enough to warrant inclusion in the article, to include it will give the appearance of a pile on effect against Qnet Gnangarra 04:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Source 10, is a locked pdf in aribic script which I'm unable to translate we cant use as WP:NOENG we need to be able to translate if the source is challenged. Gnangarra 05:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• source 11 fails WP:V using google to translate even accpeting it aint prefect there is nothing in the source that even mentions Qnet in passing nor does it mention any similar scheme. Gnangarra 05:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but about the 11th source, it mentions "QuestNet" which is the same company, in Arabic "كويست نت", And what about the other source http://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/news/2009/04/08/136782.html It mentions the year of opening and closing and its reasons according to the ministery of Economy and Trade .--Peterjmikhail (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added The Sudan with new translatable sources.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

Peterjmikhail, can you please stop reverting the article so I can continue to clean the article up to acceptable standards and include these sources if relevant. I intend to revert to this revision then remove the Islamic section sa it stands for the reasons stated below. Do you have problem with the article being cleanup to comply with WP policies.Gnangarra 16:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead--Peterjmikhail (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• as said I went back to this point this morning(my time) and spent the last three hours as described above, this shold address the WP:NPOV concerns and give a frame work which editors can use and build upon to expand the article. Where someone is unsure or needs assistance inculding information I suggest they post on the talk page first. Gnangarra 05:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

removal of Islamic law section

After translating all the sources into english and reviewing what each one was I came to the conclusion that the whole section is original research and WP:SYNTH. Its also totally irrelevant to the article as its just stating the differing laws of each country as they affect Qnet operations. Gnangarra 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• The view of Islamic law does not depend on the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjmikhail (talk • contribs) 15:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That section is original research and irrelevant to the article, Gnangarra 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The following section has been removed:

The view of Islamic law

The Islamic Law confused between Network Marketing and Pyramid Schemes, it's thought that the confusion happened because of such pyramid scheme companies which try to hide behind the mask of legitimate network marketing, such companies were the first to reach the Islamic culture, the thing that led to such confusion of scholars of religion, Muftis, to say whether the network marketing is Haraam or Halal. In the case of this specific company, Qnet, Questnet or GoldQuest, more than one Dar Al-Fatwa stated that dealing or working for this specific company is Haraam, some of them also forbade the network marketing itself as this company claims to be conducting. Such Fatwas like,

• The Kuwaiti Ministry of Awqaf,

• Dar Al-Fatwa and religious teaching in Aleppo – Syria,

• Mufti of Nablus – Palestine,

• Dar Al-Fatwa of Palestine,

• Dar Al-Fatwa of The Sudan,

• Fatwa of Shaykh, Ali Al-Salous The standing Committee for Academic Research and Fatwa, Saudi Arabia

• and the fatwa of Dr. Hussein Shehata.

Worthy mentioning, that Dar Al-Fatwa of Al-Azhar issued a fatwa that permits dealing and working with this company,However, this fatwa has been suspended by Dar Al-Fatwa of Al-Azhar itself.

Does anyone support restoring it?Mohehab (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I support restoring it. It is directly related to QNet. It has many reliable references. Ahmed M Farrag (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

all the fatwa's are primary sources, they either say yes or no as to whether people can choose to deal with the compnay none of them contribute information beyond that. To make a whole section listing who says yes who says no is original research. The section itself isnt even clear on what it is trying to do, if someone can provide a single authorative source that describes such schemes in relation to Islamic law then it may be worth including it in the article pyramid scheme but still not relevant as a separate section here. Gnangarra 02:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of evidences and sources

Any one can modify or enhance the article, but please, don't just delete information.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

wrong - unsourced,badly sourced and irrelevant information WILL and can be deleted by any editor. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That is the problem, sourced information was deleted because it didn't include prose. but it has reliable sources.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

your additions are largely incoherent and you seem to be breaching 3rr to control this article, if you continue to do this, it is likely your account will be blocked. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

All I'm asking is suggesting ways to make it better instead, as long as the information has well reliable sources. Don't waste any ones effort, Please.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

firstly I havent just deleted information, where it has potential to expand the article its been moved to the talk I spent considerable time translating the fatwa's none of which appear to as re;evant to the article encyclopaedic content. Gnangarra 01:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

QI Group - parent company

Just reading some of the controversy sources this one and tihs one would fit better in a section/article on the parent company QI Group. As would the paragraph(once cleaned up) It is worth mentioning that the company's Executive director, Vijay Eswaran, has faced his arrest for fraud on an Interpol warrant In May 2007 as published in the "Business Mirror" newspaper on the 13th of August, 2007.

thought on starting an article on the parent company, what other sources are available Gnangarra 03:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

About compensation plan and Encouraging IRs to recruit more than Sell

These two issues can be proven from the Company's documents:

• Policies and Procedures document, Compensation plan section P27

https://qigroup.box.net/shared/static/nuupolb748qvuvtmy1hn.pdf

• Quick Start Guid, Prospects P19, its all about how to Recruit IRs

http://issuu.com/qnet/docs/aw-quick-start-guide_-english-

You are suggesting forward original research of the type that is not permitted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing Article Name

I think the name of the article should by "Qnet" instead of "Qnet ltd"

Also shouldn't this page redirect here? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qnet&redirect=no)Mohehab (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)