Talk:Sundance Vacations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Georganne (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)i agree that we don't want details of every single scam in wikipedia. However, i couldn't see any examples of this type of scam in the wikipedia, and to people unaware of the extent to which scammers are willing to go, IMHO this should be part of encyclopedia type knowledge.
Maybe the content should be merged into the lottery scam page?
But i got the impression from http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=2575 that this is quite a big scam. Boud 18:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
This article must remain. Sundance Vacations has noteriety on a number of websites due tothe number of dissatisfied and irate customers. In addition many members have noted public information about court cases. Thisis exacty the type of information that should be available in Wikipedia. It defines borderline legal activities that take advantage of consumers. --Baronvon (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Baronvon. Again, Sundance Vacations is attempting to remove accurate, valid and documented information. As the moderator indicated "This is exactly the type of information that should be available in Wikipedia." Georganne (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why anyone would want to remove accurate, valid, truthful and well documented (from public records) information that serves the public interest? This is not editorial, it's dictatorial and unacceptable censorship and should be vigorously resisted by all concerned.Georganne (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sundance Vacations
Hi, I am the Communications Director for Sundance Vacations. We recently typed an article for the page. The current information on the page is not really accurate. We don't want to remove that information, but we would like to put our information first. Also, the article has been tagged, and I don't know how to handle that, or how to navigate. I feel like i'm walking on a spiral staircase with no railing, in the dark! Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer me. Kathjim 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- People who are closely associated with an article's subject encounter difficulties when editing articles since their edits can be construed as vanity. While unbiased entries can be written by persons involved with the subject, it's rare that this happens: all the information must come from third-party reliable sources. However, the article as it stands does not adhere to a neutral point of view and so adding information about what the company does would be helpful. Perhaps the article could be divided up into sections, one for the company and one for criticisms of its business practices? -- Merope Talk to me/Review me 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe the information as currently presented accurately summarizes Sundance and the actions of this company, as there are various elements of a scam. I believe the links should remain, however Sundance Vacations should be permitted to present their response. The article could be cleaned up so that both viewpoints are clear.Baronvon, 11 September 2006
[edit] Incorrect Information
Thanks everyone for the feedback. As the company representative, I would like to see some of the information in the article removed/edited, as it does not in any way reflect the actions and/or practices of Sundance Vacations. We have 'never' offered sums of money to random web surfers, and are not involved in any type of lottery. The fifth and tenth paragraphs of the article mention the incentives we do offer. In addition, we have never used a representation of a clock/animated GIF on the web or anywhere else, nor do we or have we offered a 7 day/6 night Bahamas Cruise vacation. Apparently, there is another Sundance Vacations (past research indicated they are or were based in Quebec). Is it possible to remove that information? Is it possible to have the article begin with paragraph six? I don't want to do anything I'm not supposed to. I realize it's tricky, because the article needs to be from a neutral point of view. Any responses/editing is appreciated. Kathjim 15:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The information on Sundance Vacations and the clock issue is something I have never witnessed. The claims made about Sundance on scam.com are accurate, and for that reason the article on Sundance Vacations has links to scams. The gifts offered are not worth the shipping and handling fees, the free dinner is only worth the cost of one entree (about $15), not a complete meal, if anyone chooses to take advantage of it, and the free 2 night stay in the hotel involves scheduling around availability at a remote destination and involves travel which makes the "free" stay somewhat costly for potential clients. There is very high pressure to sell to potential clients one on one, potential customers are not allowed to independently check the information and are told the offer is good for one day only. Potential customers are not given advance information about what the offer involves, the scope or value or time frame of the vacation offer committment before the one on one meeting in Sundance offices. There are several claims with the Better Business Bureau. The ability to schedule vacations through the affiliate (TAN) is cumbersome, and involves peak usage fees, and other fees which may apply. The value of the vacation and a long term contract is questionable as compared to vacations offered by travel agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baronvon (talk • contribs)
Please keep this page! I am sure that the folks at Sundance Vacations would like it removed. However, I was so grateful to find information outside of the Sundance website. Sundance vacations has been calling me, every day, for a month now. Their offer and their tactics have every sign of a scam. After deleting their messages daily, I finally decided to research them before telling them off. The info on their website is useful, but considering their business practices, I didn't deem it trustworthy. It was so nice to find something written about them on Wikipedia...a source I'd consider more reliable. Every thing I read here sounds exactly in line with what I have experienced with Sundance thus far. Now I feel truly informed as to the pros and cons of actually accepting their trip. Armed with knowledge, I am actually considering accepting their "gift"., whereas before I was more apt to report them to the BBB.
Companies have always profited from spinning information to their advantage. Let's keep them in check and let the truth be heard.
The Stevie Awards do not have a category for Best Overall Company. Sundance won awards for individuals who sold timeshares. I removed the claim that Sundance won for "Best overall company" as that category does not appear to exist according the Stevie website. http://www.stevieawards.com/pubs/sales/awards/398_2081_13588.cfm#BestRunOrg Baronvon
[edit] Streettalkblog reference
Streettalkblog.com has published a very well researched and documented commentary on Sundance Vacations and the Stevie Award. If nothing else, the moderator should at least read the article and come to your own conclusions. http://streettalkblog.com/?p=1860#more-1860
unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's an opinion piece from a source that is not a notable commentator on business awards and it's a blog. It doesn't fit our requirement for verification. It's also editorial. We are supposed to share significant views of experts. If this is a widely held belief it may well be worth including, but with one blog posting as support, it's simply pushing POV. -- SiobhanHansa 17:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to be evolving into a commercial for Sundance Vacations composed by the Sundance Communications Director, Kathjim. I would like to see the moderator, Baronvon, edit the article to reflect the facts and other verifiable information that can be independently researched by the moderator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I will take a look at it. --Baronvon (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The Sundance Communications director redundantly writes about the “100 Best Places to Work in Pennsylvania.” But that is a biased and unbalanced view because the other side of the coin is the fact that Sundance Vacations was sanctioned by the state of NJ for years of failure to comply with Federal and state minimum wage laws. The company was also sued for discrimination in their hiring and employment practices. Let’s not permit an admitted Sundance employee to offer unbalanced and biased comments without offering balanced rebuttal supported by public records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sundance supporters should not be permitted to cover-up valid and informative information documented by public records and other very reliable sources. This article is designed as an accurate depiction of the company, not a commercial for the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This article should not be deleted because it offers the consumer valuable, accurate and relevant information about a very "notable" company that operates in at least 5 states. Sundance Vacations cannot dispute the information so it attempts to delete it! This censorship should not be permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
