Talk:IAC (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Expedia Spinoff[edit]

I deleted references to IAC travel since those have spun-off into Expedia. For reference:

If there's a better way to show that these are no longer part of IAC, edit away... --Tiffanicita 22:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

history of IAC?[edit]

There's a remarkable dearth of history on IAC; anybody able to help out? --moof 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on the Barry Diller section[edit]

In looking at other corporations/conglomerates it would seem that the entry on Barry Diller here is out of place. I'm not sure if it should be removed. Opinions? Adiamas (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove it; anything to remove the peacock tail is welcome here. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing external links[edit]

I have removed this extensive set of external links that do not seem to meet the expectations of WP:EL and do not seem to functioning for WP:V. Jeepday (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[Removed the SPAMs from here, see the history of the page for the details 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jeepday (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree those were useless. Excellent. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
My larger concern is the citations. I'm going to nominate this article for deletion if sources are not found before the COI report I just added on behalf of the anon above clears. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

IAC's Business Units Links[edit]

I re-organized IAC's business units according to alphabetical order.

I have added external links to the websites. I am not affiliated with IAC in any way nor am I trying to advertise their products. Is this OK?

--Samwb123 (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Spyware[edit]

How about mentioning the spyware they install on your computer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.251.21 (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested split 2009[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose splitting the IAC/InterActiveCorp into two articles, IAC/InterActiveCorp and List of business operations of IAC/InterActiveCorp. You can help working on the second article at User:Evosoho/Sandbox/IAC/List and the first article at User:Evosoho/Sandbox/IAC. --3^0$0%0 16:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Support --3^0$0%0 16:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDIR and WP:EL, I have removed these inappropriate external links from the body of the article.  Chzz  ►  19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Requested move 2009[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Procedural close — the movereq procedure is not a substitute or shortcut around the deletion procedure.))
V = I * R (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think IAC/InterActiveCorp should be moved to User:Evosoho/IAC/old for edit history purposes. An article for IAC/InterActiveCorp would be devoloped at User:Evosoho/IAC. Wikipedia editors would edit User:Evosoho/IAC not User:Evosoho/IAC/old which currently resides at IAC/InterActiveCorp. IAC/InterActiveCorp would redirect to User:Evosoho/IAC. The talk page would remain open for discussion and the talk page for User:Evosoho/IAC and would be moved to User talk:Evosoho/IAC. I object to IAC/InteractiveCorp's prod and instead take the path I have explained instead. --3^0$0%0 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely unnecessary. If you intend to improve the article, feel free to do so at it's current location. You have 7 days before the PROD will expire, and you can edit it during those days. Please review WP:PROD. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any further questions. Killiondude (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • PS.: when you request a move, the proper procedure is to use {{subst:move}}. it appears that you substituted the {{movereq}} template instead, which creates a mess. Thanks.
    V = I * R (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

IAC[edit]

1. IAC does not put spyware on your computer.

2. I oppose deleting this article. I just think it needs a rewrite.

Samwb123 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you work for IAC? You have been spamming every IAC related article stating that they don't put spyware, when they did in 2009. Now, however, they have removed it, and their software are all PUPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryzal (talkcontribs) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OkCupid[edit]

Don't they also own OkCupid now too? 97.81.65.138 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge 2011[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Agreed. This is a pointless article. Merge it. PlantRunner (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Tags[edit]

I added out of date, POV, and refimprove tages. Some sections are seriously out of date, e.g. 2008 financials. The History section sounds like it was copied from the company's website, especially the headings. There are many un-cited statements that need references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjuch (talkcontribs) 17:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Bob (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sacco Incident[edit]

I re-added the Sacco Incident with an additional reference. It appears to be sufficiently notable to IAC as a company.--Nowa (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? While there are plenty of references to the incident itself in reliable sources, I question whether this is of sufficient long-term notability to the company? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Well,it's still getting coverage related to the company. But even if it wasn't I think it's sufficiently notable with 2000+ articles on Google News specifically covering IAC and Sacco. --Nowa (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
But, the coverage (including the link you shared) is about Sacco having been at IAC at the time of the incident. Are there sources that stipulate that the incident has an enduring effect on IAC (i.e., that would pass WP:UNDUE)? If not, then this seems to be a WP:BLP1E incident, neither relevant to her nor to IAC. JoeSperrazza (talk)
I read through WP:undue in more detail, but could not find the “enduring effect” criteria you mentioned. What it did say is “Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included.” IAC'a response to Sacco's tweet meets this criteria as a significant action by IAC. See, for example:

I'd tend to agree with JoeSperrazza that this is a WP:BLP1E incident and probably doesn't warrant long-term inclusion on this page. Carlyoconnor (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unclear why Beyond My Ken reverted my change to incorporate the Sacco incident more into the history of the company than continue to have it as its own section. The comments on this Talk page indicated to me that there was a general consensus.Carlyoconnor (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no consensus here. BMK (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you engage here on the Talk page, then? Your edit comment simply said "better before". What makes the current version better than mine? I tried to incorporate this incident into the history section, which is, to me, where it belongs. I'm not sure why an HR incident warrants 25% of the content on this page. The last person who left a dated, signed comment here who shared your view said so in December 2013, when the incident had just happened.Carlyoconnor (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The incident is signicifant enough to leave in its own section. Burying it in the general history looks a lot like corporate whitewashing.BMK (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not proposing deleting it. I'm suggesting it should have equal weight as other events in the company's history. I will leave your reversion, but I think it merits debate.Carlyoconnor (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


IAC/InterActiveCorpIAC (company) – Move history seems hazy going back to 2005, but it looks like this article started at IAC/InterActiveCorp, was moved to InterActiveCorp, then moved back to IAC/InterActiveCorp, then moved to IAC (company). Earlier in 2014 it was moved back to IAC/InterActiveCorp again with an edit summary "much better, when disambiguation is needed, to use the actual name of the comany". Per WP:PRECISION, "(company)" seems sufficient - there are no other companies that abbreviate to IAC, so there is no need to distinguish it further as "the company previously called InterActiveCorp". McGeddon (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sacco incident/OK cupid gay marriage stance[edit]

Some addition to the Sacco incident section regarding the OK Cupid stand on Gay mmarriage and the ousting of Eich from the Mozila organisation seems appropriate. As I see it they are preaching as they practice. Adagio67 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to IAC (company). The consensus is clearly to move away from the previous name. The two options are InterActiveCorp and IAC (company), and the latter appears to have more support than the former. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)



IAC/InterActiveCorpInterActiveCorpWP:PRECISE/WP:CONCISE/WP:SUBPAGE/MOS:SLASH/WP:NATURALDAB -- use natural disambiguation which is shorter for conciseness but just as precise as needed; which does not look like a subpage causing subpage problems with associated talk pages and to an internet URL aware public; and slashes should be avoided when possible. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose - Looking at the company's website, it appears that it now uses "IAC Inc." as its name. "InterActiveCorp" appears to have been dropped. BMK (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So would we go back to IAC (company) (the former name of this article that was in use before 2014) ? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I think that would be preferable. BMK (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
        • That would be acceptable under SUBPAGE/SLASH/PRECISE/CONCISE -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
          • See below. BMK (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - cant see any evidence that the company uses InterActiveCorp as either a name or brand name (or actually uses IAC Inc), most the branding appears to use just "IAC" so perhaps we should go with IAC (company). MilborneOne (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That is also acceptable to me. I am the nominator -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • I dont have a view on the article name but "/" looks wrong but the company website uses "IAC/InterActiveCorp" as the company name in a number of places [1] [2] and according to the tax form 10K and such like the legal name appears to be "IAC/InterActiveCorp". MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The links you provide date from 2012 and are probably outdated. BMK (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, color me confused. The Wall Street-oriented website, such as Bloomberg, all still give "IAC/InterActiveCorp" as the company's name. There are a few stories on Google News that come up after a search on "IAC Inc.", but not many, and some of them date from quite early (2007) in one case. Given this, I'm entirely unsure what the company's real name is at this point. BMK (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Per my opening rationale, "InterActiveCorp" makes everything simple, it eliminates the weird slash and double-naming, naturally disambiguates away from IAC, and is shorter. So I think we're really down to two simple choices "IAC (company)" and "InterActiveCorp" as the current title has problems with slash guidelines, and redundancy (PRECISE/CONCISE) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
          • It doesn't matter if it makes it "simple" if it doesn't accurately represent either the real, official name of the compnay, or the common name. I haven't see any evidence that it represents either. BMK (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Most of the 2013 sources used for the "Sacco incident" section in the article call the company "IAC", a couple call it "InterActiveCorp", and none of them call it "IAC/InterActiveCorp". --McGeddon (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
          • "IAC/InterActiveCorp" appears to be the legal name of the company, which is why the Wall Street-oritented sites use it. That doesn't mean we have to use it, though, per WP:COMMONNAME. I've been looking for something which would say that "IAC Inc." is a d/b/a name, but nothing yet. BMK (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use as a byword[edit]

"The incident has since become a byword... for a justified action to immediately end a racist practice." This sentence comes very close to crossing the neutrality line. 99% of readers will agree that racist practices should be ended, so why is the word "justified" even there? Is it because Justine Sacco is only mentioned in this context by people who think that her firing was justified?

Sneaking extra adjectives into sentences about issues is usually a bad idea. It is fine to say that "A number of lawyers and judges asked for Lori Douglas to be disbarred when nude photos of her appeared." It is worse to say that "Lori Douglas has been cited as an example of horribly irresponsible lifestyle choices" even if the critics asking for her disbarrment indeed think she is horribly irresponsible.

When I saw this sentence, I wanted to change it to something like "Those who found Sacco's tweet unacceptable have lended her name to the practice of firing racist employees in general." But when I went searching for other examples of this, the only site I found other than Twitter was the very source in the article. If this biased rant is the only source, notability seems to be unmet too. Connor Behan (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not why the LA Times source is quoted. It's quoted because it says "she deserved to be fire", which is the point of the sentence. The article does not "attach her name" to some other event (whatever the hell that means), so your change is a misquote. Go find a source which says "Sacco's name has become attached to other incidents that are viewed as racist." BMK (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You're being pedantic. "Attaching a name", "lending a name", "associating a name" and "using a name" all mean the same thing. The LA Times source (written by someone who thinks Sacco deserved to be fired) is using the phrase "Justine Sacco treatment" to describe a future action he would like to see regarding a mascot. This is obviously attaching her name to a separate issue and a source containing a word for word copy of what I'm trying to say is not needed to recognize this. I am going to keep trying different choices of words to hopefully find a compromise. Feel free to help with that, or delete the sentence for having low notability. Connor Behan (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
"Pedantic", no, just insisting that a claim is actually supported by the source provided. UNtil you have one, don't change the wqrding in a way that doesn't reflect the source, it will continue tobe removed. BMK (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion highlights how strange it is for this incident to continue to be so prominent on this page. BMK, if you are so invested in the long-term impact of Justine Sacco, perhaps you think she should have her own page? I would argue that's fairly absurd, and that the initial reaction to this incident was a perfect example of the Internet overreacting and social media backlash going unchecked. Instead, you're using one opinion columnist from over a year ago to try and support your point. Try Googling "Justine Sacco" today. The majority of results are all about the overreaction, not the initial "crime". Carlyoconnor (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "invested" in anything, and your argument that the incident can't be highlighted in this article unless she's notable enough to have her own page is ludicrous, at best, sicne different standards apply. BMK (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That was not my argument at all. My argument is that this entire debate is pretty far afield from anything related to IAC at this point. You're now placing a high degree of importance on what one opinion columnist said about one former employee who has not been with IAC in well over a year, and the entire discussion is about whether or not said employee has become some sort of touchstone for reacting to accusations of racism among a tiny (if that) segment of the population. Do you disagree with that characterization? Carlyoconnor (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The incident happened, it involved an employee of the company at the time -- that she isn't an employee now isn't relevant. The incident had repercussions, and those repercussion remain relevant. If it was significant when it happened, that significance hasn't changed, and the incident shouldn't be swept under the carpet just because some time has passed. BMK (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but now you do seem to be making the argument that the incident has intrinsic notability and may very well merit its own page. The lasting significance and repercussions you speak of are independent of who her employer was. Carlyoconnor (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I am utterly and totally bored with the circularity and insipidness of your arguments here, so I shall not respond until you, or whoever, makes sense instead of trying to score points. BMK (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, who the hell are you anyway? You've got a handful of edits from 2010-2014 -- enough to qualify you as an autoconfirmed user, and then you come into this discussion to the rescue of Connor Behan. Carlyoconnor rescuing Connor Behan. An amazing coincidence, that! Just like the coincidence that your editing pattern is similar to that used by puppetmasters to get their sleeper sockpuppets into bed. Then there's your comments here, which appear to me to be on the verge of trolling. Quite interesting. BMK (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry you're not willing to understand the pretty clear argument I've made here, BMK. You have gone on about the lasting significance of Justine Sacco, but every piece of that significance stems from what she said, how the Internet reacted, and how one slanted op-ed piece used her as terminology. None of those things have to do with the content of this page. I assure you, I have no relationship to Connor Behan whatsoever. And if the way you win your Wikipedia wars is to accuse others of trolling, congrats, I have no need to continue here. Ciao. Carlyoconnor (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
When I saw Carlyoconnor's post, I found it funny that our names partially matched, but I've never heard of her before. The section does not exaggerate Sacco's infamy as much as it used to, so I will probably leave the remaining problems (like "went viral") to other editors. Connor Behan (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I incorrectly connected you to Carlyconnor. My question to Carlyoconnor then, given her editing history, is: who's sock are you? BMK (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Companies established in 1995[edit]

Why this is in Category:Companies established in 1995? According to its history, it seems the year should be 1986.--淺藍雪 16:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)