Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

Reference Verification for Nov 25 Edits

I was unable to verify most of the references added by Andrewman327 in this edit.[1] At least four of the sources could not be identified via Google, or via 2 major news libraries:[[2]

  • Governor Mitt Romney Announces National Finance Chairs And Co-Chairs
  • Melaleuca Inc., the producer of cosmetics, household
  • New Jersey company buys Snake River Cheese
  • Wisconsin company and Snake River Cheese complete negotiations
  • Beatrice will remain at cheese plant until year's end

Also a reference to an un-refereed press release was added. Since there are other sources already cited to back up the text in question, it should be deleted. Similarly, the Taxation Task Force section relies on a Business Wire press release; it would require a reliable secondary source.

Lastly, several citations have been added to articles published by sources that are not available online (eg, the Idaho Business Review, which is a firewall protected source and accessible only to paid subscribers). In all such instances, the complete paragraphs containing the supporting text should be posted here for verification purposes. Statements that are not verified should be removed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia only requires that they be verifiable -- many paywalled sources are used in articles, and unless you wish to assert a specific misuse of the source, your cavil fails here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It was a simple request to facilitate verification, not an accusation of wrongdoing. Andrewman327 added the citations to these offline sources, so it should be a simple matter for him to provide excerpts from the articles for verification purposes. We've done so several times in the past, and making such a request is innocuous. WP:OFFLINE states:
"Second, use the quote= parameter within those citation templates to provide some context for the reference. This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged. Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged."
I also refer you to the following: "Where a source is difficult to verify, or in a language other than English, many editors appreciate the courtesy of supplying the relevant paragraph and ensuring it can be read by English language readers." [3]
Furthermore, as I said already, there is a more fundamental with several of the citations, which could not be located at all, and in those cases, it's not simply a paywall issue; it's a core WP:VER issue. There was no need to label such a simple straightforward request as a "cavil"; please try to be civil and AGF. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Using Nexis, I was able to find all except "Melaleuca Inc., the producer of cosmetics, household" -- which is strange given that it is indicated as an AP article. Note that I haven't read the articles -- I'm only saying they exist (with the exception as noted). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Neither of the articles Rhode Island Red quoted are Wikipedia policies. WP:PAYWALL is the only official policy on the matter: "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help obtain source material."
I pulled a number of the sources from the library, so I don't actually have day-to-day access. Besides, it's not surprising that you can't find some of the sources; old articles from local newspapers aren't normally indexed by the databases you referenced.Andrew (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, the article I can't find is referenced here as an AP article from 2005. It's not a local newspaper, and it's not old enough that one would expect trouble finding it via Nexis. Any further thoughts? It's not that big of a deal -- a pretty minor part of our article here -- but it's strange that it doesn't seem to be available. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I was responding to Rhode Island Red at the same time that you made your post. The article you reference might be indexed by Lexis under an actual title, my database only repeated the first line as a title. Here's the relevant quote from the 159 word piece: "A quarter of that growth came from oversees operations mainly in Taiwan, where the company estimates that one in 60 households purchases Melaleuca products monthly." Andrew (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge "Associated Press Newswire" is not kept in libraries. Another one of the sources was a Business Wire press release, also not kept in libraries as far as I know. So again, I am requesting that the paragraphs containing the information be posted here for verification. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of full quote

I am bringing this up again because I feel that this sentence in LGBT Issues is misleading: "One of the advertisements stated that "the Boy Scout’s position of not letting gay men be scout leaders, and the LDS Church’s position that marriage should be between a man and a woman may have caused Zuckerman to attack the scouts and the LDS Church through his journalism."[123][49][128]"

Here is the full quote from the advertisement, which is source #123: "Much has been said on a local radio station and throughout the community, speculating that the Boy Scout’s position of not letting gay men be Scout Leaders, and the LDS Church’s position that marriage should be between a man and a woman may have caused Zuckerman to attack the scouts and the LDS Church through his journalism. We think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman’s motives."

When the quote is taken out of context, it appears that VanderSloot is accusing Zuckerman of attacking the scouts/LDS because he is gay, when in fact he is asking the community not to assume Zuckerman's motives. I added just the beginning of the sentence of this quote ("Much has been said" through "speculating that") and was reverted by Rhode Island Red because that part of the quote wasn't in the cited sources. However, it is in source #123, which is being used there.

I understand that the point of this quote is to illustrate the clash between VanderSloot and Zuckerman, but I think we should be able to do that without misrepresentation. HtownCat (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The quote included is the exact verbatim quote that was used by the sources that discussed the issue.[4][5][6] You can't simply re-factor their quote. You are in fact arguing in favor of misrepresentation. This fundamental flaw with the proposed revision to the quote has been explained several times already. Your interpretation of VanderSloot's intentions ("asking the community not to assume Zuckerman's motives") is very much at odds with the conclusions of the cited sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify HTownCat's statement—let me see if I have this right. These are the sources now found in the section to which HTownCat refers:

  • This source links to an opinion piece by commentator Glenn Greenwald of Salon:

Note 49: Greenwald, Glenn (February 17, 2012). "Billionaire Romney donor uses threats to silence critics". Salon. Retrieved September 16, 2012.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/

  • The following source is the link to the advertisement itself:

Note 123: Vandersloot, Frank. "Responsible Journalism or Misleading Propaganda?". The Community Page. Retrieved September 9, 2012.

http://media.salon.com/media/pdf/2005_0605_ResponsibleJournalism.pdf

  • This source is a press release from the Human Rights campaign:

Note 128: "HRC Calls on Romney Campaign to Fire Virulently Anti-Gay National Finance Chair". Human Rights Campaign. March 8, 2012. Retrieved October 4, 2012 http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/hrc-calls-on-romney-campaign-to-fire-virulently-anti-gay-national-finance-c

  • This is the diff in which the following phrase was removed "Much has been said on a local radio station and throughout the community, speculating that":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=524398047&oldid=524397837, with the Edit Summary " inappropriate addition -- that was not the quote provided in the sources cited) { This is the phrase that HTownCat wants to put back into the article.}

I hope the above is a fair recapitulation of the sources in this paragraph, as well as a pointer to the diff. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, GeorgeLouis, you have that correct. So in sum, we have two biased sources and the ad itself, which does indeed include the full quote. HtownCat (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
HtownCat, what exactly is the nature of the bias in the sources you are describing as biased? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in here, but here is one response to Nomo's question. Perhaps HTownCat has another one:
GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
In regard to RIR's comment farther up, the sources cited in the sentence are not Reliable, and the additional "source" that RIR cited, the San Diego LGBT Weekly, well, the website itself is not Notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, and the article by Ruth Fine is seriously deficient—she based her piece on the press release from the Human Rights Campaign, and she seemed to have made absolutely no attempt to get VanderSloot's side of the story. Can't very well call that a WP:Reliable source. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you seem not to have understood my question. I asked: what is the nature of the bias in the sourced described as biased? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I jumped in when I should have let HTownCat respond. Lo siento mucho. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
"Bias" is not needed to note that the "reliable sources" have taken the quote out of context, and hence shouldn't be used. I'll let HTownCat respond as to "bias", but the clear contextual error is sufficient that we should not use those sources for (or to interpret) that comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The bias of the Salon article is that it is an anti-Romney political commentary, and the HRC press release cites the Salon article as its source of information. However, I agree with Arthur Rubin that the political nature of these sources is secondary to the fact that the quote is out of context in them. HtownCat (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Several sources (including Zuckerman himself) did in fact comment on VanderSloot’s denial of responsibility for the outing, as outlined in my previous comment.[7] It was a very odd backhanded pseudo-denial. By all indications, Zuckerman’s orientation was not publicly known despite what VanderSloot claimed, and the sources indicate that if there was any talk around town about town about Zuckerman’s orientation, it seemed to have arisen from VanderSloot’s ad. So what we have are multiple sources saying that Zuckerman’s orientation was not publicly known, and one single source – VanderSloot – arguing otherwise. No reporters ever confirmed VanderSloot’s assertion; but there were several that disputed it. VanderSloot’s self-published quote, a primary source has, no inherent notability, but rather the notability is established by the secondary sources that analyzed it and commented on it (Greenwald and HRC for example), and they did not include the preamble to the quote. They didn't take the quote out of context per se, they merely focused on the significant part of the quote that in effect outed Zuckerman.

VanderSloot’s preamble to the quote "Much has been said on a local radio station and throughout the community, speculating that…” strikes me as akin to something along the lines of “I’m not saying that all (insert name of minority group X) are lazy criminals, but…” So I'm not suprised that the sources did not include it. More importantly, there is no evidence that the local radio station or community had been talking about Zuckerman. Maddow (and LGBT Weekly) addressed this point directly and noted that if the community has been talking about Zuckerman's orientation, as VanderSloot alleged, it was likely because of VanderSloot’s ad.

So how should all of this be taken into consideration? Which is the most critical issue here: that sources did not include the first part of VanderSloot's quote or that undue weight would be given to a portion of a self-published quote from VanderSloot based on an unconfirmed (and largely discounted) personal assertion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I found a source written by Zuckerman that states that he was being harassed by the community before his series of articles was published. It does not mention VanderSloot, nor does it answer your questions about undue weight, but here it is for consideration in this matter: http://web.archive.org/web/20110101234815/http:/www.nlgja.org/publications/articles/zuckerman_beat.htm. HtownCat (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe an editor here is still insisting that commentator Greenwald and special-interest group Human Rights Campaign are "sources." They are not; they are nothing more than people sneezing upwind on a blustery day, so it doesn't matter whether the particular phrase that HtownCat wants to include is cited by them or not. You might as well cite Joe Sixpak from the local barber shop. I support HtownCat's re-addition of this phrase to the article as a small first step in making it more Neutral as to VDS's posture in this very sorry outing of a journalist, which, by the way, we should all decry. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
Here's the thing, Mr. George: by describing the HRC as a (mere) "special-interest group" (with an offensive image, no less), you are in effect taking the view that what they have to say doesn't count because the organization represents a minority (in this case, gays). Flip the coin: only "straight" sources count. You will no doubt deny it, but then you might want to consider an example of a gay-identified group whose perspective you would consider legitimate. Perhaps you have not thought of things this way before, and so I suggest that you might reconsider. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomo, I consider you a very smart guy 'cause I've looked at your User Page, so I am surprised at your questioning my bona fides. Your remark is really off the point and perhaps should have been better addressed at my Talk Page, but to answer your question, here is one "gay-identified" Reliable Source: The Advocate. The news stories, that is; not the commentators or op ed writers, who may or may not be vetted by an editor. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
And then how exactly does the Human Rights Campaign earn your scorn so that they are "people sneezing upwind on a blustery day"? I think it's not bias in the sources we have to worry about here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
ANY public-relations site of ANY organization is NOT a Reliable Source. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems rather convenient for you take that position now, but a couple of months back you were asserting the opposite with regard to citing a video from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative political think tank), featuring a Grover Norquist tax lecture, as a standalone source to support a statement you added to the article about VanderSloot milking cows and feeding chickens as a teenager.[8][9] You campaigned strenuously for inclusion of that source, edit warred over it, and even improperly canvassed other editors at WP Project Conservatism to support you.[10] In that instance, the source was clearly aligned with a particular political party, contained numerous details that clearly violated WP:BLP, and 99% of the content in that video was completely irrelevant to the article. In the case of the Human Rights Campaign (a gay rights organization), the source contained only content directly relevant to VanderSloot, and it aligned with what other sources had written about the subject. But probably more importantly, the HRC is not even cited in support of the quote in the BLP that we are currently discussing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is clear -- where there is any doubt about a quote being taken out of context, giving the context is the proper course of action. In the case at hand, we have sources doing the equivalent of "movie blurb extracts" for ads - and that is clerly improper. Collect (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Which policy is it that you are referring to? Is there a policy that says you can attribute a quote to a source that the source did not in fact quote? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
We should not use a quote clearly taken out of context when a full quote is available. See also Quote mining on this topic. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations states explicitly:
The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted.
In the case at hand - the best source for a quote is a source which gives the full quote. WP:MOS states specifically:
Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.
Clearly where a full quotation shows such elisions, Wikipedia policy requires the correct quotation. Collect (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The policy states "any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source", which is what would have to be done here. VanderSloot's quote was essentially ridiculed as being a backhanded attempt at outing Zimmerman while insincerely pretending to defend him. So like I said before, if the full quote is included, then it should be accompanied by the corresponding analyses from the secondary sources that commented on it. How would you propose to accomplish that? (Unsigned comment by Rhode Island Red at 17:36 7 December 2012.)
And what you aver you 'know is not what goes into BLPs - we only use the reliable sources, and the fact you "know" VanderSloot did not mean what he said is absolutely improper for making any edit contrary to guidelines and policies. And your insistence on including "analyses" would likely violate NPOV from the get-go. Cheers -- now go off and give the two versions at WP:NPOV/N and WP:BLP/N and see if you can get others to agree with your "interesting" view of what Wikipedia's purpose is. Collect (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails out of your post, except that it seems to indicate you sailed right past the part of the policy you referred me to, which says "any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source". The secondary sources exist and their commentaries were excerpted on this very page.[11] (Unsigned comment by Rhode Island Red at 21:49 7 December 2012)

I do not know how the hell I could make the rules any clearer. Wikipedia does not support use of quotes out of context in order to prove that an editor knows more than the reliable sources state in black and white Your desire to use an out-of-context quote with "analysis" by one side only is not how WP:NPOV works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Nor does it comport with NPOV to include here a quote in a way that gives an impression at odds with how secondary sources have portrayed the quote. Perhaps it does make sense to include the full quote, so as "not to take it out of context". But we would then need, in keeping with NPOV, to use the other sources that indicate widely held perceptions regarding VS's views on homosexuality. In the big picture here, we need a section that fairly portrays VS's public actions in opposition to gay rights and gay activism, as portrayed in secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to have a section that says "He took out ads that said this" then we should accurately quote what the ads actually said as opposed to other sources' cropping of what they said. The section currently cites Salon, Mother Jones, LGBT Weekly, Rachel Maddow, and the HRC; I don't think it's in danger of not having enough voices critical of VanderSloot. Andrew (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomo's proposal is reasonable and addresses the issue head on. This is an either or situation. We either use the quote as it was provided by the secondary sources that discussed it, or we use the full quote and then include the commentary that explains the caveats with his statements. It's a perfectly reasonable proposal and exactly what I've been saying all along. This is not an issue of providing enough "critical voices" as Andrewman327 contends; it's simply about providing appropriate balanced context as reflected by the secondary sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
And any such "commentary" must be presented to comply with WP:NPOV as a non-negotiable policy. At this point, the entire LGBT section verges heavily on being of undue weight in a BLP. Collect (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree with RIR. Only the second solution is satisfactory, subject to Collect's caveat. When reliable sources clearly take a quote out of context, we must either include the full quote or carefully state it as quoted in the reliable, but inaccurate, sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK with option 2. Just have to hammer out the appropriate text in response from the secondary sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
What additional text is necessary? It's already a pretty extensively covered part of his life.Andrew (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we have enough consensus here to add the rest of the quote? I'm not really sure what criticism needs to be added since we list quite a bit of it already. Suggestions? HtownCat (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I count only two in favour of an abridged quote here, and five opposed, which would appear sufficient consensus to use the full quote. Collect (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of ad

After HtownCat added the full quote discussed above, another editor added this sentence; An analysis by Glenn Greenwald in Salon asserted that "the ad absurdly sought to repudiate the very 'speculation' about Zuckerman which it had just amplified" with the Edit Summary " analysis of ad, per Talk." There is really no consensus for adding an "analysis" by a very biased political commentator, and I suggest that the sentence be removed, or else consensus for keeping it should be established here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As is clear in the discussion above, it is inappropriate to include the quote (on the basis of a primary source, no less) in a way that conveys an impression at odds with the way the incident is portrayed in secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
If Frank VDS or Zuckerman had been quoted in a Reliable Source, yes, then a response from VDS or Zuckerman would be valid. But Greenwald has no more standing in this argument than I have. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If you have some sort of publication in Salon or the equivalent, I'd be very interested to read it. If you think the source is not reliable for Greenwald's (attributed) views. then WP:RSN might be a good place for discussing any concerns. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Negative image

The recently-added infobox photo of Mr. Vandersloot appears as a negative image, at least in Safari. I.e. he looks vaguely like someone whose face has been burned to a crisp in a barbecue malfunction. The effect is actually quite funny to those of us with a malign sense of humour, and adds a certain distinction which of course has already been introduced into BLPs of various other white-skinned political financiers in the infinite number of Wikipedias throughout the infinite number of universes. I'm all for this, but if humour was not the intention of the uploader in this instance, perhaps she or he would like to do something to make the pic more boring? Writegeist (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is likely a compatibility issue; it looks fine in IE, Chrome, and Firefox when viewed on a PC. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Oddly enough, it looks like a broken image for me. IE8 here. Arkon (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Mercifully it doesn't show up at all in Chrome on my Mac. Neither does the infobox. The ToC is on the right. Writegeist (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks okay to me. Interesting to see what he looks like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Just changed the photo quality--does this fix the problem? Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It displays correctly for me now, thanks! Arkon (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
For me too. Now can you change it back again please? Writegeist (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully you took a screenshot for your archives :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeedy, and printed it. The gentleman is one of several well-known businessmen (e.g. Koch Bros,, Ayles, Trump, et al.) who have recently joined my board. (I'm a darts enthusiast.) Writegeist (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wife contribution

Under LGBT issues, we have this clause: VanderSloot's wife donated $100,000[citation needed] to the Proposition 8 initiative to rescind gay marriage in California, . . . (1) The source cited does not say anything about such a contribution. (2) This is an article about VDS, not about his wife, so this donation is no germane here. Is there any objection to removing this clause? GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If there's no source, then of course it should be removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This detail was in fact covered by 5 sources; the citations have been added.[12] Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to RIR for adding three of those sources, but two others are no good: The Trudy Ring story in the Advocate is citing Greenwald's article (no independent reporting of her own) and the Bodnar piece on LocalNews8 mentions Frank's wife's "reported" $100,000 donation to the Prop 8 campaign, so Bodnar obviously did not do any reporting either. Now, as for the second point— why are we mentioning this donation at all when this is a story about Frank and not Belinda VanderSloot? GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the second point — unless Belinda has her own article, it's reasonable to include her contributions here. I haven't checked the first point, although I have to admit that RIR has added a number of misinterpreted or unreliable sources to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me? What sources were misrepresented? How would is that helpful in deciding whether or not to include mention of VS's wife? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall if sources here have been misrepresented, other than repeating "reliable" sources misquoting the actual text of an advertisement, but on a number of SPLC-related articles, many sources have been misrepresented. And, in this case, if either the sources do not actually refer to Belinda's contributions, or reliable (including primary) sources indicate that she did not contribute, then the material should not be present in Wikipedia's voice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

First, focusing on the matter at hand, the sources do in fact indicate that Belinda made the contribution, so I'm not sure why you seem to be equivocating about that point. Secondly, I ask you again, what sources do you feel have been misrepresented? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In regard to RIR's question two paragraphs above, (1) the Trudy Ring story in the Advocate is citing Greenwald's article (no independent reporting of her own) and the Bodnar piece on LocalNews8 mentions Frank's wife's "reported" $100,000 donation to the Prop 8 campaign, so Bodnar obviously did not do any digging of her own either. The other three sources cited by RIR are perfectly fine and should be used; (2) the usability of the sources, it seems to me, would not be helpful in deciding whether or not to include mention of VS's wife: That, of course, is a different issue, one that was mentioned by Arthur Rubin just above. Arthur thinks it is OK (if I may paraphrase him) to mention the undoubted fact that Belinda gave $100,000 to the Prop 8 campaign, but I feel it is not OK because Belinda is not the subject of this article. (I am not even sure she is a public figure, and she is certainly not a notable person or she would have her own article.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Rephrased Idaho political campaigns sentence

I rephrased "VanderSloot and Melaleuca were financial supporters of the PAC Concerned Citizens for Family Values. Melaleuca's General Counsel at the time served as an official with the organization, described as "one of VanderSloot's favorite causes" which ran ads targeting incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak during the 2000 campaign...." to simply "VanderSloot and Melaleuca were financial supporters of the PAC Concerned Citizens for Family Values. The PAC ran ads targeting incumbent..."

Removed unnecessary information about Melaleuca's General Counsel in this organization. The inclusion of a reporter's comment made in passing that this PAC is one of VanderSloot's "favorite causes" also seems unnecessary in an encyclopedia. HtownCat (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems rather arbitrary and I object to the deletion. What's the basis for "unnecessary"? The sources cited indicated that the PAC was headed by Melaleuca's general counsel, which is relevant, and that the PAC was one of VS's favorite causes. It is the coverage by secondary sources that determines what is and what is not necessary. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is about VanderSloot, so it's enough to say that he supported the PAC, which in turn did XYZ. This article isn't about his general counsel, so that's not needed. As for "favorite causes," it would be different if the author of the Forbes article quoted him as stating that it's one of his favorite causes, but she just mentioned it in passing. HtownCat (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Since the article mentions Melaleuca's general counsel, it would make no sense to purposely omit the person's name. The source mentions that it's one of his favorite causes; that's why the statement was included. Can you cite a WP policy that would preclude the inclusion? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply--I originally thought that the general counsel should be removed, but since there's no Melaleuca article then I can see your point unless someone else has a reason to keep it out. I don't have a single WP policy that specifically states that the favorite cause should not be included, but VS does not state that the PAC is his favorite, and only one writer mentions it. In my opinion it is not notable information. If we do decide to include it, I'm in favor of something along the lines of "XX calls Concerned Citizens "one of VanderSloot's favorite causes."HtownCat (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Quantify + other stuff

This article seems to have a number of weasel words, which I have marked with "Quantify" or some other request. I've identified seven places where an actual number should be used instead of a vague generality.

  1. He has been a major financial contributor to Republican campaigns and paid for advertising in opposition to several Idaho Democratic political candidates. How many? Assuming we have good sources, it should be easy enough to count them.
  2. His public stances on gay-rights issues have generated opposition from journalists, commentators, and gay-rights groups. How many? Assuming we have good sources, it should be easy enough to count them. Also, has he drawn any support for his stances from anybody? This sentence seems very one-sided.
  3. VanderSloot hired a new research and development team whose work resulted in nine U.S. patents in its first 19 years, including a muscle relaxant and analgesic containing oil from the Melaleuca Alternifolia, and has subsequently received several more patents. How many more patents? Assuming we have good sources, it should be easy enough to count them. (I'm not really sure why this should be Notable anyway. Most companies like VanderSloot's receive patents.)
  4. VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from commentators and gay-rights advocates. How many issues? There were only two: He posted some billboards, and he ran an advertisement—or maybe more—in a newspaper. How much criticism? Did he receive support from other people and interest groups? Isn't this an example of WP:Undue weight? Also, VanderSloot's wife donated $100,000 to the Proposition 8 initiative to rescind gay marriage in California is a statement about her, not about him. This one should just be deleted.
  5. In 2006, VanderSloot issued critical statements regarding a series of investigative articles by journalist Peter Zuckerman in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council. How many statements?
  6. VanderSloot took out full-page advertisements in the Post Register in which he challenged aspects of Zuckerman's stories and devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Zuckerman was gay. How many advertisements. How many paragraphs? (I believe there was only one, but I could be wrong.)
  7. Various sources said that VanderSloot's advertisement outed Zuckerman . . . . How many sources?

GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a need for "quantification" of the sort indicated. If it is possible to be precise, fine; if not, no big deal. The sort of language indicated in George's post above is pretty normal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. This strikes me as disruptive tagging. If there is anything that truly needs to be counted, George could have simply counted it and added the number instead of tagging. However, most of the content specified does not need to be quantified at all, and demanding quantification seems rather pointless in most if not all of these instances. Furthermore, instead of putting the onus on other editors to address a problem that only you seem to see, propose a concrete solution George (i.e., make specific text proposals), or better yet, just fix it. Also, I don't see how this non-issue is serious enough to warrant you abrogating your pledge to abstain from editing for a month.[13] Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
In response to the question asked in the third point in GeorgeLouis' original list, I read the section about patents out loud to myself and found it clunky. I removed references to patents and made it flow better. (Moved to proper section of Talk page.) Andrew (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
If we can quantify a sentence, then surely we should. I'm especially in favor of adding years, and names of the politicians he endorsed provided those politicians would be considered notable people. This seems like useful information for readers. Also, "several" could mean two or twenty--there's a big difference so why not reword to avoid a vague term or quantify? HtownCat (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


Possible substitutions

No. 1. Replace "'He has been a major financial contributor to Republican campaigns and paid for advertising in opposition to several Idaho Democratic political candidates" with either of the following:

VanderSloot favored Democratic candidates for state office in 1994 and 2006, and in 2002 he donated $58,500 to campaigns favoring Republican candidates.

Or, for a more detailed version:

In Idaho state politics, VanderSloot favored Democrat Larry Echo Hawk for governor in 1994 and also endorsed Democrat Jackie Groves for state controller in 2006 (cite Popkey for both). In 2002 VanderSloot gave $35,000 to Republican Lawrence Wadsen's campaign for attorney-general, and he gave $16,500 to Concerned Citizens for Family Values, which ran a radio commercial against Keith Roark, the Democratic candidate (cite Popkey). He also donated $7,000 to Republican Governor Dirk Kempthorne's campaign in 2002 (cite AP story in the Spokesman Review).

GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither. The statement that's in the article is accurate and well supported. A number of sources have clearly characterized VS as a conservative/Republican political financier, and his contribution history backs it up. The proposed edits seem intended to mislead. Aside from that, the issue has nothing to do with quantification, and the addition of the tags, as I stated before, seems unnecessary and tendentious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Anything that is in the lede should be supported in the body of the story. The sentence as it now stands is not supported by the sources. I would be open to simply deleting the sentence. The fact that he was a donor to the Romney campaign is well-sourced.GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the more detailed version. Naming the specific candidates that VS favors seems pertinent. HtownCat (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I am willing to go along with the more detailed version. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No. 2. Replace "His public stances on gay-rights issues have generated opposition from journalists, commentators, and gay-rights groups" with

He sponsored outdoor-billboard and newspaper advertising that drew opposition from commentators and gay-rights groups.

There were exactly two incidents involved: (A.) His billboards asking "Should public TV promote the homosexual lifestyle to your children?" and (B.) two advertisements in the Idaho Falls Post-Register attacking that newspaper's coverage of child molestation in the Boy Scouts. (In the latter his opponents claimed he "outed" the reporter who did the stories.) These particular details would, of course, be covered in the body of our article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I favor the change in wording as shown. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No. 3. "VanderSloot hired a new research and development team whose work resulted in nine U.S. patents in its first 19 years, including a muscle relaxant and analgesic containing oil from the Melaleuca Alternifolia, and has subsequently received several more patents."

This has been taken care of through editing carried out by Andrewman327. Here's what he did: [14] GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No. 4. The sentence at the opening of "LGBT issues," "VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from commentators and gay-rights advocates" can be omitted entirely because it merely repeats what the lede already says. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I favor omitting this sentence as repetitive. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nos. 5 and 6. There were just two advertisements signed by VDS. Did he devote "several paragraphs" to establishing that Zuckerman is gay? WP would have to put "several paragraphs" within quotation marks because these are the words used by editor Dean Miller, and WP is in no position to judge exactly what several means. In the first ad, at http://media.salon.com/media/pdf/2005_0605_ResponsibleJournalism.pdf, there was just one paragraph mentioning that Zuckerman had in the past "declared to the public that he is homosexual." In the second advert, http://www.communitypagenews.com/pdfs/2006_0507_AttacksTheScoutsAgain.pdf, Zuckerman was not openly identified as gay at all, but only as a "gay-rights advocate." So really these primary sources (the adverts) contradict the one secondary source (Dean Miller).

One possible solution would be this:

In 2006 VanderSloot paid for two full-page advertisements in the Idaho Falls Post Register regarding a series of investigative articles by journalist Peter Zuckerman about incidents of child molestation by a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council. In the advertisements VanderSloot challenged aspects of the Post Register stories and said that in the past Zuckerman had "declared to the public that he is homosexual."

Part of the second advertisement said that:

One strange aspect of the original story, last year, was that the Post Register had assigned a gay-rights advocate, Peter Zuckerman, to be the ‘investigative reporter’ on the story. There is nothing wrong with having homosexual reporters, but since the Boy Scouts’ policy of not allowing homosexual men to be scout leaders has produced so much anger against the scouts from the homosexual community, it seems that if the Post Register had wanted a fair and balanced story on the Boy Scouts, they would have assigned a reporter who did not have a personal ax to grind.

I'm in favor of rewording to avoid the word "several" in this case. HtownCat (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I favor the suggested rewrite above. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No. 7. Replace "Various sources said that VanderSloot's advertisement outed Zuckerman, including television host and political commentator Rachel Maddow, Glenn Greenwald in Salon magazine, the editorial page of the Boise Weekly, Post Register editor Dean Miller and Zuckerman" with:

Television host and political commentator Rachel Maddow, Glenn Greenwald in Salon magazine, the editorial page of the Boise Weekly, Post Register editor Dean Miller and Zuckerman himself said that VanderSloot had outed Zuckerman.

GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I favor this solution, inasmuch as "various" means "different kinds." These are all basically the same kind of source, with the same political outlook. See http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=Define+various. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A comment on "#2": GeorgeLouis says above that there are "exactly two" incidents. But we then read that these two are (1) a billboard and (2) two advertisements. Well, that strikes me as 3, not 2. Now, we could argue about it -- but why? I repeat that I don't see a need for "quantification", and the possibility for disagreement on this issue shows why: it's trivial and pointless, not worth the effort given that there's nothing misleading about the current version. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The proposed text for #2 also removes "journalists" and leaves behind "commentators". That proposal strikes me as careless given that we've already discussed the fact that most of the sources cited are in fact journalists, not commentators. Seems like bending over backwards to undermine the credibility of the sources. My general objections to the other proposals still stand. We can continue to discuss it, but I don't find the proposed changes to be helpful, and I don't see any problems with the existing text or a justification for the addition of the "quantify" tags. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The proposed text: "He sponsored outdoor-billboard and newspaper advertising that drew opposition from commentators and gay-rights groups," does not include either the numbers 2 nor 3, so I don't see how that's an issue. We could use "journalists, political commentators, and gay-rights groups." HtownCat (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
True -- but right now there's a tag on the sentence requesting that we "quantify". If we don't have to discuss "quantifying", then the tag should be removed. As for the proposed text: why is it an improvement over the existing version? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The existing version is now different than the one I commented on above, but I'd say that the proposed version is just more specific. It sums up the section below it. I did not add the quantify tag so you'll need to take ask GeorgeLouis about that one.HtownCat (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Generalizations have been made from isolated events several times on this BLP. No one person's entirely at fault, but it's important to be precise when referring to a specific event or small number of events, especially when those events are not current. It's what I did to resolve issue #3 above. GeorgeLouis isn't saying his proposals must be used, but I see them as a good starting points. It doesn't make sense to give a range of dates and exact number for ranch awards, for example, but make sweeping generalizations about more serious topics. I like HTownCat's proposal for this specific question.Andrew (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The mind boggles. Rhode Island Red: "That proposal strikes me as careless given that we've already discussed the fact that most of the sources cited are in fact journalists, not commentators." The sources are NOT journalists. A journalist reports the news; he or she does not give "opposition" to anything. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked up WPs article on journalist and checked the backgrounds of the sources cited. Most of them do in fact clearly meet the definition of journalist. (Personal attack removed) Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess you have forgotten the fulsome discussions at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Synthesis_and_sources and at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_4#Four_citations_removed. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we have folks lined up on both sides. So far the reaction goes:

No. 1. Two editors yes, both for the "more detailed version" (GeorgeLouis and HtownCat); two editors no (RIR and Nomo).

No. 2. One editor yes (GL); two editors no (RIR and Nomo).

No. 3. No longer a problem.

No. 4. One editor for the deletion (GL). One editor (RIR) opposed.

No. 5 and 6. Two editors in favor of the suggested rewrite (GL and HtC). One editor (RIR) opposed.

Hardly a groundswell of support either for or against. In order to avoid a looming edit war, shall we send up a flare in a Request for Comment? And, if so, what parts of the vast Wikipedia sea should be canvassed? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Made change in above text per RIR comment just below. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Struck out the above count in favor of taking up the issues one at a time, as proposed below. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Your tally is off George. I expressed my opposition to all of your proposed edits. You're correct that there is no groundswell of support for your proposals, but I fail to see how that sets us up for a looming edit war. Seems that you are saying that edit warring is a suitable response to not getting support for your proposals. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I inserted RIR's negative votes in the sequence just above. If he or she will propose some wording that will result in a consensus, that would be just fine by me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
For now, I'll refer you to WP:POLL so that you will understand why a straw poll of the type you provided above isn't an effective means for reaching consensus or addressing editorial issues. Clearly, there is no consensus on any of the 7 issues. If you wish to discuss any of the points you raised further, I suggest that it would be better to tackle each point one at a time, rather than as batch, to simplify the process (i.e., start one new thread, summarize the proposals, and discussion can proceed towards a resolution before moving on to the next issue). Throwing 7 proposals at us all at the same time is overwhelming (and hasty straw polls seem like railroading); it's like spinning plates. We're not going anywhere, so let's be patient and get it right. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I certainly have no problem in taking up the issues one at a time, so I am starting new discussion below. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Major financial contributor

No. 1. Replace "'He has been a major financial contributor to Republican campaigns and paid for advertising in opposition to several Idaho Democratic political candidates" with the following:

In Idaho state politics, VanderSloot favored Democrat Larry Echo Hawk for governor in 1994 and also endorsed Democrat Jackie Groves for state controller in 2006 (cite Popkey for both). In 2002 VanderSloot gave $35,000 to Republican Lawrence Wadsen's campaign for attorney-general, and he gave $16,500 to Concerned Citizens for Family Values, which ran a radio commercial against Keith Roark, the Democratic candidate (cite Popkey). He also donated $7,000 to Republican Governor Dirk Kempthorne's campaign in 2002 (cite AP story in the Spokesman Review).

  • Favor the proposed change. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(Responding to the comment below by RIR.) The rationale is that the lede is misleading and overbroad. It is too general. I would be willing to simplify it even more, provided the proper information is presented in the body of the article. I actually prefer a much simpler but still accurate version, but HtownCat did not favor that one, id est: "VanderSloot favored Democratic candidates for state office in 1994 and 2006, and in 2002 he donated $58,500 to campaigns favoring Republican candidates." GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We have addressed this detail already prior to this thread. Multiple sources have identified and described VS as a major contributor to Republican campaigns -- they are cited and quoted in the body text of the article, so it would be inappropriate to obscure this fact. I see no reason for any changes. What is the rationale for the proposal? The lead, where the text in question appears, is merely supposed to summarize the content in the body of the article, not to reiterate every detail. BTW, it's not necessary to indicate that you favor your own proposal; that's pretty much self-explanatory. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The current statement in the lead is not overly broad. The lead is a summary of the body text, not a recapitulation of every detail in the body text. The lead says the following: “He has been a major financial contributor to Republican campaigns and paid for advertising in opposition to several[quantify] Idaho Democratic political candidates."
The body text states: “VanderSloot has generally favored and been a major donor to Idaho Republicans;[100][101] he has been described by Popkey as the "most boisterous conservative financier”[8] and by America Online’s Eamon Murphy as "perhaps the single most influential campaign donor"[49] in the state of Idaho.” The body text further describes numerous instances of Vandersloot’s funding of conservative/Republican political candidates and attacks ads against Democratic candidates, which were highlighted by multiple sources.
I fail to see how the lead’s summary is even the slightest bit misleading. Your proposed edits (grossly) inappropriately downplays VS’s support of conservative/Repub candidates and attack ad funding and overplays his very early and clearly atypical support for 2 Democratic candidates (the exception to the rule as noted by Popkey, Trillhase et al). The proposed text omits mention of some of VS's most significant contributions (for example the $100,000 donation in the judicial race) and his extensive funding of PACs and attack ads. Why would you want to introduce such a skewed/distorted POV into the lead I wonder? What I see is that you initially object to the use of the word "several" in the lead (inserting a "quantify" tag for reasons that are still unclear) and are no using that as a pretense to introduce a non-NPOV into the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I would be very happy to remove the entire sentence. This would be a good solution since the current version does not have consensus. What do you say? GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It would make me happy, and satisfy WP policy, if you didn't completely ignore the comments I raised or the fact that there is no justification whatsoever for the change you proposed to the text in question. The existing text is entirely appropriate as per WP:LEAD and the text you proposed would introduce a skewed POV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, it is pretty obvious that there right now there is no consensus on what this sentence should say, so how do you propose that consensus be reached? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It's true that we have quite a few sources stating that VanderSloot is a major donor to Republican candidates, but we also have sources detailing his contributions to Democrats in Idaho, so I'd say that the lead is misleading in that it mentions that he only donates to Republicans. In favor of editing, or just taking that sentence out since the fact that he contributed so much to the Romney campaign suggests that he's a major political donor anyway. HtownCat (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources that mentioned the two (rare and early) instances where VS donated to Democratic candidates were the same sources that identified him as a major Republican campaign financier, so what you are proposing is not NPOV -- it misrepresents what the sources said. We've been through this already at length and it is clear that he has been identified by multiple sources as a major Republican/conservative campaign financier. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. As HtownCat said, the top part of the lede is accurate and gives more recent information about VDS (the Romney connection), which is what the article should stress anyway because it is really important in the context of VDS's life. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a question. In terms of a neutral international view, labelling someone a conservative or liberal in the terms you are applies if one is lookin to use an American political slur against the donor in question; it is not meant to highlight relevant aspects of their donations, but is used to perpetuate biased feelings about their donations. If the subject gave to some "liberal" or "Democrat" candidates as well, even if they are the minority, I'm not sure why this should not be included in an obvious way, other than the perpetuation of the non-neutral slur. Wouldn't it be best to use only the party or candidate names, and if we're talking about donations, to include all those made that were subject to coverage? Not that there is any difference, in purely international political theory, between American liberals and American conservatives anyways on the more important issues (those facing actual potential legislative changes, like say, the differences in a few percentages of taxation) :) I just don't see the rationale behind parsing political labels, it's not like this is Karl Rove here, meaning, there is no grand national and personally endorsed consensus as to the individual's political leanings over decades and decades anyways, only a recent political preference. Just looking for the rationale which I don't see, not looking to match black magic :) What is the point of labelling people anything but politically active, adding some neutral details? Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. We all know that the sources refer to VanderSloot as a major Republican donor and a conservative, but these sources are usually political in nature. Instead of "major political contributor to Republican campaigns" we should reword to "major political contributor to Republicans [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] and Democrats [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME]. The current lead paints a rather biased view of VS. HtownCat (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Gay-rights issues

Lede sentence

I would say that conversation about Item No. 1 is at an ebb until the change is actually made in the Article, so, in accordance with RIR's suggestion that we hold the talk down to one item at a time, I propose we take up No. 2. Replace "His public stances on gay-rights issues have generated opposition from journalists, commentators, and gay-rights groups" with

He sponsored outdoor-billboard and newspaper advertising that drew opposition from commentators and gay-rights groups.

According to comments made above, this change in the WP:lede is supported by GeorgeLouis, and comments have been made by HtownCat, Rhode Island Red, Nomoskedasticity and Andrew112233. It would be helpful to get some consensus on whether the change should be made. As I see it, there are three benefits from the suggested rewording:

(1) The tense shifts from present perfect, which indicates the action is ongoing up to the present time, to simple past, which indicates that the event happened in the past, period, the end; (2) Instead of using "public stances," which could include anything from a letter to the editor to skywriting, the sentence tells exactly what the stances were; (3) it omits "journalists," a word that may be accurate to some of the editors working on this article but is nevertheless unacceptable to others (at least to one other) and therefore does not have consensus; (4) the suggested sentence is one word shorter than the other one (not terribly important, but there you go). GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No good. The "opposition" was not limited merely to VS's billboard campaigns and attack ads. It was also based on his subsequent comments, his wife's financial support of Prop 8, and his outing of Zuckerman. To limit the sentence in question to just the billboards/attack ads would misrepresent the position of the opposition. Also, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that most of the sources cited are "journalists", not "commentators" (i.e. media "pundits"), and that the latter term is often viewed as denigrating -- it unnecessarily undermines the credibility of the sources, as indicated in the lead of the WP article on commentator which says "In certain cases, it may be used in a derogatory manner as well, as the political equivalent of 'ideologue'." I trust that you will take the time to verify for yourself that the backgrounds of most of the sources qualify them as journalists, and that ignoring this fact while insisting on labeling them as commentators instead is not NPOV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I refer all concerned to Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_4#Discussion. As for "commentators" being labeled "pundits," yes, that was a very unfortunate titling of the Wikipedia article on the subject: When I searched for "commentator" in WP, it took me to a page labeled "pundits." There is nothing wrong with being a "commentator," but being labeled a "pundit" leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. For the record, the word "pundit" is not used in this article on Frank VanderSloot, and I believe it never has been. I have since [15]redirected the "Political commentator" page to the more logical, and neutral, Advocacy journalism page. More important: There is no consensus that Mr. A or Ms. B is or is not a "journalist," so without consensus the appellation should not be used. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, many/most of the sources meet the standard definition of "journalists" -- you already conceded this point in the old discussion thread to which you linked above, so it's confusing as to why you are now contradicting yourself. Therefore, it's highly tendentious to argue on the one hand that they should not be referred to as "journalists" because of lack of consensus that they are journalists, while on the other hand proposing that they should instead be labeled using derogatory terms such as "commentators" or "advocacy journalists". Denigrating the sources with such labels is not NPOV. The easiest way to bypass this argument would be to just refer to them as "sources" without any other labels. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I applaud this solution and have attempted to carry out its spirit by editing the sentence to read "His public stances on gay-rights issues have generated opposition." I think that should do the trick unless somebody finds a Reliable Source which applauds him for the his stances, and then we would have to use the word "controversy." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sentences in LGBT section

I'm deleting the opening sentence for the above section (discussed in No. 2, above) because it is contentious (one view is that it is poorly sourced but others feel just the opposite) and it is, in my opinion, not needed to introduce all of the detailed material which follows it. The sentence is VanderSloot's stances on certain issues[quantify] of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists, commentators, and gay-rights advocates.[12][49][93][118][119][120][121][122]. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

On 2 January 2013 Nomoskedasticity reinserted an older version of the above sentence. At the same time, Nomo restored the full sentence that had been truncated from the lede, as follows: "His public stances on gay-rights issues have generated opposition from journalists, commentators, and gay-rights groups."
I am reverting Nomo's changes based on two facts:
(1) Discussion on the Talk Page resulted in a consensus that the type of Sources making the accusations against VDS should simply be omitted. See, for example, Rhode Island Red's statement on 22 December 2012 that "The easiest way to bypass this argument would be to just refer to them as 'sources' without any other labels."
(2) BLP policy requires that "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. . . . The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."
I hope we can close this episode and move on to other parts of the article. All of the accusations again VDS are still extant in the article without these controversial round-up sentences being included. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I merely offered a suggestion that splitting hairs about "journalists" vs commentators" could be avoided by simply referring to them as "sources". I never indicated that I supported removal of the entire sentence -- my position on that point was unambiguous -- I opposed it. Nomo's reversion of your deletion was appropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I realize I went a step farther than RIR's suggestion, but I hoped that the simple removal would meet with his approval. I have now removed the two contentious "roundup" sentences concerning VDS's stance on gay rights on the basis that they add no information to the article and that they seem to be inserted only to make this Living Person seem like he has nothing better to do with his time than harass gays. Remember that consensus is needed to add material, not to remove it. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The two sentences were reinstated by another editor with the Edit Summary "rv edit based on misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS", and so I am now proposing another solution that might be acceptable. First sentence would read: "His public stances on gay-rights issues generated opposition." Second sentence would read: "VanderSloot's stances on some issues of interest to the gay community drew criticism.[12][49][93][118][119][120][121][122]"GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This is still about "journalists", isn't it. You object to the notion that certain people are being identified as journalists. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It's about finding compromise in a contentious issue and completing the tasks set out for us as editors. We are in the discussion phase of a WP:BRD cycle. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't address the nature of the contention. Is it about "journalists"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I removed the two sentences on 5 January 2013 with the Edit Summary "Removing two contentious "roundup" sentences which add no additional information and seem to be there only to cast aspersions on the character of this man." There has also been controversy bruited about here at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Lede_sentence and elsewhere on this Talk Page. Yes, the quality of the Sources has been questioned several times in the past few months, including the identification of some of them as "journalists" or "pundits" or whatever, but the proposed change submitted just above does not really address that issue. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we can use "VanderSloot's stances on some issues of interest to the gay community drew criticism." We go into specifics on who exactly criticized VS in the paragraphs below: "VanderSloot's efforts and his wife's donation drew criticism from the Human Rights Campaign.[120]" in regards to Prop 8; then Glenn Greenwald in the first paragraph about Zuckerman and a list of people in the last paragraph about Zuckerman: "Various sources[quantify] said that VanderSloot's advertisement outed Zuckerman, including television host and political commentator Rachel Maddow[121] Glenn Greenwald in Salon magazine,[49] the editorial page of the Boise Weekly,[132] Post Register editor Dean Miller[119] and Zuckerman.[133]" I suggest making it easier on ourselves by not classifying each of these people as journalists, commentators, etc. HtownCat (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If we choose to not mention "journalists" (which in fact is an accurate term to describe most of the critics) then I would suggest instead using "VanderSloot has drawn criticism for his public stances on gay rights issues", which seems to better with respect to style and clarity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RIR's and HTC's suggestions, but I favor using the past tense instead of the present perfect: "VanderSloot drew criticism for his public stances on some issues of interest to the gay community." So far in 2013 he hasn't drawn any criticisim, and editors are supposed to avoid WP:Recentism. Also it would be hard to argue that VDS's remark that "gay people should have the same freedoms and rights as any other individual" has drawn any adverse comment, so we really should use the word "some" in there.GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning against edit war

For the record, the first attempt to make a substantive change regarding VanderSloot's political contributions was at 10:44 am, 10 December 2012, Monday (UTC−8), when GeorgeLouis noted that "This article seems to have a number of weasel words, which I have marked with "Quantify" or some other request", countered by Nomoskedasticity and Rhode Island Red, who stated, respectively, "I disagree that there is a need for "quantification" of the sort indicated. If it is possible to be precise, fine; if not, no big deal" and "instead of putting the onus on other editors to address a problem that only you seem to see, propose a concrete solution George (i.e., make specific text proposals), or better yet, just fix it. "

Therefore, at 9:10 am, 17 December 2012, Monday (UTC−8) GeorgeLouis suggested replacement of the then-current sentence "He has been a major financial contributor to Republican campaigns and paid for advertising in opposition to several Idaho Democratic political candidates" with a much longer and more detailed sentence (see the top of the sub-section headed "Possible substitutions"). He specifically noted at 4:49 pm, 18 December 2012, Tuesday (UTC−8) that "it is pretty obvious that there right now there is no consensus on what this sentence should say, so how do you propose that consensus be reached?" HTownCat responded at 11:44 am, 20 December 2012, Thursday (UTC−8) that she could accept removing the sentence entirely, and nobody else answered the question, so GeorgeLouis was WP:Bold and removed the sentence.

Simply putting it back, as Rhode Island Red did on at 22:28, 27 December 2012, does not achieve consensus, flies in the face of the opinions of two other editors and might be the opening volley of what could become an WP:Edit war. Red's action does not fall in the category of WP:Bold, revert, discuss because the matter has already been discussed, for more than two weeks. A footnote to the WP:Policy on WP:Verifiability states: "any editor who . . . removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia. [This has been done.] All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any potential problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."

The problems noted with the previous material have not been fixed and therefore should not be added back. Moreover, consensus need not be reached in removing controversial material related to a WP:Biography of a living person as that material can simply be removed with no discussion. ("Contentious material about living persons [or recently deceased] that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") Therefore, I am once again removing the sentence in question, and I refer all editors to Wikipedia:BLP#Semi-protection.2C_protection.2C_and_blocking. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have in mind an edit that you anticipate could lead to an edit war, then respectfully I suggest not making it. I gather that you have a strong but idiosyncratic view on what makes someone a "journalist" -- but that difficulty does not make the material you object to "contentious". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Melaleuca Subheads Reverted

The recent addition of subheadings to the Melaleuca section of the article has been reverted[16] because they did not accurately describe the content. For example the "founding" section refers to the company's current product portfolio (nothing to do with founding); the business model section refers to details that have nothing to do with the business model (distributor earnings) and it fails to mention the most central characteristic of the business model -- that the company is an MLM; the "reach" section describes details that have nothing to do with reach (eg, revenue); the membership section refers to Vandersloot's role on the executive of DSA and his contributions to the DSA's PAC (which have nothing to do with membership per se); and what are labelled as "government inquiries" were not not in fact inquiries (they were "investigations" and a warning letter). The newly added subheads create more problems than they solve. If there is any further interest in adding subheads, which don't seem to be necessary, then a proposal should be presented here for further discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor above has taken the second step in the WP:BRD model, Reversion, and has begun the third step, Discussion. He seems to have two objections to the editing changes I suggested in this diff, wherein my Edit Summary said "Dividing Melaleuca section with subheaders for ease of understanding and of editing. Moving one fact from one part of the Section to another; no change in wording." RIR reverted, with the Edit Summary as "these subheads don't work -- square pegs in round holes -- see Talk." His explanation above seems to be based on two premises: (1) Subheads are not necessary, and (2) they don't accurately describe content.
We should handle the first objection first: Are subheads necessary (or even desirable)? I say yes, they are desirable, because the section is pretty long right now, covering a wide variety of subjects, and the average reader might like some help in switching from one major detail to another. (I couldn't find any guidance to the use of subheads in the swamp of Wikipedia policies and advice, but that doesn't mean there is none.) Anyway, I made this proposal primarily for the ease of reader comprehension: The advantage of editing ease is just a positive side effect. If we have a WP:Consensus that this long section should be broken into its parts, then we can talk later about just what those parts should consist of and what the subheads should say. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Putting the cart before the horse. If the material fits well into a specific set of subheads, then using subheads might be appropriate. If they don't (as in the recent revision), then it is not appropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

EFF editorial blog

!= reliable source for calling Chang a "journalist." The sources I do find call her a founder of "pridedepot.com" which is not a "reliable source". Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing more to say in the previous section, Collect?? Any more reverts coming? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Only if RIR recognizes that 5RR is under 24 hours is unwise. Collect (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a relevant point about the EFF lurking somewhere in Collect's incomprehensible post? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wives

VanderSloot lives in Idaho Falls, Idaho, with his wife of 17 years, Belinda VanderSloot. Together they have fourteen children:[24] six from Frank VanderSloot’s two prior marriages, and eight from Belinda VanderSloot’s first marriage.[8] VanderSloot was previously married to Kathleen VanderSloot (née Zundel), his first wife, and Vivian VanderSloot, his third wife.[160]

While I appreciate we can only go by what the sources say, the above seems fairly unclear to me. Has he had 4 wives or 3? Presuming we aren't talking about polygynous marriages (which aren't recognised in any state in the US hence why I'm presuming), is Belinda both the second and fourth wive (in other words they married two times), or only the fourth; and the second is simply unnamed? The source used doesn't seem to clarify, in fact it doesn't seem to mention Kathleen or Zundel at all. It does imply that he had children from the third and first marriages meaning that presuming the earlier source and the unsourced claim is accurate the children with Frank are Kathleen's and Vivian's not whoever the second wife is. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Frank and Kathleen Zundel had a son -- Brian,[17] the 3rd child from VanderSloot's first marriage[18]. By deduction, VS has been married at least 4 times, but that's speculative so the article doesn't draw that conclusion; just the facts reported by the sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

primary sources

Not a journalist

The Chang letter is not a valid source as it is a "primary source" about a non-notable person *Ms. Chang is not a noted "journalist" and absent a source for that claim, it is barred by WP:BLP. I find no reliable sources making that claim which do not trace back to her in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest reading this and reverting yourself -- at least insofar as she is named as one of VS's targets. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Collect, you're embarrassing yourself by reverting before reading the source I suggested to you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Chang is mentioned specifically as one of Vaandersloot's defamation targets (and identified as a "journalist") in the secondary sources cited.[19][20] The primary source (i.e. Melaleuca's letters to Chang) is from a reputable source (Salon Magazine) and are perfectly acceptable according to WP policy. Collect's deletion of this material,[21] for which there was no basis, has been reverted.[22] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You have now edit warred five times in under 24 hours on this BLP, RIR. I have now asked you three times to self-revert. Collect (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It's really hard to admit an error/oversight, isn't it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
And snark !- discussion, Nomo. How many requests to self-revert ought it take? Collect (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
None. There is no reason whatsoever to self-revert. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology

My apology for making this unwarranted change here. Greenwald did mention Chang. Mea culpa. Nevertheless, this paragraph could do with a lot more work to indicate who mentioned whom instead of lumping all the sources at the end. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. FTR, she's also in this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

I removed a reference to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, added here, because none of the sources that allegedly named it (Greenwald, Maddow, Bodnar, LGBT Weekly, Salon and National Journal) actually did so, and it itself is not a WP:Reliable source. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean none of the sources named the EFF? That makes no sense whatsoever and is not a valid reason for deleting the reference. The EFF article[23] directly backs up the statement for which it was cited.
"According to Rachel Maddow, the National Journal, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and similar legal action against critics and outlets that have published critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho independent journalist Jody May-Chang.[24][25][26][27][28][29]
As for reliability, the Electronic Frontier Foundation would seem to meet WP:RS in general but especially so in this context. It is an “international non-profit digital rights group”[30] that has been widely cited in the press in the context of internet-related legal issues, like SLAPP, of the type covered in the WP VanderSloot article.[31][ http://news.cnet.com/8300-5_3-0.html?keyword=electronic+frontier+foundation] There is nothing in WP:QS that precludes it. Furthermore, the statement in question the Vandersloot article is accompanied by multiple citations, so no statements in the WP article rest solely on the EFF. Lastly, WP:SOURCE says:
“Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.”
That’s an apt description of the EFF, whose primary expertise and responsibility is “checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments”. No basis for deletion of this source. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Electronic_Frontier_Foundation. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As you wish but I don't see why it was necessary to do so at this early juncture. I provided a detailed explanation justifying the inclusion of the source and addressing your assertions, and you chose to completely ignore it. Jumping to the noticeboards without addressing comments on the talk page is a circumvention of process (WP:BRD). In the absence of a reasonable explanation, this appears to be a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Renumbering error

My apologies to Rhode Island Red for not giving his comment a number when I made this layout change, with the edit summary "‪Replacing hashtags with the actual numbers. Fixing some spacing for clarity‬". RIR had typed a bullet (•) instead of a hashtag (#), and I did not realize that his offering was the 100-word statement requested by Administrator Lord Roem; I thought it was a reply to the section just above it. Thanks to Nomoskedasticity for catching the error, although I felt Nomo's remark "fix attempt to disguise the nature of another editor's comment" was off the mark and personally hurtful. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Um. Everyone (including RIR) had used asterisks (not hashtags). RIR's contribution there was no different from the others... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
As it turns out, Arthur Rubin and I were making the same or similar changes within four seconds of each other. Some of the editors had used hashtags not "Everyone (including RIR)." Thus the mixup. It would be nice if one would not jump to conclusions but instead were to WP:Assume good faith. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
As it turns out, Arthur managed to make his edit without removing the hash tag next to my comment[32], so that has nothing to do with your goof up. It would be refreshing if you simply accepted responsibility instead of trying to deflect this onto Arthur. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, whatever. This is not really the place to get personal. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Date glitch re: dates for Oil of Melaleuca, Inc, and Melaleuca, Inc.

Just noticed that there was conflicting chronological information in the article regarding Vandersloot's tenure at Oil of Melaleua, Inc. and the date of inception of Meleleuca, Inc. The article stated that Vandersloot took the helm of Oil of Melaleuca in September 1985, and then it went on to state that Melaleuca was started in 1985 "5 months after" the closure of Oil of Melaleuca. Those dates don't jibe obviously, as 5 months after September 1985 (which is when VS joined Oil of Meleleuca) would be 1986. The article has been revised and the part about "5 months after" has been removed,[33] as the detail is wonky and it's not necessary to contextualize the start date of Melaleuca Inc. (1985) relative to Oil of Melaleuca. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the September part is correct? There are firm dates for the creation of Melaleuca here and elsewhere, but I don't know what to make of either the September or the five months. As time allows I'll try to put together a better timeline. Andrew327 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

NAICS 454111

Early discussion

I added information on the sales modes that the company uses but Rhode Island Red reverted it. The contention is that Melaleuca does not sell its products through multilevel marketing, online shopping, and retail sales. I did not mention this before, but Melaleuca's sales operations are officially categorized under the following two NAICS codes (directly quoted):

  • "454111 - Electronic Shopping"
  • "454390 - Other Direct Selling Establishments"

The first code should be included in the article unless there are reliable sources that state that the company does not offer its products for sale over the Internet or retail. Because the relevant Wikipedia article is entitled online shopping, I opted to use that name instead of "electronic shopping". There are multiple sources that refer to Melaleuca's online sales and retail. Andrew327 20:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious about the notion that Hoover's Company In-Depth Records constitutes something "official". I'm not (yet?) persuaded that we need to have our article reflect what that particular company says about Melaleuca. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
We engaged in a lengthy discussion about the MLM designation long ago. We reviewed multiple sources (in the dozens) establishing that Melaleuca is an MLM company. The issue was brought to several noticeboards and resolved conclusively. Since then, "multilevel marketing" gradually got pushed farther and farther down the lead and then finally diluted with other terms such as internet sales etc. That's not cool at all and it smack of whitewashing. There's no point in having these discussion if the participants refuse to abide by the outcome. Hoover's (one source) does not outweigh all of the other sources that establish the company as an MLM, and if you think otherwise, then the onus is on you to make a compelling case here instead of edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes Hoovers isn't good enough, we'd need something from a news source where a third-party discusses the issue, before we reopen this can of worms. I'm less firm on its permanency of the term MLM, considering the attractiveness of words like "pyramid scheme" or "MLM" to journalists trying to sensationalize or sell copies of their publications, but no Hoover's doesn't work in comparison to third-party commentary. No source to support the contention still. So not conversation yet. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess I missed the big consensus concerning reference to ML as an MLM. When was it? Maybe RIR or Nomo can enlighten us. And I suppose some editors missed this comment I made on 13 November 2012, because I never did get a response to it: 'I call everybody's attention to the fact that this article was stabilized for two months, without referring to Melaleuca as a multilevel marketing organization, a term that Frank VanderSloot himself (the subject of this article) vigorously denies. The stable version was instituted here. and was reverted here by Rhode Island Red, who had been absent from the discussion for that length of time. The two-month-stable version was reinstated by User:Collect [here, with the Edit Summary stating succinctly, "I suggest you read the discussions which led to one versionbeuing stable here." So you see, this issue was never really "settled," as alleged above.' GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hoover's is a very important and highly regarded source about businesses. It is part of Dun & Bradstreet. It is not an "iffy source" - it meets WP:RS. It is used as a source in thousands of Wikipedia articles. If one wishes to dispute this, RS/N is thataway. Collect (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it meets RS. But I reject the notion that it amounts to something "official" as per Andrew's post, and I see no good reason it should direct the way we describe Melaleuca in the lead sentence. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
NAICS classifications are established by the US Government. Is that "official" enough for you? Hoover reports on the classifications which a company falls under. Hoover is WP:RS and has been considered so for aeons on Wikipedia. NAICS is not a creation of Hoover. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No, Collect -- it's not official enough. The government makes the codes -- but Hoover's decision to label a company with particular codes is Hoover's own decision (or so it would appear). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The codes are not generated by Hoovers. Period. The codes are used on government forms which the company is required by law to furnish. Companies are required to accurately state the business they are involved in. The codes are used by multiple government agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of the Census, EPA, etc. They are numbers which have the same legal value as social security numbers have for individuals in some respects. Is this sufficiently clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah -- so the company itself determines what number to report? Fascinating. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
No more than the company also "determines" what income to report to the IRS. The IRS would put the company under horrid fines if it lied about its status on forms sent to the IRS, folks. The NAICS number is thus used with the weight of the federal government. You act like the company simply lies on all its government required forms? Really????Collect (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Given the "creativity" of many large corporations' tax affairs, I do think you've come up with a rather apt analogy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a very dim view of MLM's and the like, but your approach here is not helpful. If you are editing here under the premise that he is doing something illegal I suggest you provide some evidence or go elsewhere. Arzel (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation NAICS code is: 813410, Civic and Social Organizations. [34]. Not a number generated or assigned or created by Hoover's. A number required by federal law. Collect (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Even more fascinating -- WIkipedia is a "civic and social organization". Who knew? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep -- read the definitions thereof. Collect (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I found just one citation to the Hoover's group in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I'm posting a notice at Project Business for others to chime in here if they like. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why qualifying the business has to appear in the lede. Why not just keep that in the body and save the lede for the name of the business and what it sells? The name of the business and what it sells isn't even there. I get people want to attack him every chance they get, but they can do that in the body. The lede should be reserved for a simple statement of unemotional facts. User:Socialjustice77 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Later discussion

Post new remarks here.

NAICS is referenced at insideview.com [35]

Manta.com [36]

Gale company profiles

Industrynet.com

And a few hundred more sites.

There is, IMHO, little doubt that the NAICS number per government regulations are reported in multiple reliable sources for this company, and such numbers are not created or "given" by any of these sources. Collect (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be that the article shouldn't refer to Melaleuca as a multi-level marketing company because of Hoover's. You do realize that's an unsupportable argument right? So why continue to split hairs? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I wrote absolutely nothing of the kind, and I would ask you to remove your errant comments saying I wrote something I did not write. Making such claims is uncollegial entirely. And a really, really poor method of discussing anything. What I did post is that Hoover's did not "create" or "assign" anything at all to the company whatsoever, that the NAICS number is required by the US government, and is controlled by US government agencies. I would also note that by your apparent standards, Sam's Club is an MLM as it charges a "membership fee" and allows resale of its goods. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I said nothing that warrants removal. Be specific and other editors won't have to guess what you're getting at. I'd like to cut to the chase and understand why we're bothering talking about the source at all -- what edits are being proposed? The analogy about Sam's Club isn't constructive because, unlike in the case of Melaleuca, there aren't more than 20 reliable sources that identify Sam's Club as an MLM company. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
If I was here at the time, I would have replied above. The NAICS number is self-reported, and there is only a penalty if willfully misreported. In other words, if they don't call themselves and MLM, and they believe they do not qualify as the NAICS code for MLM, then they can properly report otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe that two different issues are being confounded here: if Melaleuca is an MLM and if Melaleuca sells its products through retail and Internet means in addition to other ways. I don't get why Melaleuca running a store and a website somehow changes the MLM issue. The edits I made did not change the MLM wording whatsoever. More to the point, reliable sources state that the company has stores, so there should be no controversy over saying so. The company operates stores from Idaho to Shenzhen for members to use.[1] Similarly, there is no doubt that members can buy things from the company website as well.[2] Andrew327 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no objection to mentioning that the company sells online, etc., but the way the text was modified watered down the essential point that the company is an MLM. A series of modifications were introduced without discussion that gradually pushed the MLM designation further and further down in the description, ultimately obscuring the facts. It should be stated upfront that the company is an MLM without obfuscation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the other parent, and the actual NAICS numbers in question:
  • There isn't a specific NAICS number for MLM.
  • A company with either of the codes (454111 or 454390 ) could still be entirely MLM (with some effort — "retail" customers are arbitrarily assigned to a sponsor — specific example available by E-mail), or primarily MLM.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Arthur: As I said before, I am not looking to argue the MLM issue based solely on NAICS. The reason I posted them was to draw attention to NAICS 454111 as evidence that the company sells products over the Internet, which is well established. The sentence that was repeatedly reverted did not change the MLM wording. Andrew327 02:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a discussion worth revisiting. If the business model is to be in the lead, then the international retail and Internet dimensions ought to be included. Andrew327 06:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ IBR Staff (April 10, 2006). "Idaho Falls-based Melaleuca continues 20-year growth streak, sales top $702M". Idaho Business Review.
  2. ^ "Melaleuca: Enhancing People's Lives One Customer at a Time (cover story)". Caribbean Business 34 (2). 19 January 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_VanderSloot/Archive_5&oldid=1056918524"