Talk:Scentura/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Urban legend

The sources this whole section is currently cited to don't seem to support the claim. I don't think that this is really relevant here anyway. Does anyone mind if we delete that section and focus on the company itself? Alternatively, I wouldn't mind keeping it if someone can find a source that says what the section says in a more concrete way than snopes.com, which is borderline reliable anyway. Until that point, though, I'd prefer to remove the section. Thoughts?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good call. The urban ledgend section is defenetly the most weakest section, I debated about keeping it out yesterday. I don't think we will have an argument about keeping it. If someone wants to add it back they are welcome to:

==Urban Legend==

Scentura products are often sold in parking lots by salespeople who approach women and ask them to sniff a perfume sample. There is an urban legend that similar tactics were being used by thieves who, instead of using perfume, would have the victim inhale a substance (reportedly ether) which would render her unconscious, whereupon she would be robbed. Despite the fact that this legend is false, and there have been no credible reports of anyone being robbed in this way, sightings of Scentura salespeople in parking lots are often reported as evidence that this crime occurs.

Calendar2 (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

this was added back to the article, and I just removed it. If anyone wants to restore it, go ahead, but I think it is a weak section. Calendar2 (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes pursuant to Wikipedia's own policies

I made some comments on this talk page a few weeks back, looks like it was November 30th, but no one has responded. So based on my understanding of Wikipedia's policies, I'm going to make some changes to this article, mostly removing statements that don't jive with Wikipedia's policies. According to Wikipedia's policy on Identifying Reliable Sources (WP:reliable source), "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." There are many statements, conclusions, assumptions, generalizations, etc. made about Scentura in this article that are based on references that either don't identify Scentura at all, or simply mention Scentura as a supplier. This is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's policy noted above regarding Context and Direct Support. Further, according to Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability (WP:verifiability), "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." What the major contributors of this article think is true about Scentura based on assumptions, generalization, hearsay, etc. does not belong in this article. The following are my proposed changes to this article, which are based on Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

1. First section, Scentura's main description: "Salespeople are sent out, often in pairs, to sell perfume door-to-door or in parking lots." • This statement references an article written by a freelance writer in the Orlando Business Chronicle 10 years ago that assumes anyone selling perfume in a parking lot to be employed by Scentura Creations. • This statement should be changed to "Scentura Creations only sells products to independent wholesale distributors. They are not involved with the way the product is sold." This statement is taken directly from the Better Business Bureau's report on Scentura Creations: http://www.bbb.org/atlanta/business-reviews/perfume-wholesale-and-manufacturers/scentura-creations-in-atlanta-ga-7587 • The proposed statement references a stronger source, is more reliable, more verifiable, and is therefore more accurately aligned with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. • It's also worth noting that Scentura Creations has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau.

2. Business Model section, fourth paragraph: "Sometimes, new salespeople are promised large salaries and are later disappointed to discover that the actual position has no salary and is a 100% commission job." • This statement should be removed simply based on the fact that not one of the seven cited references identifies Scentura Creations. This statement does not adhere to Wikipedia's inclusion policies.

3. Business Model section, fifth paragraph: "The only income is from selling knock off perfume door-to-door or in parking lots." • This statement should be removed because it is completely incongruent to the reference provided. In addition, this statement does nothing to further the reader's understanding of Scentura Creations' business model. As previously established (and referenced by the BBB), Scentura Creations only sells products to independent distributors and does not deal with the end customers.

4. Business Model section, sixth paragraph: "Employees are also sometimes encouraged by independent distributors to lie about the products they are selling." • This statement should be removed based on the fact that, once again, the sources referenced do not identify Scentura Creations, and do not discuss Scentura's Business Model. And once again, including this statement is in conflict with Wikipedia's inclusion policies.

5. Business Model section, seventh paragraph: "Scentura salespeople have been in trouble with police for soliciting without a permit." • This statement should be removed for the same reason as the previous three statements.

There's clearly a theme in this article: many of the statements given are generalizations and assumptions made by the major contributors, what they think are truths about Scentura Creations, rather than verifiable facts (see Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, noted above). The given statements may discuss business practices of Independent Business Owners who resell Scentura's product-line, but no verifiable conclusions can be made about Scentura's Business model from the sources given. These statements are in conflict with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and should be removed from this article. OregonDucks97401 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Further Changes

Having learned more about Scentura, I think there are a few more changes that need to be made to this article.

1. History section, second sentence: "WMI was a door-to-door retail business which sold products such as luggage, toys and perfume." • There is no reference listed to support the current statement that WMI sold products door-to-door. And while there are very few sources of information on WMI, there is more that suggests WMI had the same business model as Scentura (that of distributing to independent business owners) than suggests WMI sold products door-to-door. • This statement should be changed to, "WMI was a wholesale distributor of consumer goods such as luggage, toys, and perfume."

2. History section, fifth sentence: "For several years Hahn trained new recruits himself." • The words 'trained' and 'recruits' should be changed because they may imply something other than an independent contractor relationship with Larry Hahn or Scentura. There are sources already referenced in this article that establish Scentura's independent contractor relationship with it's customer base. It's important that those lines aren't blurred. • This statement should read, "For several years Hahn directed new contractors himself."

3. Business Model section, first sentence: "Every manger and perfume salesperson must first sign an independent contract." • The terms 'manager' and 'salesperson' should be changed because they might imply something other than an independent contractor relationship with Scentura. • This statement should read, "All business owners are independent of Scentura, and are considered to have a consignee/consignor relationship with Scentura."

4. Business Model section, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences: "Independent distributors recruit salespeople by placing classified advertisements in the employment section of the newspaper under the heading of 'Management'. Turnover tends to be very high. Training is from four to eight weeks." • This statement seems too specific to make about all independent distributors. If they are 'Independent,' then aren't they free to decide their own business practices? It's almost like saying every Toyota dealership advertises by offering free car washes and oil changes. One or two sources discussing the practices of one or two independent distributors is not strong enough to make this conclusion about ALL independent distributors. Besides, this is a statement about the business practices of Scentura's customers, not Scentura itself. • This sentence should be removed altogether.

5. Business Model section • Add the following statement: "Scentura distributes it's product-line to independent distributors on a consignment basis. The independent distributors aren't required to pay Scentura until after the merchandise is sold. This is key to their business model because it allows them to gain customers without requiring a significant investment into inventory." • This statement clarifies what seems to be an important element of Scentura's business model as far as what they offer to their customer base that they wouldn't be able to get with most other fragrance manufacturers.

6. *New Section* - Negative Press • "Over the years, Scentura has received a fair amount of negative press on complaint boards and other online forums. (reference ripoffreport.com, pissedconsumer.com, and scam.com) It should be noted that most of these complaints seem to be directed at Independent Business Owners for their own business tactics, not at Scentura itself." • I've read many of these complaints. And while there's nothing wrong with people expressing their opinions about a product or company, this statement makes an important distinction that the vast majority of complaints are from people who are unhappy with the independent business owner with whom they had their dealings, rather than Scentura itself.

OregonDucks97401 (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(a) I feel that the sources support the current article, there are many of them from multiple independent sources. (b) you provide no reliable sources to support your changes. (c) all your changes appear to be completely positive to the company; have you declared whether you have a conflict of interest in this? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stuart, thank you for responding. I'm still new to Wikipedia and I'm finding that it can sometimes be difficult to generate meaningful and relevant conversation. So thanks again for the correspondence. I'll post my responses with the corresponding letters: (a) & (b) Most of these new changes I've suggested are supported by sources already referenced in the article, mainly establishing the independent contractor nature of the business relationship that Scentura has with it's customer base. c) I stated a couple months back on this talk page that I had a friend who had recently become involved with a distributor that sells Scentura's products. He's no longer involved, mainly because he "couldn't get past his approach anxiety" (his own words). However, I don't have any strong affiliations with Scentura. My guess at the reason most of the further changes I've suggested seem positive is because for a long time this article was overwhelmingly negative and seemed quite biased. I think these changes just move the article closer to neutral, and give the reader a more well-rounded view of Scentura without a negative undertone. OregonDucks97401 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that one of the things that comes across from the article is that while Scentura claims it's workers are independent contractors, there is a difference of opinion between them and other parties on this. This is reflected in multiple online sources. Removing this difference of opinion in favour of Scentura would be whitewashing. I'm interested in your reference point for the claim of bias, since this too appears to be reflected in the sources. There is no requirement that wikipedia articles must be positive or non-negative, only that they accurately reflect the available sources. If you truely are new to wikipedia, I suggest that you practice on less contentious articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Stuart, thanks again for the correspondence.

There's a source already referenced in the article that explains "The independent contractor concept was preconceived before the first truck load was ordered in. It was already planned out before we ever opened up." As per (WP:verifiability), opinions or what the contributors 'think is true' doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. It should be written based on information gleaned from sources deemed as reliable. And I would say that a published quote from Hahn's former admin assistant is a better source than multiple online sources that offer differing opinions. So in my mind, the independent contractor relationship has been established, and any words or statements that might imply anything else should be removed or changed to avoid any such implication.

All that aside, there is at least one statement currently in this article that clearly does not reference a source at all: "WMI was a door-to-door retail business which sold products such as luggage, toys and perfume." This, by the way, is an example of negative bias - someone writes a statement that seeks to downplay a company's business model to something with a negative connotation (door-to-door), yet provides no reference to support the statement.

And I'm going to stick with this article for now, I've already named it as a topic for a business law course I'm taking (having read this entire talk page, I see I'm not the first one to do this).

OregonDucks97401 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Rolling back whitewashing

I've rolled back a recent edit as white-washing. For previous attempts to whitewash this article, please see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_54#Scentura and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive300#Scentura. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

1) All of my changes were explained on the talk section

2) The changes have been on there for a month and none of the major contributors had any issue

3) Since when is the BBB a poor reference for a business description? (this was the only major change)

To say the edits I made were "white-washing" is rather disingenuous. I'm restoring the changes. OregonDucks97401 (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a completely false description of this change. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How is that a false description of the changes? I don't want to turn this into a battle, but all I know is I have provided explanations for the changes I made that move this article from slightly biased and containing statements that don't reflect the sourced information, to an article that is more in-line with Wikipedia's inclusion policies. Stuart, have you had a personal experience with this company? OregonDucks97401 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You said Since when is the BBB a poor reference for a business description? (this was the only major change). I linked to this change in which you removed an entire block of text critical of the subject and at least nine supporting references. I called your description false. I don't believe I've ever had a personal experience with this company; I'm just going on WP:RSs. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Read my comments in section titled "Changes pursuant to Wikipedia's own policies" where I've explained how the statements I removed were inaccurate based on the sources referenced. To point out one in particular, there was a statement made that referenced 7 different sources, the subject matter of which were independent resellers of Scentura's product, not Scentura itself. That is an extremely important distinction. Once again, as the Better Business Bureau states, Scentura is not involved with the way the product is sold to the end-customer. They do not dictate the actions and business practices of the independent distributors. If you're adamant that a statement should be made or a conclusion should be drawn from those sources, please create a Wiki article on the business in question. If I go to a restaurant, and the waiter spills soda on me, should I blame Coca-Cola? OregonDucks97401 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, how is that pursuant to Wikipedia's own policies when WP:PRODUCT says If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. ? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What you've said there Stuart is my case in point. This article should contain information about SCENTURA'S products and services. However, the article as you have reverted it back to references sources that are negative against independent business owners, and then puts that on Scentura. Meanwhile, as it has been stated in several sources, Scentura sells only to independent distributors, and is not involved with the way the product is sold. Yet you'd prefer the business description to read, "Salespeople are sent out, often in pairs, to sell perfume door-to-door or in parking lots."

So does that mean we should go over to Coca-Cola's WP article, reference sources that cite instances where a waiter spilled a coke product on a customer at a restaurant, and then change Coca-Cola's business description to read, "Coca-Cola is a manufacturer of soft drinks and typically spills their products on restaurant customers." That would be ridiculous.

Yet, this is exactly what's happening in this article.

OregonDucks97401 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Completely. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The state of Illinois ruled that Scentura was a "pyramid sales scheme":

(Scentura) is a manufacturer and distributor of rendition perfume products to independent wholesaler consignees. On November 29, 1995, defendant entered into a consignment contract with (Scentura). Pursuant to the contract, (Scentura) was to provide defendant with perfume products. Defendant would sell the products to an end user for the consignment price. Payment of the consignment price for the perfume products was due when defendant sold the products to an end user. The agreement was for a term of 30 days and was automatically renewed unless one party gave written notice of termination. If defendant terminated the agreement, he was to hold all merchandise in his possession for a period of 30 days "until (Scentura) shall have an opportunity to remove such merchandise.

In our view, the consignment contract between (Scentura) and defendant is properly characterized as a chain referral sales technique or pyramid sales scheme, which falls within the protection of section 2A of the Act. See People ex rel. Hartigan v. Unimax, Inc., 168 Ill. App. 3d 718 (1988) (holding that a marketing scheme whereby the marketer obtained commissions dependent upon bringing others into the system fell within the definition of a prohibited "pyramid sales scheme" under the Consumer Fraud Act). The testimony at the arbitration hearing, provided in support of (Scentura)'s motion for summary judgment, unequivocally establishes that defendant was compensated by (Scentura) for bringing other consignees into the Scentura system and that his compensation was contingent upon (Scentura)'s delivery of perfume to the other consignees. The contractual arrangement, which effectually rendered defendant a guarantor for the perfume delivered to the other consignees that defendant referred, places defendant at the top of the pyramid or head of the chain. The contractual relationship between (Scentura) and defendant is an unlawful practice and is prohibited by section 2A of the Act.

The numerous media accounts support the Appelate Court of Illinois statment. A "cosignment" agreement is exactly what all Scentura employees sign to sell perfume. According to a news report, one staff member stated the founder dreamed up this entire consignment agreement before the first box of perfume was shipped. Supporters like yourself have used this arrangement to argue that Scentura is not attached ever since. But the Illinois Appealate Court saw through this technicality, and labeled Scentura what it is: a "pyramid sales scheme". Calendar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we escalate this?

Re: single purpose account user:OregonDucks97401, this editor continues to delete well referenced information, should we start steps to prohibit him from editing this article or place limits on his deletions? Calendar2 (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

the SPA just deleted a lot of references again. Let me pursue this now. Based on what has happened thus far, I think the community will support a topic ban. Calendar2 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Further steps taken

Last result of the last whitewash attempt:

1. An alert to the Conflict of Interest board.
2. One Conflict of Interest editor found out that an internet designer involved in Scentura, Nick Brunson, was removing all the sources and created the whitewashed article.
3. We then had a deletion discussion which was closed SNOWBALL keep.
4. The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fashion Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Business were all alerted to this article.
5. Active veteran editors User:Northamerica1000 and User:alf.laylah.wa.laylah are now involved in the article, making sure no more mass source deletions occur.

Current whitewash attempt:

1. User:Stuartyeates actively involved in article now.
2. WP:ANI - section entitled "topic ban of single purpose account on pyramid sales scheme
3. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NickBrunson

Calendar2 (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Making Sense of Things

Guys, here's what I'm trying to put across, it's fairly straightforward:

When you read the statements made in this article, and then you read the sources that the statements are drawn on, there's a disconnect. Most of these references simply identify Scentura as a supplier, if they even mention Scentura at all.

Yet for some reason, everyone wants to ignore this. How is that inline with WP policies for inclusion?

The changes I've tried to sustain in this article are all based on removing elements of this 'disconnect' and bringing the article more in-line with WP policies.

Here's an easy example: One of my changes is re-writing Scentura's business description for two reasons, 1) The proposed change is based on a more credible reference, and 2) there are references in this article that completely contradict Scentura's business description as it currently reads.

Just because my changes aren't congruent with public opinion, or with the opinion of veteran contributors, doesn't mean they're wrong.

Sorry if this seems 'longwinded' as someone labeled my explanations (isn't this the talk page? a place for discussion?). Please provide your thoughts, look forward to further discussion. Thank you. OregonDucks97401 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in commenting on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#topic_ban_of_single_purpose_account_on_pyramid_sales_scheme and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NickBrunson. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oregon has been blocked.[1] discussion on ANI closed.[2] and now archived.[3] Calendar2 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)