Talk:Vector Marketing/Archive 3

in-depth article from Santa Barbara

 * The Company that Cuts Both Ways: Vector Marketing, Seller of Cutco Knives, Tries to Shed Scam Reputation tedder (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good job, Tedder! Now we have a source that says vector has removed the requirement for the deposit. Phearson (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

State or National?
Just a nitpick, the article says that Vector no longer provides the "Security Deposit", but does not say whether this is only in California in response to the class action lawsuit, or if this policy is nationwide. It appears that The Independent only limited their interview subjects in that state, and may have well used Wikipedia to see the other problems that vector had in other states. So my question, is this on a state level or national? Phearson (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I did some digging on this and couldn't find any news outlets that address that point; the Santa Barbara Independent was unusually thorough. But check out the FAQs on the Vector Marketing site (http://vectormarketing.com/got-questions/). Under number 7, it mentions that the sample set is loaned to the representative. As long as the representative is active, he or she retains the set at no cost; if he or she becomes inactive, the set must be returned. Chicago2011 (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrations
Vector Marketing is best known for their product demonstrations, but there's not really any information in the article about what they entail. I wanted to propose adding a small section on Vector's one-on-one demos. Thoughts? Chicago2011 (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a RS explaining the demonstrations aspect, I would consider that to be encyclopedic as a business practice.  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS
 * What is so different about Cutco's product demonstration? How does it differ any other company from showing off any product? Phearson (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, it's my understanding that Cutco is rather unique in that they cut pennies in half during demonstrations. I don't think it's just a matter of being different; it's a matter of rounding out the article to make it thorough ("Complete" is this article's lowest rating for a reason). If not a section on product demonstrations, doesn't one on sales representatives make sense? Most Vector workers are entry-level (students), and this article doesn't mention specifics about training or pay. That Santa Barbara Independent article has a lot of information on Vector from just about every angle. Chicago2011 (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please post what you propose to write here for scrutiny? I am not feeling very confident about this idea, but of course, that falls under WP:TRIVIAL which I am told to avoid. And be sure to point out the sections of the WP:RS you glean it from. Phearson (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposed text is as follows: "Vector marketing representatives undergo a three-day unpaid training course to practice sales demonstrations. Sales representatives first reach out to family and friends who are over the age of 25 and employed full-time to demonstrate Cutco products at hour-long in-home demonstrations. Vector representatives demonstrate the knives by cutting through ropes, leather, pennies and other items. They schedule future appointments by building a referral network from existing customers. Vector representatives are paid $16 for unsuccessful appointments, and they earn a commission that runs somewhere between 10 and 30 percent for each successful sale." Chicago2011 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Source? Also, are you currently holding on to a offline modified version of this article? It looks as if you are copy-pasting, as some wiki-code appears in the text to a source not matched in the current article. Please share with the rest of us. Phearson (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is included in the text above. It's the superscript number 1 that follows the paragraph. May I ask how it looks as though I'm copy-pasting? If you look at the source, you'll see that the information matches perfectly, albeit not verbatim, of course.Chicago2011 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not see the source in the 22:04, 27 August 2011 posting. Did you forget to add it, or am I missing something? Phearson (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yikes! My fault. I should have double checked that. Let me try again. I'd love any feedback on content for this section, too. http://www.independent.com/news/2011/aug/02/company-cuts-both-ways/ Chicago2011 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I say leave it out. Its like a Job description. This information is really not useful in historical context and would be better found elsewhere for people who may actually be interested in being employed with vector. Phearson (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Leef5 likes the idea of the section, and Phearson does not. Any other opinions? Phearson, any changes that you think would improve it? I think the info about a three-day unpaid training course and how they earn money is relevant considering the context of the rest of the article. Chicago2011 (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am interested from hearing from others as well. I can't think of how to change it as it doesn't address my previous statement. Phearson (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Vector is best known for its product demonstrations. It makes sense to include them, though perhaps not too in-depth. Looking back, I don't think pay should be included, as that's not useful in a historical context, as you mentioned, Phearson. A basic description of what the demo entails is entirely appropriate, though - it provides context to the rest of the article (for example, the business model and controversy sections refer many times to the student work and workers, but there are no specifics about what the work entails). I agree that this section should not read like a job description. Chicago2011 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to be WP:BOLD and make the proposed edits. We can tweak as necessary, but the jist of the proposal is sound.  Leef5  TALK &#124;  CONTRIBS 19:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that most of this information is appropriate. I might leave out the dollar figure because it probably changes slightly every year or two and thus becomes a maintenance hassle.  But I'd keep the fact that unsuccessful appointments are paid, and the 10% to 30% commission range.  I think the fact that sales people are supposed to be selling to their friends and family (at least initially) is important for us to include.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a sub-section below "Business model." I think that's probably the appropriate place for it, but feel free to suggest alternatives.Chicago2011 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The text appears NPOV and relevant - thanks for the addition.  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 12:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange Catagories
Two categories were added to this article, Gaygorian Purhism & Roman Catholic Businesses. I would remove it, but I know that other MLM business owners have exulted themselves as some form of religious good. Phearson (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverted - those weren't even valid categories.  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 12:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
I live in Wisconsin, and they're certainly hiring here. I guess I have to ask: should they not be, or is the info wrong? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference does state that they stopped recruiting in Wisconsin. However, the article is 15 years old so the situation may have changed. 72Dino (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference is wrong. The state of Wisconsin is its own division. J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  16:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A new source would be appreciated. That way, the article can reflect that. Phearson (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Conflict with aim of article quality/Communication
It appears there is a lack of communication between Vector and its contractors in regards to this article. Although Chicago2011 has been appointed by the company to help improve the quality of this article with the rest of the wiki-community, it appears that independent contractors are still blanking the criticism section of this article. Chicago, is it possible for you to ask corporate to ask its contractors to not blank or POV push this article? Phearson (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the slow response - I've been mostly inactive for several weeks. As far as I know, no one I'm in contact with is responsible for sabotaging the content. I can certainly bring it up, though. It's entirely unacceptable. Chicago2011 (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't imply blame, but rather it seems they are unaware that the company has someone appointed to help out here. Though their actions are representative of the company, and can be viewed as hostile if one/some of them decides to engage an a edit war. Phearson (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Company Overview
What are the other editors' thoughts on adding a "Company Overview" section? In my mind, this section would include information such as number of full-time employees and names of company leadership. It might require shuffling some info around that's currently found in other sections. Thoughts on this? SquarePotato (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not sound like encyclopedic information. In general, we do not base an article on what another article has since it might be wrong, but nevertheless I am going to give the example of IBM where a quick look indicates they don't have numbers of full time employees or leadership names. I suspect that would be ephemeral information that is more suitable for the company website. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that information is encyclopedic and is important to business articles. That information fits in with the guidelines at Companies, corporations and economic information.  72Dino (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that there is a high turnover rate of employees with MLM/DS companies, to maintain such a list and ensure it's accuracy would be a daunting task. If I remember correctly we had difficulty in locating the company owners names last time... Phearson (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Chicago2011 is SquarePotato
Vector's company representative to this article needs to contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee before he continues editing this article, we have a few issues to clear up regarding socking. Phearson (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

vector marketing college article
Helpfully, tedder (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blue-Eyed Devil: Don’t get scammed looking for work while in college


 * Added to crit. Phearson (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism => Controversy
Can we change the section Criticism to Controversy? Seems to be a better use of the word. Phearson (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC) I just received an advertisement to join their sales team in Wisconsin, so they are recruiting in Wisconsin. - Melissa Whited, 25 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.224.66 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:JeffBordeaux
Jeff is a paid editor with undisclosed conflicts. Rklawton (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

BBB
The part about the better business bureau is inaccurate. The BBB is responsible for following interactions between the businesses and their consumers, not businesses and their employees. While Vector is allegedly terrible to work for, it appears to be a reliable company to purchase from. I will edit the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.127.107 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Multi-level category
The page is categorized as, yet the "Business model" secton of the article describes the company as a "single-level direct sales group." As multiple citations are provided to back this up I believe it is prudent to remove said Category tag. If you disagree, please feel free to revert the edit, but lets discuss it here.  CKBrown1000 talk 21:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Outdated Washington Post Reference
After reviewing the Washington Post article referenced in the Wikipedia page, it appears the article is 16 years old, and the information referenced is based on outdated facts. The quote used within the Wikipedia page references a survey of Vector recruits in 1992. Since then Vector Marketing has changed policies, causing this information to be irrelevant.

"David Tatar, a Wisconsin consumer protection investigator, said that state surveyed 940 Vector recruits in 1992 and found that almost half either earned nothing or lost money working for Vector, because the company encourages workers to lease or buy a sample set of knives for their presentations." - Currently, employees are not required to purchase a sample set of knives.

Sfehrmann (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Cleanup
I Recently cleaned up this article. It was on my list because it had multiple issues. We can seek consensus here. User:Rhode_Island_Red thinks it looks like whitewashing but it looks as if this page has been un-encyclopedic for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just chucking my $0.02 in here to say that I think Jadeslair's edits were good and make the article more NPOV. SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The edits involved blanking a considerable amount of reliably sourced content, which is not OK. If there are specific issues that need to be addressed, please bring them forth here one by one and we can reach a consensus. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The title was changed because WP:CRITS, maybe there is a better choice. In the first Paragraph " while others have given positive feedback" is directly from the same source, this was added to give due weight. The second sentence was not supported by the source and due weight was not applied there either because Vectors response was not given. Sidelines was removed because it's source was Yahoo Groups. The section is clearly not Neutral point of view. I did not remove any good sources or statements.that should be enough because it is a clear Wikipedia policy to be NPOV. "Vector Marketing has been sued several times." is written in wiki voice and not in the citations. The disputed statement was removed. clantily scad is not even close to a valid source. "a recruit who was successful in a lawsuit against Vector" is not in the source cited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 23:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The edits you described above account for only a small portion of what was changed in the article. Several sources and some significant blocks of text were removed for reasons that remain unclear. I don't think "Reception" is necessarily the best title either. The thrust of WP:CRITS is that the coverage should not be unbalanced, and I don't see that there was necessarily a problem with balance prior to your edits. Significant controversies and material that may be considered to portray the subject matter in a negative light should be included if they represent in a balanced manner what reliable secondary sources have written. I agree that Clantily Scad may not be a good source but there was no obvious problem with others sources that were removed. Might I suggest that we take this step by step and include proposals here that we can then discuss sequentially? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the statement about being sued several times, there's nothing wrong with stating something akin to this in Wiki's voice if it serves as an accurate summary of the information that follows, which it did in this case. I might have gone with something more like "...has been the subject of several lawsuits (for x,y, z)..." or was "the defendant in several lawsuits...", or "several lawsuits have been filed against Vector...". It's better to have a lead in like this than to just start presenting lawsuits with no prior context. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You also mentioned "In the first Paragraph 'while others have given positive feedback' is directly from the same source, this was added to give due weight". The two sources cited in that sentence are these, and neither contained such a quote. Regardless, the overwhelming thrust of both articles clearly was that the company was using deceptive practices, so adding the phrase about positive feedback does not provide balance; quite the contrary, it creates undue weight. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I Agree with taking it step by step even though it is time consuming.

Here is the rest, i think this covers all edits.
 * added the name of the person creating the group; Ashley Thomas and the fact that it was a yahoo group
 * "by the company for money they spend on transportation expenses and other common business expenses while working or" was not in citation given
 * Youtube link in the external links is appropriate
 * Justia was cleaned up using modern reference templates
 * added hoovers citation Jadeslair (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK glad we see eye to eye.
 * Do you have a source for Ashley Thomas?
 * What was the citation you were referring to with regard to the statement about business expenses. Perhaps it was paraphrased. If so, let's find out.
 * The YouTube link is not appropriate. Wikipedia articles are not to provide an avenue for product or business promotion. A link to the company's web portal would be appropriate, if it's not already cited in the article.
 * I have no problem with cleaning up the formatting of a reference.
 * Hoover's (a commercial site, undated entry) seems like a less appealing source for the text in question than the news article currently cited and it provides information (40,000 distributors) that conflicts with that of the latter (60,000 distributors). What value does it add? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hoovers can go. I was just trying to get everything cited.
 * Ashley Thomas i made a mistake, two companies are mentioned. she was not part of a lawsuite with them.
 * I added the youtube link per WP:YOUTUBE
 * Neither sentence was in the sources but they did — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 00:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * THe first paragraph, I believe original writer got the information from the statesman journal link. Here is the exact quote: "Some report making good money and developing leadership and communication skills.
 * But for others, working for Vector has become a frustrating — and costly — experience." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 00:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Business expenses was paraphrased from here, the :::article also says that "Ray Angle, director of Career Services at Webster, has received positive feedback from Webster students who have worked for Vector in the past and warns against being too sensitive to allegations." but ::considering it is user generated content, I don't think that it is a valid source. either due weight or WP:RELIABLE applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes sense for an article to link to an official website in the EL section, but a youtube channel seems way too promotional. I've added the official website, which itself includes links to social media. Social media by itself is generally not included in EL sections per WP:ELNO. This seems uncontroversial enough to not need any further discussion, so I've made the change. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I Am not worried about the youtube link but since this is my first controversy i want to learn. It seems that the link to youtube is discouraged because of copyright, Vector only uploads their own videos as far as i can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Copyvio would be a deal-breaker if that were the problem (WP:COPYVIO), but it is not the only thing to consider. Per WP:EL, (specifically WP:ELNO #10, but also as a whole) external links should be kept to a minimum, as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true that the only Vector's videos are the only ones linked to on the YouTube channel; there are videos from company distributors as well apparently. The bigger issues is that the videos are complete junk. They do not serve an encyclopedic purpose of providing high quality concise information about the company. It's just really really bad promotional garbage. This is clearly not appropriate for inclusion. Grayfell has fixed the issue by simply using a link to the company's homepage instead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I recently saw the youtube policy and thought it was appropriate. after reading it again i can clearly see when and when not to include it now. Jadeslair (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Under Business model it says "sometimes through misrepresentation of affiliation with the school" but the article cited also says that it is against company policy, so it should be written as such; " some contractors have misrepresented their affiliation with the school, which is against vector's policies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 05:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't help but notice that you (Jadeslair) abandoned the point-by-point discussion we were having and instead added a bunch of cruft to the article, which Grayfell thankfully reverted. You opened this thread by alleging that the article had multiple issues pertaining to balance/undue weight, NPOV, etc., and yet none of the edits you've made subsequently were consistent with that premise. That tends to strain the assumption of good faith (and raises potential concerns about WP:COI), so going forward kindly discuss proposals for edits here on the talk page to achieve consensus before making any substantial alterations to the article. Thanks and best wishes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I did not abandon it. That was new material. I am trying to improve the article. That is the whole idea about wikipedia. I will get back to the controversy section. I am done for the night. TOmorrow I will make pages on those :items I listed as notable salespeople. If I have time. I did not do anything else to the controversy section. But I am Bold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 07:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please use caution being bold once editors ask you to do so. We are asking. VQuakr (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not edit recklessly, those items were researched thoroughly. each was cited, one was a bad citation but it was on google scholar. I will not make that mistake again.Jadeslair (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

THe BBB article is not by the BBB it is by someone else. They are not MLM so it is not appropriate to call them MLM. Their about page says"Vector Marketing is a single-level direct sales company that sells CUTCO®". Single level means that it is not MLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC) I Like the fact that Rhode Island Red has started incorporating items into the article. that is how it is supposed to be. Jadeslair (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, what BBB article? The Oakland Press one? Was anybody saying that it was primary? Last year I removed a primary listing used to mention BBB accreditation without any additional context. That one was very clearly a primary source for a routine listing, and while it does establish that Vector is accredited by the BBB, it's not informative. DSA membership isn't very informative either, but at least membership in that group does indicate something about its business model. BBB membership is just too basic to bother with. It would be like explaining whether they use FedEx or UPS for shipping office supplies. It's verifiable, but not important enough to mention without a good reason. Secondary sources would be needed to establish that reason.
 * As for MLM, I would defer to the company if there were no other sources, but there are other sources about the model, and those should not be entirely discounted. The definition of MLM is hotly debated, and some companies have focused on stricter and more limited definitions as a way to distance themselves from the model. Describing the company as using single-level marketing isn't really helpful, because that term is only meaningful as a contrast with MLM. Besides, as counterintuitive as it sounds, I'm not confident that MLM and "SLM" are mutually exclusive. The term can be a word-game hinging on overly restrictive definitions, rather than a meaningful distinction. I know that's an odd thing to say, but that's why secondary sources are so important for this. Since so many businesses are reluctant to describe themselves as MLM, especially recently, it's worth looking deeper on this. It would also be good to dig around for older sources to get a historical perspective, since the company has been around for a while. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, well that student newspaper was partially written well but it also contradicts itself. They have a statement that the author does not seem qualified to state, independent contractors does not mean MLM, Cab drivers are often independent contractors, I am an independent contractor but not mlm: "independent contractors" is an important one. With Vector Marketing's direct selling positions you are not an employee. This is because Vector is a Multi-Level Marketing group" Then he goes on to state they are not MLM "In 1997, the FTC announced it may begin to review the rules concerning business opportunities (which includes MLMs and companies similar to Vector Marketing)." but either way, there is no downline, probably because it is not MLM. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ok, I guess I see where you are coming from, sort of but MLM is pretty specific. We are not really here to define it, they are not MLM. They are direct sales, some people seem to be redefining direct sales. I noticed that here on wikipedia. It does not mean MLM. this is the BBB edit i was referring to(not by you). It is kind of hard to prove a term that is not used, they probably say it that way because people expect a commission for signing others up, possibly even because Wikipedia says so. well, here I go: This link does not say after training they recruit their friends or get family members to sign up. This link says "sales". This link says selling knives. This link says "only pay contractors for the time they spend doing presentations, or commission on sales", None of that is multilevel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, so it was about the Oakland Press one. Whatever we want to call the article, it's secondary and that's a good thing, because as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia articles generally favor secondary sources. I'm not dead-set against removing the term MLM from the article, but none of those three sources said much of anything about recruitment. The company sells knives, but maybe you're confusing a MLM with a pyramid scheme. All legal MLMs sell products as their primary source of income (or are supposed to, anyway). "Commissions on sales" can include recruited reps in a MLM model.
 * Finding the correct terminology is made a lot more frustrating by Vector's reluctance to actually publish detailed accounts of their business model. Looking for sources, the three complaints that come up over and over are that the compensation plan is needlessly complex, recruiters are extremely pushy, and there is a severe lack of transparency. Recruiters are selected from sales reps, but the company's website is vague about any details. Keeping that in mind, if you want to change the wording, making a proposal here on the talk page would probably be the next step. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oakland Press quotes the BBS public affairs director explicitly referring to Cutco and Vector as "...multilevel marketing ventures". Thus, it is reliably sourced. Rhode Island Red (talk)
 * This article (Did I Participate In A Pyramid Scheme?) from Popular Science also refers classifies it as multi-level marketing (or a variant of it). Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It just lumped them in, variation of does not mean it is besides that was a blog post from here; 1, it was a personal account by someone who knows nothing about Vector nor any of the other companies besides the one he participated in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 04:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"Vector frequently advertises in newspapers and on fliers posted but its ads rarely explain the nature of the work" this sentence says it as if they still do it, the citation is from 2004. The sentence should be reworded or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there evidence that they no longer do it? In what way did you think that it should be reworded? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure of their current methods, it does not appear in a search of newspapers for this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Newspaper articles for this year only? Wow. That criteria is so narrow, you could use it to detect the Casimir effect. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * doesn't matter, same results through 2010

Propose DeleteVector frequently advertises in newspapers and on fliers posted but its ads rarely explain the nature of the work" Jadeslair (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On what basis? Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I base everything on Neutral point of view but it is difficult to have a discussion here, apparently you own this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't get snippy! Making unfounded accusations of WP:OWN is counterproductive. If you want to try to improve the article you have to be very specific with your suggestions and rationale. Simply stating "WP:NPOV" is not specific. You seem to be claiming that absence of evidence (that you couldn't find any newspaper ads) is evidence of absence (that Vector does not use newspaper ads or flyers anymore). However, the text in question is backed-up by reliable sources, so your argument for deletion doesn't hold water. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuits
I would suggest that these are put into chron9olgical order. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

I Agree Jadeslair (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

PopSci article
Sorry; this was on the WP:RSN, I should have put it here too so the removal wasn't "unexplained". This explains why I removed that source. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. The sentence it is being used to support is "Vector Marketing is a multi-level marketing company that builds its sales force through advertising via newspapers, direct marketing, word-of-mouth, posted advertisements, letters and various media on the internet." The article in question, titled "Did I Participate in a Pyramid Scheme?" is not about Vector Marketing, rather it is about a different MLM, one which ostensibly sold legal insurance. It is only tangentially about MLMs in general. This is somewhat misleading to the reader.
 * 2. The article in question mentions Vector Marketing exactly one time, in passing. The sentence where Vector is mentioned reads, "Since the mid-20th century, a multitude of companies employing variations of this business model have established themselves, with some of the better known being Amway, Avon Products, Herbalife, Mary Kay, Tupperware, and Vector Marketing."  That's all the article has to say about Vector.
 * 3. Although the sentence in the popsci article does support the assertion in the WP article that Vector is a MLM, it doesn't support the rest of that sentence (about the methods through which Vector builds its sales force). However, the sentence is supported by 3 other sources.  One from the Oakland Press mentions Vector in exactly the same context as the popsci article, in a list of similar business structures.  However, that article does more than the pop sci article to distinguish MLMs that sell a product (like Vector and Mary Kay) vs. pyramid schemes that sell the business of selling (like the author of the Pop Sci article was involved in).  The Carolinian article directly supports the posted advertisements portion of the sentence, as well as it being a MLM.  It is also solely about Vector.  Likewise the Wall Street Journal article is about Vector, although a quick skim through it leads me to wonder why it's being used to support that sentence as it doesn't say anything about Vector's business structure or recruitment methods. Someone might want to move that one to a sentence it actually does support. At any rate, the Pop Sci article doesn't support anything that's not already supported by the the Oakland Press and Carolinian articles and so at best it is redundant.  At worst, it is misleading (see point 1 above).
 * 4. Although it is published on Popsci, and Popsci isn't exactly an unregulated blog, it wasn't originally published there. It arrived there from Zocalo Public Square, which still is not exactly an unregulated blog, and does exert editorial control over the content, making it probably more or less a RS, but I still feel that, given the way it lumps product focused MLMs together with pure Pyramid schemes and the fact that the sentence cites two better sources for essentially the same information, it's better leaving this source out. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 03:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redundancy doesn't bother me and there's no GL that suggests deleting sources if they are redundant. Agree that PopSci is a reliable source (and that whether or not the article was previously published elsewhere is immaterial). Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Vector Marketing. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.carolinianonline.com/2.7350/high-wages-for-student-work-but-beware-1.1030148

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits Reverted
Several independent sites support the claim that Vector Marketing is a single-level marketing or direct sales company. In addition, the sources you say support the claim that Vector Marketing is a pure multi-level marketing company do not, in fact, say that. The only mention of Vector Marketing in citation #2 is "Since the mid-20th century, a multitude of companies employing variations of this business model have established themselves, with some of the better known being Amway, Avon Products, Herbalife, Mary Kay, Tupperware, and Vector Marketing." The industry on the Herbalife page says "direct selling," the industry on the Avon Products Wikipedia page says "Personal" and lists them as a "direct selling company." The Tupperware Wikipedia page makes no mention of multi-level marketing at all. The Mary Kay Wikipedia page says the industry is "cosmetics and personal care products," and says it's a direct sales company. Citation #3 is equally problematic. It contains the claim that Vector Marketing is a single tiered direct sales company, but then presents the following: "Loyola’s Jackson explained that Vector is a multi-level-marketing company (MLM). An MLM pays its salespeople commission from the sales of people it recruited, according to Investopedia, an online resource for finance." Nowhere in this article does it actually show that Vector pays salespeople from the sales of people that they've recruited. The citations you're saying support the claim that Vector is best described as a multi-level marketing company do not support that claim! I also think it's absurd to ignore that in the Vector Marketing Wikipedia page, under Business model, it says "Vector Marketing is a direct sales company." If you're going to immediately disregard every article and page which support my assertion that they are a single-level marketing company by saying that it's either provided by the company or unreliable/non-neutral, then you should explain to me how the citations you're choosing are any more reliable or neutral.

You've also said before "As I said above, "single-level direct sales" is basically meaningless as a descriptor, so that's not going to work. I would accept linking to direct selling. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)" NoYellAtMonkeys (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A high school paper and an article which repeatedly points out that Vector has been called a pyramid scheme do a very, very poor job of proving your point. Direct selling includes MLM. They aren't exclusive, in fact, MLM is by a very wide margin, the largest form of direct selling represented by the DSA. Wikipedia articles strongly favor secondary sources, and the articles should not include original research. This means your opinion that the Loyola source doesn't sufficiently support its claim that Vector is MLM is not particularly relevant. Grayfell (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no interest in whitewashing, I just think that you're insisting on labeling them a multi-level marketing company because of the negative connotation, despite provided evidence that "Direct Sales" or "Direct Selling" more accurately describes their business model, which you obviously realize because it's the first sentence under the business model section. NoYellAtMonkeys (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not confuse accuracy with precision. It would be accurate to say that "Vector Marketing has been described as a pyramid scheme". This would be easily supportable, and would even more strongly convey those "negative connotations" I'm apparently so insistent on, wouldn't it? We don't do that, however. Instead, we use language which explains the business model simply and according to due weight. 'Direct selling' is a borderline WP:BUZZWORD. It does have some legitimacy as a term, but it's also used as a euphemism for a set of models that have poorer reputations. As a legitimate term, direct selling is very vague. It says little about how the business actually functions. If reliable, independent sources use a more precise term, so should Wikipedia. If that term has negative connotations, that isn't, by itself, a valid reason to be less precise.
 * I have only ever seen 'single-level marketing' used as jargon from niche direct selling supporters, usually to differentiate it from MLM because of its close association with 'pyramid scheme'. I do not recall any of these sources as being reliable by Wikipedia's standards. This is not a well-defined term, and its inclusion would be very unlikely to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Updates template removed
I've removed the template:update, which had been there since October 2016. This article has an active talk page, so if there is something that needs to be updated, it should be mentioned here. If sources support this, we can discuss how to implement these changes. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing?
I don't understand why Vector is described as a multi-level marketing company. Its representatives only earn money from the volume of knives they sell, not from signing anyone else to become a salesman. The company signs people up through pervasive advertising, not through signing people up under other people. This needs to be fixed. --Sanya3 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Multiple, recently-published RS call it a MLM: "Loyola’s Jackson explained that Vector is a multi-level-marketing company (MLM). Vector is the sales branch of Cutco Corporation, which produces kitchen accessories, especially knives. Cutco is an example of a multi-level marketing company. etc. It is up to anyone disputing this to provide sources to the contrary. Note that I've started an SPI here about the recent edit warring and use of throwaway accounts. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Loyola article stated that the student believed it to be an MLM, not that it actually was so. As Joel, a Vector Marketing corporate W-2 employee, says in that article, entry level reps (1099M independent contractors) are paid per appointment, or a commission on sales, whichever is highest, and not for recruitment. I can send you internal company documents on exactly how district managers (not summer office or branch managers) are paid a launching bonus (depending on whether a rep has completed the signing process and been "launched" from training with a kit) per rep, but their job description is the only one in the company that involves recruitment. Another student made it sound like it was mandatory to put all of his contacts into vector's system (it's not, I know for a fact that it was totally his choice per company policy). It's fake information being presented as true, and then cited here as such. If reps are not required to buy product or recruit friends, things that are often cited as characteristics of MLMs, then why should we label the company as such? We need to organize categorical differences between these terms, and not just cite students blindly. A better term that I've seen used both in Vector Ads and in company jargon would be 'outside sales' which is defined on Wikipedia's 'Sales' page. I think it's curious that no one has made this point yet. Seeing as this term applies more accurately than multi-level marketing and is not as vague as direct sales, would this be a substitution worthy of consideration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.77.161 (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2018‎


 * You will need to find reliable sources for this. First-hand experiences with the company is not usable. Neither is original research about the definition of MLM, nor are primary documents from within the company which have been selected and compiled by a rep to support a specific conclusion. We are especially not interested in repeating company jargon. Jargon should be avoided, because we're not a recruiting tool, we are trying to explain the company in terms an outsider would understand. As has already been discussed on this page, Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So the default option is to perpetuate fake news? Joel isn't a rep, he's the National Public Relations Manager. He can spin things, but if he lies he gets sued or fired. And by jargon, I meant that as a former Vector manager I literally ran ads titled "OUTSIDE SALES POSITION OPENINGS" on my branch's facebook page. Go to LinkedIn and type in "outside sales" and you'll find job openings at every company from New York Life to Tesla, where job descriptions and pay structures across industries are similar. I get that wikipedia isn't a recruiting tool, but "outside sales" is a familiar term to many who have been in the sales world, and would clarify misunderstanding in a way that would benefit the reader. If the term is unfamiliar, one could follow a link to an adequate explanation. MLM is misleading and false, the articles cited have quite obvious factual errors as well as an obvious slant against the company. I'm starting to wonder whether you may be perpetuating this information maliciously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.77.161 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You still have provided no reliable sources at all. Sales had some spam sources which I just removed, but it still explains that "outside sales" is used specifically to contrast with "inside sales". It's not a business model, but an indicator of certain aspects of one set of roles within a business. Absolutely nothing about any reliable source I've seen suggest that Vector is a "outside sales business", nor is it clear what that would mean. MLM and outside sales are not mutually exclusive, and using a vague term that's also used by "every company from..." suggests that it's too broad to be informative. It's also pretty clearly euphemistic, since this would be replacing a controversial-but-specific term with a vague-but-bland alternative.
 * I have no direct involvement with this company at all. You, however, very clearly have a conflict of interest and have removed sources and changed the wording to make the article more flattering. Speculating on how "malicious" my motives are will not reflect well on you. Instead, comment on content, not on the contributor. The way to do this is to propose actionable changes backed-up by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Update June 2018 I have reverted to MLM instead of direct marketing per this discussion, and the source. The reliable sources do seem to use the term multi-level marketing, but I would invite any further discussion or comment below. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support this action. Phearson (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

All multi-level marketing is direct selling. Vector is a member of the DSA – the direct selling association. Miyagikk (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ref 2 (popular science)
This source only seems to mention the subject in passing. I would understand if it was used to support a clause about multi layered marketing but surely there are sources to confirm this which directly relate to the company? Cr@Z Kit-Kat Lovert@lk 20:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If you can find a better source, please add it, but I don't see this as being a problem. This is an article from a reliable outlet discussing multi-level marketing which uses Vector as an example, so in context is seems acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

External links/link?
Couple of things. Firstly the title of this section is wrong. For it to be considered an external links section there would need to be more than one external link, otherwise it should either be renamed external link so the title accurately reflects what is in the paragraph. Nevertheless, there is already an external link to the company website in the info box. Do we really need this? May I remove it. Cr@Z Kit-Kat Lovert@lk 20:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Per the manual of style (MOS:LAYOUTEL) this should remain plural even if there is only one entry. I know this influences Wikidata, and Wikipedia articles in other languages, but neither of those seem to be an issue here, so I don't see any reason not to remove it, if you really want to. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposals Suggestion
propose restore the introduction sentence for Business model "Vector Marketing is a single-level direct sales group that builds its work force through advertising via newspapers, direct marketing, word-of-mouth, posted advertisements, letters and various media on the internet" there is only one source that says they are an mlm all the rest don't. Jadeslair (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said above, "single-level direct sales" is basically meaningless as a descriptor, so that's not going to work. I would accept linking to direct selling. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Untrue. I do not care much about whether the article characterizes the subject as "multi level," but two sources were linked in a post, to which you replied, in the section above. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And actually there is a third source that refers to the company as MLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This source is incorrect. The sources quote "For both your sales of the plan's goods or services and those of other people you recruit to join the distributors."  This is not part of Cutco/Vector's compensation plan.  You don't get paid off the sales of recruits.  At least that appears to be the case according to their official literature.  https://vectormarketing.com/pay/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.64.4 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

propose remove "Vector frequently advertises in newspapers and on fliers posted but its ads rarely explain the nature of the work" or rephrase to Vector has advertised  in newspapers and fliers, those ads in 2004 have been noted as not explaining the nature of the work. Jadeslair (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There are many sources already used in this article which support the assertion that Vector's advertising is extremely vague and potentially misleading. I would rather see this rephrased to explain that, rather than whitewashed, or rephrased to downplay one facet while ignoring others. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No; no source has been presented that states the content of ads has substantially changed. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Addressing both above: There are a number of old sources, those same sources say Vector has or will change their policy. Actual ads 1, says direct selling of knives, 2, says sales, cutco one on one, 3,says conducting cutco demonstration also declares pay. I doubt there would be an article that says "Company now uses normal advertising methods!" Obviously I am not implying that these should be in the article as sources but they should help with decision making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 14:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The gist of nearly all of the secondary sources cited about Vector's marketing practices describes them as vague, misleading, and at least somewhat predatory/exploitative. This point should be thoroughly addressed in the article, and it is more or less in the current version. This remains part of the company's history regardless of whether or not Vector subsequently changed their policies and practices, and there is no reliable evidence that they did. If there is a reliable source that quotes the company saying that they planned to change their practices, that could conceivably be included as well, but under no circumstances would it be appropriate to whitewash the company's past by expunging information about their practices in the past. I am inclined to agree with Grayfell that the text in question could conceivably be revised to explain and summarize the issues more clearly, but again, removing this text altogether would be highly inappropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, part of their history. It is written in present tense. I Believe we have consensus on that.  Jadeslair (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So then why would you have suggested deleting (whitewashing) the material altogether? What modification would you now propose to make instead. I think that ultimately the description of the issues the company has had with misleading sales practices and violations of labor laws will be expanded, not expunged. I get the sense though that this is not the direction you were hoping for. Unintended consequences right? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will leave the modification up to you since you do not let me edit the article. I stated one way above. Whitewashing, humm, call it what you want,the sentence is misleading. Jadeslair (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

propose remove In addition to vague job descriptions due to WP:EDITORIALJadeslair (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Per above. If that is explained, then the transition between the two paragraphs could be rephrased accordingly. As a transition, it seems like very light-weight editorializing to me. Wafer-thin, barely a kitten's whisker of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not clear why you think this violates WP:EDITORIAL. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * from within WP:EDITORIAL "to highlight something as particularly significant" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)
 * Referring to vague job descriptions does not seem like editorializing to me. If anything the issue seems to have been underplayed in the article, judging by what many of the sources cited in the article describe. I think ultimately this aspect will be expanded upon to give a clearer picture of the company's practices which have been scrutinized and criticized. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * what adverbs or prepositional phrases functioning as adverbs are being used "to highlight something as particularly significant"? VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not an english professor but "In addition to" It provides emphasis. Maybe I am wrong, if so feel free to tell me. Jadeslair (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:EDITORIAL applies to editorial commentary. If we started a sentence with words like "shockingly", "notably", or "remarkably" we would be in violation. "In addition to" is just a transition that does not convey undue emphasis. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

propose remove the Popular Science reference, it is not about the company, does not say anything about the company and is basically a blog post reprinted from here; http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2013/08/26/did-i-participate-in-a-ponzi-scheme/ideas/nexus/ WP:BIASED (second paragraph)Jadeslair (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't hinge an entire section on it, but as one source among many, I don't see any major problem. I do not see how WP:BIASED applies here, and biased is not the same as opinionated. Popular Science is free to republish from blogs if they wish. Since it is a passing mention, it's probably not vital, but lets set it aside for now. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a reliable source, I am not saying Popular Science over all is not a reliable source but the article certainly is not. WP:NOTRELIABLE. Popular mechanics did not change anything, an indication that there was no editorial oversight. The author had a conflict of interest, the author was the subject of the article.. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, not for others. This part of one of WIkipedia's core items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)
 * The article would not meet the definition of self published, since it was ultimately published by Popular Science, a publication which meets WP guidelines for reliable sources (ie, reputation for accuracy, editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc.). The fact that this article may have been published elsewhere previously is immaterial. Even if it was reprinted in its entirety without any changes, this would not be indicative of a lack of editorial oversight on Pop Sci's part. It may simply be the case that the Pop Sci editors did not deem that the article required any additional editing or modifications. As for COI, I see no basis whatsoever for that claim. You seem to be misinterpreting WP:COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It mentions the subject. Please explain why you think there is a violation of WP:BIASED. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a personal account, a diary is a primary source, the fact that it was reprinted does not make it secondary, unless it was analyzed. The writer lumps all companies into the same barrel with very little fact checking and tries to get the viewer to take the same view. Jadeslair (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're going way out on a limb with these assumptions about fact checking and whether or not "it was analyzed". The source (Popular Science) is WP:SECONDARY, not WP:PRIMARY. As pointed out above, this is not a stand alone citation; it is backed by two others sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * no assumption, they did not show an analysis, that is what would be needed.  Jadeslair (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * According to what WP policy? It would appear that you are inventing arbitrary rules and grasping at straws. Cite a policy please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:ANALYSIS Referring to secondary sources " It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" Jadeslair (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:ANALYSIS that precludes the use of the Pop Sci article. Again you seem to be grasping at straws. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I cited policy, It violates that policy. I am going to remove it. WP:ANALYSIS It is a first hand account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Stop edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave very good examples and detailed why it is not a valid source. WP:BIASEDWP:NOTRELIABLEWP:ANALYSIS If you would like we can get some administrative assistance for a clear violation of the rules. Did you read the article? Jadeslair (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take it to the reliable source noticeboard. Everyone here seems to find your argument unconvincing. VQuakr (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, here it is. Jadeslair (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * here is the discussion about that popsci url that you reverted Jadeslair (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a courtesy, it would be nice to notify the participants on he talk page thread when you post a query to RSN. There is still no consensus for removal; hence the reversion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did, look two lines up. In reference to three and four lines up, and then specifically tagged you when you did something relating to it. Jadeslair (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * :My bad. Sorry! Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose remove sometimes through misrepresentation of affiliation with the school.[6] the statement is not in the source cited nor is it paraphrased Ray Angle, director of Career Services at Webster, has received positive feedback from Webster students who have worked for Vector in the past and warns against being too sensitive to allegations.Jadeslair (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Look harder: "When confronted by lecturers, the recruiters say untruthfully that they are affiliated with the SBCC Career Center, according to the employee." Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not the same statement. Unless the sources have a laundry list of affiliations then the statement is not true. It could be phrased "some recruiters have be found to misrepresent affiliation with the SBCC Career Center but this is not Vectors policy." because in the source they state it is not Vectors policy. That covers due weight and since it is in the business model section it implies that it is part of their business model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)
 * No, the statement being supported is, "They recruit sales representatives from high schools and college campuses in the United States and Canada, sometimes through misrepresentation of affiliation with the school." That is supported by the reference given. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * VQuaker, you are right about the section, I copied the wrong section. The context is the United States and Canada, the article does not say Vector claimed to be  affiliated with the schools nationwide, just Santa Barbara and specifically SBCC Career Center, a reader is likely to think they did this Nationwide and in Canada. I don't know whether they did or not but the article does not support that they did. It does not even say Vector, It says "some recruiters" so I think it would be appropriate to rephrase. Verify, from the second paragraph "must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Jadeslair (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We can certainly add more detail about how the company's recruiters misrepresented that they were affiliated with SBCC, but I doubt you'll be any happier with the result. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

propose a discussion 'In the 2008 case Vector Marketing Corporation v. New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire ruled that Vector employees are independent contractors and Vector is thus exempt from the state business profit tax.' seems to me that would not be notable, they were correct. [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I would prefer a WP:SECONDARY source for this. If it's significant to the company's business model and how it treats its (non-)employees, it should be supported by something else. It seems like it would be significant, so hopefully a source can be found. Primary court documents are rarely usable by themselves. The only obvious exception I can think of would be an article about a specific case. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does the fact they won the case, make it irrelevant? Notability is not a factor in determining if content should be included in an extant article. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It should have never been included anyways. It is original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)
 * I don't think the court docket adds anything. It's arcane and difficult to interpret. Besides, the article already states that the company's distributors are independent contractors, and it is supported by reliable secondary sources. Is there anything significant in the docket that I might be missing? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely not original research, but there seems to be consensus here that it is not of sufficient relevance to the company to include. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

propose I've seen other articles directly cite social media posts as credible sources on company and political outreach. If that standard could be applied equally, would it be fair to cite high ranking Vector officials and/or writers from credible magazines' posts about certain topics? Wikipedia should be neutral, and although I have no intention of whitewashing this page, I think it would be a better source of information if policies or terms were defined by both pro and anti vector sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.77.161 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very unlikely that social media sites would be considered WP:RS -- for defining polices and terms or pretty much anything else. But there's nothing to consider in the absence of a concrete proposal for content/sources to include. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

propose adding a section called 'Partnerships' that describes Vector's work with DECA including their involvement in the 'Entrepreneurship -- Growing Your Business' portion of the competition. Miyagikk (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Not unless you can find a source which isn't public-relations piffle. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The Forever Guarantee
I put this back in a footnote. It is a fact. It is referenced. Was not being "effusive." Take it to the talk page. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop spamming WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not spam. Statement of fact. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎)
 * Per WP:BRD and that two editors (well actually three I assume since thanked me for this edit) please don't reinstate the edit; the material is clearly promotional, being lifted straight off their website and violates WP:ABOUTSELF ("the material is neither unduly self-serving") Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty promotionally-toned to me. VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The text of the footnote was:\"All Cutco items can be engraved, and are guaranteed forever. The "forever guarantee" means the company will sharpen, replace and service them forever — guaranteeing sharpness and performance —, irrespective of who the original purchaser was and need for a receipt.  It is a fact, and fairly unusual for knife makers, in my experience. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I get it that you had a good experience with the company as you said here. WP is not a vehicle for getting the word out about that, sourced to their website. I am sure they have some e-commerce page where you can post a comment praising them. If there are reliable secondary sources discussing the company's guarantee and record keeping it, that would be fine. That is how we edit here, as somebody who has the chutzpah to brag on their experience should know. The edit is raw advocacy.Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll look for a source. If you look at the edit history page, this started because on of our esteemed editors deleted the statement, and then another one said that "forever guarantee" as meaningless pap, and then demanded a source.  And y'all don't like the answers.  Oh well! 7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, don't look for a source--it's a waste of time. An acceptable source here would also, really, have to make your (OR) point about this being unusual, and I seriously doubt you'll find such a source. And, of course, the very content is promotional. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Here are two sources. But you say it doesn't exist, and that it doesn't matter. I've seen similar prejuudgments in the Senate Judiciary Committee. OBut yo8u can prove mme wriong. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A test of the Cutco Forever Warranty Blade Forums
 * Curcod cutlery Review The Frugal Farmer. "WOW!  Color me impressed.  Awesome products and above-and-beyond customer service to boot?  You don’t find that anymore."
 * you actually cited a WP:USERGENERATED site as a source. Oh my. And now that the contemporary equivalent of Godwin's law has been evoked, we are done here. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 7&amp;6, RELIABLE sources please. I don't know what Laurie's authority is, or why she needs "affiliate links" if this is an honest review. I let my subscription to Frugal Farmer lapse, I'm, so please remind me of their editorial policies, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm done here. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That cite is a roundabout way of citing Cutco's own marketing materials as what you're citing is an example of marketing used for analysis and questions Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't like that answer either. Quel surprise! <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC) <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Written by CutCo salespeople (For the first time in manuscript form, twelve former and three current Cutco Cutlery sales professionals--with over $300 million combined in Cutco Cutlery sales--have gathered together); would you actually check if the source is independant and reliable? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Notes from a university course are a reliable source now? SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know which student(s) wrote that, for what class, what their grade was on the assignment and for the class, and what the teacher's credentials are. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You conveniently overlooked the Fawcett article. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeated attempts to back this up using unreliable and obviously promotional sources belies an agenda at odds with WPs editorial policies and raises questions about WP:COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Fawcett article (on "Mental Floss") is not WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Fawcett article (on "Mental Floss") is not WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red knock yourself out. Apparently seven sources (including the company's website, which has not been included in this discussion) are not enough. Speaking as a lawyer, I would note that the best evidence of their warranty policy, at least in court is their own statements. Likewise the statements of their agents and adherents. You insist on independent third party WP:RS. This is a Perverse result. I conclude that in Wikipedia common sense is not so common. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 01:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Court procedure is irrelevant to WP policy. The 7 sources are not WP:RS. The company's website is a primary and non-independent source. You most recently pinned your argument on the Fawcett article, which is clearly not a reliable source, so it would seem the problem here is with your understanding of or adherence to the policy on WP:RS. Bear in mind that a WP:SPA who repeatedly presents unreliable sources as though they were WP:RS raises concerns about WP:COI, which dictates that you should identify any COIs and refrain from editing the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no need to invoke COI. 7&6 may be a fan but there's no need to allege that they have ulterior motives when this is just a simple case of WP:IDHT. SmartSE (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 7&6 is not an SPA, unless your definition of SPA includes someone with over 110000 edits :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake; thanks for pointing that out. I struck my comment about SPA and agree with your point about IDHT. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not care how many sources you cite if the sources are not independent reliable sources. I could easily cite several hundred unreliable sources claiming the Moon landings did not happen. Forum postings, paid blog postings and such are worthless. No matter how many of them you have, they add up to nothing. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict of interest. You have nothing beyond your imagination.  This gratuitous allegation is just harassment and false to boot.  Keep it up and I will make you answer to WP:ANI.  Meanwhile, go pound sand and see what you accomplish. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So we are clear, there have been "no repeated attempts" to add any of these seven sources to the article. It was my hope that an appeal to common sense and reason would get us past all this.  But I've been wrong so far. And here we sit. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No one said you tried to add the 7 sources to the article. I merely said that you repeatedly pointed to those unreliable sources to support your argument (which you appear to be losing resoundingly). Your comment about "pounding sand" was unnecessary, but I understand that you must be frustrated when your notion of "commonsense and reason" is contradicted by every editor who has commented so far. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Individual Employee Claim 7 Years Ago
"They recruit sales representatives from high schools and college campuses in the United States and Canada, sometimes through misrepresentation of affiliation with the school.[5] "

In regards to this statement, one employee stated this 7 years ago -- is this a definitive statement, or should we caveat it considerably more in the article? Zeelyone (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by definitive or what caveat you are referring to, but refer to the previous thread where this was was already discussed and deemed acceptable in its current form. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

2018 Class Action Lawsuit
"In September 2018, Vector was sued in a class-action lawsuit initiated by a division manager who alleged that the company was engaging in unfair labor practices because, despite his position, he was still classified as an independent contractor, thus denying him access to overtime pay. According to the suit, division managers are the highest-ranking class of workers who are not officially classified as Vector employees."

The lawsuit by the sales representatives was recently dropped, and the 1st source seems unreliable - it is just a personal blog. The second source doesn't discuss the lawsuit mentioned. I propose removing the line as it is not properly sourced, and is no longer accurate. Zeelyone (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it should be September 2017 when the lawsuit was filed, not September 2018? Assuming we are talking about the same suit, it being dropped doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered. I don't see any blogs used as sources for that paragraph. Do you have a source for you claim that the suit was dropped? That could be added to the paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "The lawsuit by the sales representatives was recently dropped" - A WP:RS would be needed to support that assertion, but even if one exists, the detail would merely be appended to the existing information. It would not serve as a basis for deleting the entire entry.
 * "the 1st source...is just a personal blog" - Blatantly false.
 * "The second source doesn't discuss the lawsuit mentioned" -- Try reading the sources more carefully. It explicitly back up what's in the WP article, stating: "Vector was sued again this past September, this time by a division manager who alleged that the company was engaging in unfair labor practices because, despite his position, he was still classified as an independent contractor, thus denying him access to overtime pay. According to the suit, which is still in its early stages, division managers are the highest-ranking class of workers who are not officially classified as Vector employees."
 * "I propose removing the line as it is not properly sourced, and is no longer accurate." -- Epic fail. These repeated baseless sloppy protestations are WP:TE, if not WP:DE. You also have continued to dodge the WP:COI issue. Very disconcerting! Is admin intervention going to be necessary? Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey everyone. I have been looking into this a bit and it does seem like the lawsuit hasn't seen much press coverage outside of student blogs and websites. I am all for neutral objective information with a clear public interest being included but I think we need to think about what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a newspaper so we can't report directly on Vector's legal proceedings, we can only summarise the coverage the proceedings receive in the mainstream press.Olaf Sergi Vlademere (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Olaf Sergi Vlademere (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: I've blocked this editor as it is obvious from their other contribs that they are an undisclosed paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)