Talk:Vector Marketing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am putting up this neutral dispute marker because I feel this article simply glosses over the various complaints about Vector Marketing, and almost seems apologetic towards Vector Marketing. user:24.9.10.235
I don't see any reason for a dispute marker if there has been no discussion on this talk page. Can you give an example of your disagreement? What sources do you have for your requested view? What is your requested view? - Tεxτurε 19:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- I left a message for the anon who first tagged this article, 24.9.10.235, but he/she never got back to me. The original tag was {{POV}}, but I changed it to {{POV check}} in the hopes that the user would be more specific about their concerns. In this case, the tag should definitely go. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 20:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
First of all I didn't recieve any notice. Thanks for waiting and assuming I spend every waking moment here.
Second of all, there is clearly a NPOV issue here. It's bad enough that the article even claims it's not a MLM organization when it clearly is. Anyway, you want citations. Here they are:
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Also note that the first two articles are the same two cited on this very same Wikipedia article. But there is scant mention of these unfair practices, and once again, the article totally glosses over these issues alltogether now.
Well, now that that's settled, I'll be adding the NPOV tag again.
...and the spam-filter won't even allow me to post the citations. Oh well.
...nevermind. Turns out petition online is on the blacklist (and I can't blame the admins for adding it there). Here are the other citations:
http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/save.html
http://umsl.edu/~nki4z3/articles/vector.html
http://www.badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff104760.htm
http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/12052.php
- You have added some links and restored the POV tag. I have removed the tag since the idea is to discuss your objections and only add a POV tag if they are unresolvable and not merely a single user.
- What you need to do in this discussion is present your issues. There are currently no issues. Just some links with no explanation. Can you give us a list of points that you feel are not represented in the article? I would like to have a complete article but you haven't told me what needs to be added. - Tεxτurε 14:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Let me be clear. I don't want to argue with you or fight the POV tag. I want to know your suggested additions and work to see how they can be included. - Tεxτurε 14:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] article restored
who the hell completely erased the article? I've restored it to the last edit because I really can't be bothered checking what was wrong with it, but erasing the entire article because you don't agree with it or because you work for Vector Marketing is NOT how wikipedia works. Arilakon 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) edit: 64.3.63.178 was the IP associated with it.
[edit] May, 2006
Article in serious need of sources and verifiable info. -- OnPatrol 22:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] verifiable
Could you please give some specific examples of what is considered "verification." I read the Wikipedia guidelines on this and I still don't know what would be adequate. Perhaps you could refer me to an article that does this well? Thanks for any help you can offer.
- Did you really read the page "verifiable"? Here's a quote from a box near the top of the page:
- 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
- 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
- 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
- Also, there are many links to further information on that page. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ which will put your user name, date and time on your comment. OnPatrol 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] verifiable continued
Yes, I really did. It is not clear to me how "reputable" is determined. Is any other internet site, for example, "reputable?" As I'm sure you are aware, the internet can give the impression of credibility. Yet the content of a site can be highly one-sided, an article can be skewed, and even Wikipedia is not immune to this, despite it's NPOV policy.
I am making an honest attempt to work with this system and have devoted some considerable time to understanding the policies and culture of this site. It can be very discouraging to get a response like "did you really read it?" I'm not sure what I did to provoke that response, since I thought this was supposed to be a helpful process and not an adversarial one. Sarahba 18:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 17:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- On the WP:Verifiable page at the top, there is a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Perhaps that may help. Also from a link on that page, Wikipedia:Citing sources.
- You're quite correct that Wikipedia is not immune from POV. Or, as we've discovered, from misunderstanding. I appreciate your desire to contribute and urge you to continue. -- OnPatrol 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sales information
Sales representatives get a binder to show to customers, and in it is a lot of info. If someone compares this info with some reliable info online, a lot of it is unverifiable. One thing I remember was when they compared it to Henckels and said it was cheaper, but it isn't. One thing I think the article is wrong in saying is that Cutco knives are serrated. They aren't really, since the point of the Double-D edge is that it has the benefits of both serrated and straight edge knives; keeping the clean cut of straight edges and keeping the sharpness that serrated knives have. 128.6.176.12 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Multi-level marketing
I just noticed that in the reference to the page for vector marketing (as in the reference from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector), Vector Marketing is described as a Multi-level Marketing company. Yet in the article, it is said that they are not a Multi-level Marketing company. And then at the bottom, under categories, they are listed under MLM. I'm not a business person, so I do not know which is correct. But it would be nice to see it corrected so that the article is consistent throughout. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.127.177.180 (talk • contribs) 20:28, September 29, 2006.
