Talk:Frank VanderSloot

BLP

Stowell is a living persopn. Claims made in this article about him require strong sourcing per WP:BLP, and the articles which are referred to as being by Zuckerman do not meet that requirement in this article. And again -- we need reliable sources as to "fact" and not opinion pieces by anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This comment makes no sense at all. What do you mean by the "articles which are referred to as being by Zuckerman"? You seem to be expressing doubt as to whether he actually wrote them. Secondly, which "claim" about Stowell do you feel is not adequately supported by citations, and be specific please. Lastly, by what stretch of the imagination do you think it's reasonable to dismiss an award winning series of investigative journalism articles (i.e, Zuckerman's articles) as "opinion". Are you not aware that Zuckerman's investigative expose on the Boy scout molestations received the Scripps Howard Foundation Award for Distinguished Service to the First Amendment[1] and the Livingston Award,[2] and that Stowell was convicted and sentenced already? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Stowell is a living person. All claims about him must abide by WP:BLP whether you like it or not. The inclusion of claims which are not strongly sourced is a violation of policy'. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No one is arguing otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Which means that since Stowell's name is not relevant to this BLP, and the claims about him which are given inferentially are not supported here by strong sources, that his particular name should be removed per WP:BLP even if he were Satan incarnate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Faulty premise. Stowell is relevant to this BLP. Vandersloot made it so by by running his editorial. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If he is relevant, then the claims about him must be supported here by reliable sources. Your pick. Right now the "source" is the article by Zuckerman, which is insufficient to make the claim made in this article as worded In 2006, VanderSloot issued a critical statement[25] regarding an award-winning series of investigative articles[26] in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by Brad Stowell while serving as a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council. The Zuckerman source is valid for the claim that Zuckerman wrote the articles, but not for the internally catenated claim about the evil Stowell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't discern what your issue is. Zuckerman's articles were about Stowell; Vandersloot's editorial was about Zuckerman and Stowell. Stowell was tried and convicted for molestation -- the fact is incontestable. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the name of this person from the article because there may be more than one individual with the same name. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is a plausible/convincing reason for removing a name. Very few English names would be unique, and acting on this basis would mean almost never using names. Oh, and you're now at 3RR on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems implausible and unconvincing. The text in the article reports exactly what was covered by the sources. Removal was contentious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation style

Just a note to remind all editors that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style." It is true that "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style," but the editing on this particular article has actually resulted in a multiplicity of citation styles, most of them good but some quite erroneous. There seems to be actually no "established citation style" in this article. At some point, there may be discussion on the Talk Page about which style to adopt, but it seems to me that there are more important matters to talk about first. Of course, what I am saying here is only a guideline, and not a policy. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Early Life and Career

There seems to be some ambiguity about the details of VanderSloot’s early life and career. The current version of the article says “He paid his own way through school, ‘selling beef jerky in bars and teaching Dutch to future missionaries. He lived in a laundromat, which didn't have a shower, so Vandersloot took sponge baths’.” It’s a pretty poor summary (and the part about sponge baths is trivial and should be removed). Coverage of VS’s early years is scant in general, and much of what’s out there seems sketchy, but I did find one source (albeit a really bad Melaleuca promotional puff piece) that says that VS paid his way through college by selling butter from the cows his father gave him and that he worked at a laundromat, and that this is how he paid his college tuition and expenses.[3]

Also, there is a huge gap in coverage of VanderSloot’s life from his college graduation (1972) up to the start of Oil of Melaleuca (1985). The article currently says that he was a VP at ADP for 9½ years, but I don’t see that mentioned in any of the sources, so if someone can quote the original paragraph it would be appreciated. It doesn’t seem accurate, since new BA graduates don’t typically get hired as VPs straight out of college. Also, as far as I can gather, VS’s jobs at ADP and Cox were in Washington State. Can anyone confirm this? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

(1) The summary mentioned in the first paragraph came from http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/10/12/1835874/ruthlessly-protecting-the-franchise.html. (2) In one of the recent edits, his experience after college was noted as "management," without specifying the exact titles. I believe that word has just a while ago been deleted in favor of using his later titles. It would be OK to go back to "management," because that would cover his jobs both fresh out of college and at the end. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This article: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=IDRB&d_place=IDRB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=112385415BEB7600&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM (currently source #20) says "management jobs" at ADP for 9 1/2 years. Paragraph says, "Before his turbulent first days at Oil of Melaleuca, VanderSloot had worked in management jobs for 9 1/2 years at Automatic Data Processing in three cities, then as an executive for three years at Cox Communications in Vancouver, Wash." Forbes calls him regional vice president of Cox in the seventh paragraph down of this source: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1011/089.html "Before VanderSloot bought into the company, it subsisted on a handful of products tied to the melaleuca, or "tea tree" of Australia. Discovered in New South Wales in 1922, the melaleuca sprouts leaves that supposedly have antiseptic and analgesic properties. Colleagues at Cox Communications, where VanderSloot was a regional vice president, were so skeptical of his move that as a parting gesture they set up a tree and strung tea bags from it." HtownCat (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Per Wikipedia:Edit_summary#Use_of_edit_summaries_in_disputes, some of the comments in many of the Edit Summaries seem to be contradicting Wikipedia:Civility; in a word, flaming. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of full quote in LGBT section

Concerning this section: VanderSloot took out full-page ads in the Post Register that challenged the stories and devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Zuckerman was gay.[8][75][68][63] One of VanderSloot's advertisements asserted 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."[70]

First, the current citation does not include that quote from VanderSloot: http://www.advocate.com/politics/2012/03/10/hrc-romney-ditch-antilgbt-finance-chair

Second, we need to include the full quote from VanderSloot, as seen in the actual advertisement in the second paragraph under the header "The Reporter: The Post Register's Peter Zuckerman." (Source: http://media.salon.com/media/pdf/2005_0605_ResponsibleJournalism.pdf) That quote reads, "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."

The way the quote currently appears in the article makes it appear that VanderSloot himself is suggesting that Zuckerman is attacking the scouts and the LDS instead of responding to the radio station's speculations. HtownCat (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that HtownCat make the desired changes to let the other editors know exactly what he or she has in mind. See wp:BRD. Perhaps HtownCat's changes would not be Reverted but would be acceptable to everybody. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that some changes are indeed required in that passage. I'm not sure that the solution is to include the quote that HtownCat proposes -- I think it would result in a rather confusing presentation. Of possible interest is some of the material appearing at this page (e.g. "According to the Nexis transcript, during the segment VanderSloot asserted that the documentary was using taxpayer money to bring "the homosexual lifestyle into the classroom and introduce it to our children as being normal, right, acceptable, and good an appropriate."). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The full quote should not be included; the portions that are in the article are those that are directly relevant to the controversy that is described -- i.e., (a) VS revealed that Zuckerman is gay and (b) VS indicated that Zuckerman being gay caused the author to be biased against the Scouts and that this bias was pervasive in the article. Those were the statements that generated problems for Vandelsoot and were covered by the media, and they are addressed appropriately in the WP article. The WP article already says that VS denied that he outed Zuckerman (a charge that was refuted by Zuckerman himself as well as the editor of the Post-Register). After revealing that Zuckerman is gay, and saying that the author's orientation caused him to write a biased article; VS merely tacks on the gratuitous comment “we think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman’s motives." This is ridiculously hypocritical, and this particular act of hypocrisy was pointed out by several press sources. So if you want to include that part of the quote, then we’ll also have to include all the press commentary that pointed out how hypocritical it was of VS to say this. While we’re at it, we can also include some of the more extreme criticism that referred to VS as an anti-gay zealot. So far I’ve avoided doing so because the current version is nicely balanced and neutral, but if you want to start injecting VS’s lame denials, then that would require inclusion of the press’s reaction to those denials, not to mention the devastating consequences of being outed, which Zuckerman described to the media.

There seems to be a pattern with VS acting like somewhat of a bully and then playing the victim card and not accepting responsibility for his statements (and some WP editors here seem to be trying to weave this victimhood mentality into the article). For example, multiple sources have analyzed the company and concluded that it is an MLM (it is quite obviously); and yet VS wants the historical record to read that his company isn’t an MLM. Vandersloot pours millions of dollars virtually exclusively into the coffers of conservative Republicans, and yet he wants to be viewed as non-partisan. Among his other assets, VS owns half of a company that’s worth several billion dollars, and yet he takes umbrage to the fact that the media has called him a billionaire. He and his wife fight to overturn gay marriage rights in California, and he takes controversial stands on various gay issues (e.g., he called the PBS documentary “child abuse” as I recall), and yet he wants to be referred to as a supporter of gay rights. He outs a gay reporter and, on the basis of the author’s orientation, VS slurs his award winning journalism on the Boy Scout scandal, and yet VS wants the record to say that he didn’t out anyone nor suggest that Zuckerman's being gay influenced his reporting. He jumps into the political arena as Romney’s campaign finance director (and puts $1.1 million of his own money behind the candidate), and then he takes offense to the fact that, in the interest of transparency, he was listed as one of the key financiers behind Romney’s campaign, and he then falsely tries to portray himself as a mere “private citizen” who is being unfairly attacked. His reality distortion field would make Steve Jobs envious.

So in summary, if you want to start including more of VS’s disingenuous denials in the article, I might be OK with that as long as we also include all the relevant press sources that indicated that his denials were hollow lip service and indefensible.

Here is an excerpt from one of VS's screeds against Zuckerman. It leaves little room for doubt as to where he stood on the Zuckerman issue or that he brought in the issue of the author's orientation as a basis for attacking his journalistic integrity.

Biased Reporter

"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."

This blatantly offensive attack stands in stark contrast with his disingenuous denial:

"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."

Unfair, absolutely. But it's exactly what VS did. This is a perfect example of attack, deny, play the victim. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No matter what your opinion of VanderSloot's actions, we still can't misquote him. The current article is not representing both sides of the issue and including his full quote will help provide balance. Whether you “see a pattern” in VanderSloot’s actions or not, let’s just add information to this article that comes directly from sources and leave it at that. Wikipedia is not a battleground for personal politics. WP:Battleground HtownCat (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with personal politics or personal opinion. It's a candid summary of the details presented by various WP:RS on the subject. I'm not saying that the full quote can't be included; just pointing out that the context and chronology needs to be accurate and that the commentary from sources who pointed out the contradictions between VS's comments needs to be included. Simple enough. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Remember that this isn't an article about the controversy, it's an article about VanderSloot. It's important to capture him accurately and avoid editorializing or trying to advocate a specific point of view. Andrewman327 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Once again, I am proposing to add the complete quote to the fourth paragraph in the LGBT section so that it reads like this: 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.[8][71][76][78] One of the advertisements stated that "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 [the reporter] [sic] 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 [the reporter's] motives." Then I would cite the ad that ran in the Post Register, which we already use in this article: http://media.salon.com/media/pdf/2005_0605_ResponsibleJournalism.pdf.

Including the full quote still supports the sentence stating that VS took out ads and "devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Zuckerman was gay." Shortening the quote skews the meaning. I was reverted last time I added the quote so I'd like to check for consensus before posting again. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that there isn't consensus for an edit along those lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

FDA letter . . .

Hello, all: The large amount of space given to one FDA letter during VanderSloot's rather long life seems to be a good instance of contradicting WP:Undue. Therefore, I am making a subhead for that phase of the article and marking it for attention. I really don't think it should be used at all: It is equivalent to reporting on a speeding ticket that one of his truckdrivers might have received back in 1997. Please comment on whether this section should or should not be deleted.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it is unduly weighted. It has been mentioned by secondary sources and is described succinctly in the article and only in as much detail as is necessary to convey the gist. Suggesting that FDA warnings are analogous to a speeding ticket is nothing more than a personal opinion (c.f. WP:OR) and it demonstrates a lack of understating of their significance. It's especially relevant given that VS had a serious run-in with the FDA for similar issues while running Oil of Melaleuca. If anything, you have given it even more weight by offsetting it into a separate section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Remove the entire item. (1) Please read the original posting at the top of this section. (2) The reason the item now has a subheader is so that a tag could be placed on just one particular section. The tag reads: "An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (Emphasis supplied.) (3) There is only one Source given for this item, in a trade website. (The other Source is the letter itself, which is not good enough in Wikipedia's eyes to use as a Source alone.) This factoid about Melaleuca was never the object of scrutiny in any other Reliable Source, nor reported on elsewhere. It is therefore de minimis. It is, given the thousands of products made by Melaleuca, just not worth trifling about. Nor, given the fact that this article is about a Living Person and not a company, does it warrant even a mention in the biography of this man. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

FDA's involvement with Oil of Melaleuca is a big deal. The 1997 letter is a different matter. The letter itself states that it is not a reflection of Melaleuca in general, which is how it is being used in this article. To put it in the proper context, the warning letter would require either a very long explanation or original research, neither of which is appropriate. The FDA also did not say that the claims were necessarily untrue, since that's beyond its statutory purview. Andrewman327 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't require a long explanation at all. It has a short explanation now and it serves the purpose fine. All the key details are there, the primary and secondary source are linked, and no additional context is necessary. FDA warnings are pretty straightforward and unambiguous. They don't deal with whether or not claims are true; simply whether or not they are legal, and in this case the claims were not legal. DSHEA provides blanket rules specifying what sellers of dietary supplements can and cannot say about their products; when companies break the rules, they get a warning and then fines/sanctioned if they refuse to comply with the order. The FDA warning is relevant and noteworthy enough on its own, but even more so given that VS's previous company had an identical run in with the FDA and received the same type of warning. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia to assert what you seem to wish us to assert. All supplement companies get FDA letters. A "warning" is of de minimis importance in a BLP. If you found a fine being paid, that would warrant some WEIGHT, the warning, by itself, is heavily overweighted at this point. Collect (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

FDA has a 21 page manual explaining what warning letters are and I stand by what I said about it being too wonky to be able to describe without either making it sound worse than it was or giving the section undue weight. As far as I can tell, FDA has never taken an administrative action against the company. Even the letter they sent 15 years ago did not apply to the company writ large. Andrewman327 (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It was stated above that the letter "has been mentioned by secondary sources." I think just one secondary source. Is there a consensus to remove the section, or should we seek more input? GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it should be removed. Andrewman327 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement as well. The letter is just talking about wording on a product label. Doesn't seem notable.HtownCat (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am removing that section according to what seems like consensus. If there are other editors who want to keep it, then I hope they will weigh in here for a possible new consensus. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't buy any consensus based on a voting block exclusively from WP Project Conservatism, and especially not a consensus based on simple "me too" comments and WP:OR. This is a chronic problem that needs to be addressed with the admins if it continues. FDA warning letters are indeed significant and highly notable. Your assertion to the contrary is WP:OR. The warning letter IS an administrative action. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the POV issue, I suggest that we take disputes to DR in the future. It's important that we get impartial input from a variety of editors on content discussions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You are quite alone - see WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Frank_L._VanderSloot_discussion. This is the first step in the WP:Dispute resolution process. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph has been removed in accordance with the resolution made at the above Notice Board. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The section that replaced the FDA letter section needs attention. Two of the provided sources quote other cited sources without adding any new information and should be removed. It appears that back in the nineties some of the company's distributors oversold the program. Other than that, the only specific information I found is the FDA letter, which has been talked to death already with the consensus that it is not notable. Does anyone know of anything specific that has happened in this decade or the past decade? If nothing else, this section should be more focused on specific things that meet BLP standards and do not require Synthesis. Andrewman327 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Section was replaced by a single paragraph, which I tried to remove as contrary to a consensus to leave it out, but that removal was itself Reverted. And then a freeze was put on any editing for a week. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=519505504. The new paragraph should really be simply removed once the freeze has thawed. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Bodnar pages . . .

With a great deal of trouble, I have succeeded in restoring the proper links to the newspaper article written by Marisa Bodnar after it was reverted twice by the same editor. The article, which includes a lengthy statement by Frank Vandersloot, is on two screens, and if you only link to the first one, you don't get the citation that should lead to the second one. If I am wrong about all this, just comment here. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Must have taken a whole minute. I've never seen a precedent for using two links to the same article in this way. I always felt that the "next page" button was pretty much self-explanatory. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I assure you that it took a great deal of time to go back to the way I had it originally, what with all the changes that were made on the page, finding the links, checking to see if the links were actually properly applied (one of them wasn't the first time I edited it). Not only did I have to go through all this fooferaw the original time, but thanks to the revert, I had to spend almost as much time again. Very annoying. It takes much longer to undo damage than simply to press an "Undo" button. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I heard you the first time you explained about how long it took you to paste the 2 links, but that's not an editorial issue. As I said, why in this case are you assuming that people are incapable of hitting the "next page" button on the article. Two separate links aren't needed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hunting for two very similar links in a morass of Wiki code in a Version that was Reverted quite some time ago was, I assure you, a difficult chore for a Bear of Very Little Brain, like me. Also, a Bear of Very Little Brain, like me, yes, was indeed incapable of figuring out that he (the Bear) would have to click to go to the next page to find the quotation cited, when he (the Bear) had been led to a particular page by a faulty footnote. Regrettable, but true. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable contributions - I think Obama is a Democrat?

On a national basis - Evan Bayh and Barack Obama each have received contributions from vanderSloot per Newsmeat. Individual Idahao records are not searchable online by contributor, but I think Bayh and Obama are, indeed, Democrats. YMMV. Collect (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The funding databases show that VS's contributions have in fact been overwhelmingly in support of Republican candidates; of that there is no question, and VS has been characterized as a major donor to Republicans by many numerous secondary sources. Attempting to skew the article to obscure this fact through the use of primary sources and WP:SYNTH is clearly inappropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It is imptoper to make a blatantly unsupported and unsupportable claim. Cheers. Collect (talk)

Edit summaries

Just a note to remind everybody that Edit Summaries should be used to, well, summarize the edits and not to engage in back-and-forth chit-chat, nor weird sniping. We reserve all that for these oh-so-polite Talk Pages.

Edit summary dos and don'ts

[4]

Remember you can't go back and change them!

Do

• Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess it quickly
• Use neutral language
• Be calm

Don't

• Make snide comments
• Make personal remarks about editors
• Be aggressive

GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheese factory

This article should present all aspects of the subject, the good as well as the bad. Therefore, I added some information about his purchase of the cheese factory — why he did it, the results thereof, how much it cost him, the details of his transaction, one quotation which told why he eventually sold it, etc., all as delineated in a Reliable Source. These additions were reverted by User:Rhode Island Red with the Edit Summary "rv -- a partisan puff piece published 6 yeas after the fact quoting 1 farmer on insider business details is insufficient; none of the other business news sources mention these details - just stick to basic facts " Click here for the diff. The source, here, is a reputable agricultural website, and the story included information about one of the controversies in which VanderSloot had been engaged. Despite what Rhode Island Red noted, it also included a direct quote from VS. I am adding an "Undue Weight" tag to that section and am inviting comment here as to which version should be used. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the current version is very conservative and mainstream in what it describes about the factory and VandeSloots involvement; therefore, it's inappropriate to present this as an issue of undue weight, and the tag was unnecessary. The details you wanted to add, which are fluff essentially, are pulled from an interview with a lone farmer (clearly not a reliable or compelling source for insider financial transaction details) and presented in a politically-charged puff-piece from a trade rag written 6 years after Vandersloot sold his interest in the company. It's not confirmed by any other sources and it seems like a vanity piece whose sole purpose was to negate VandeSloot's anti-gay reputation and whitewash his political campaign donations -- so much so that I would have thought it was an ad paid for by VanderSloot himself. You initially included this in the philanthropy section of the article, and it seems that you are still intent on spinning it this way. It's a business transaction, so stick to the basic non-contentious facts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The following is the version I posted 00:12, 6 October 2012 in full conformance with Wikipedia:IMPROVE#Adding information to Wikipedia:

In 1994, VanderSloot was approached by Firth, Idaho, dairy farmer Gaylen Clayson with a plea to invest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho, after Kraft Foods had announced a decision to close it. In response, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the plant, which closed anyway within six months, after an investment company assumed control. Dairymen crowded into a local meeting hall afterward to make another plea to VanderSloot, who thereupon paid off a $2 million debt owed to the dairymen, staffed the plant with his own personnel and supplemented the milking herd with two thousand head of cows. He later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties. "My business is Melaleuca and that's what I need to pay attention to," he said. In 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods.

The following was the reversion that Rhode Island Red made 15:35, 6 October 2012 in violation of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary:

In 1994, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho after Kraft Foods shuttered the factory. Vandersloot paid off a $2 million debt owed to the area's dairymen, and later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million dollars in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties, and in 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods.

Therefore, I am again adding the new and improved information. The shorter version is not complete and does not give the full story as reported in the Source. See the very first paragraph above for more. Please comment below as to which version should be included in Wikipedia, or whatever else you have to say about improvements to this section. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The issues with this change still stand. The meat of the issue is that the revised version makes a very bold claim (about VanderSloot paying $2 million to some farmers) that's attributed in the original source to some farmer of no apparent repute, and the detail is not backed up by any of the other sources that mentioned VanderSloot in connection with the cheese factory. Seems contentious, not to mention the issues with the source (an oddly political puff piece published this year, during campaign season, 6 years after VanderSloot sold the company). Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP is absolute policy

Listing of perps and victims not directly relevant to a BLP is a WP:BLP violation. See the WP:BLP/N discussions thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've already replied on BLPN explaining why your charge is without merit.[5][6] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Collect; so long as a person or entity has not been established as notable, a persistence in reinserting their names into Wikipedia articles raises questions about neutrality and motive. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What it is is an editorial dispute. Questioning motives is unwarranted -- WP:AGF. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd never looked at this until today, and am impressed by the sheer length of the above discussions. WP:AGF is a wonderful precept. Repeated restoration of controversial content without consensus is an unusual path for resolving editorial disputes. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Currently, the article states:

In 2006, VanderSloot issued critical statements[75][76] regarding an award-winning series of investigative articles[77][78] in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council. Reporter Peter Zuckerman wrote that the Mormon Church and Idaho Boy Scout officials had received prior reports of some of the incidents at the Council's Camp Little Lemhi and that the director was a pedophile, but had failed to take appropriate action. Zuckerman also reported on the 1983 rape of a junior counselor by an Idaho Scout camp swimming instructor, and the case of a Scoutmaster counselor at Camp Little Lemhi who was convicted of lewd conduct for molesting a Scout.[79]

I propose we eliminate everything but the first sentence so it would read:

In 2006, VanderSloot issued critical statements[75][76] regarding an award-winning series of investigative articles[77][78] in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council.

That's all that's necessary for the VanderSloot article. The rest of it is undue with only marginal relevance, if any, to this article. And that, to me, is the easy part. The rest of the section is way too much, with the back-and-forth between VanderSloot and Zuckerman, not to mention the Post Register itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on general principle. Most of the time when 'controversy' sections expand to include an abundance of detail it's unwarranted, in that the content is less about encyclopedic value than a sort of news/tabloid fascination, a bit prurient at that. The tendency to include play-by-play legal proceedings, even when sourced, is not the encyclopedia's proudest tendency. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes - and similar contraction of the extensive BLP problem involved in listing a long roster of people who got contributions from vdS etc. as well. In fact - pruning the article to simple salient facts and not an extensive campaign article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I can live with Bbb23's proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort but the proposed text is off the mark in several respects. The series wasn't just about one incident involving the director. There were 4 individuals named. Secondly, I see no reason to remove the name of the camp (camp LittleLemhi) where the incidents took place. Lastly, the detail about the Scouts and the church not taking appropriate action was a central theme of Zuckerman's reporting and it was one of the themes that VanderSloot focused on when he issued his attack on Zuckerman. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

But the section is about VS's public actions re LGBT -- and I think we don't really need a great deal of detail to set up what VS did in relation to Zuckerman. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree in principle with the general idea about brevity of the setup, and I do appreciate where Bbb was going with his proposed edit; it seemed pretty reasonable and not too far off the mark. But an important part of the setup is the fact that the series focused not only on the acts of molestation themselves but were also critical of the church and the Scouts for failing to take appropriate action. It's an important detail because it was the very basis of VSs attack ads (which argued strenuously that Zuckerman's statements about the church/Scouts were unwarranted) and a central feature discussed in many of the counter-replies cited in the article.

So far, the section only devotes 2 lines/sentences to the setup of what Zuckerman's articles were about. We could perhaps whittle that down a little, but I'm not sure there's a pressing need to do so. If the information is relevant, informative, and properly-weighted and it doesn't overtly pad the article, what's the impetus for chipping off a few words, especially when they omit/alter key details? I suppose we could move and re-contextualize the detail about the church/Scouts role by describing that it was one of VanderSloot's points of criticism, rather than describing it in the setup about Zuckerman's articles, but again, would that solve a problem or make the article better? That's not a rhetorical question BTW. Maybe it would, maybe not.

Regarding the number of incidents of molestation, it's important to indicate that it was 4 incidents not 1, and we could probably come up with a shortened version of that particular text that would still accurately refer to the 4 incidents, but again, I'm left wondering what the compelling reason is for doing so and would that really make it a better article? I respect your opinion, so let's keep up this nice civil scholarly discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I was hoping to address just the narrow issue of that one paragraph first without getting into the broader issue of the entire section, but that may not be possible, although I think we have a consensus for my proposal as it stands. As I understand our article (without reading the sources), Zuckerman reported on multiple incidents in a series of articles, and VanderSloot criticized the articles. The fact that there was one incident reported on by Zuckerman or four incidents is relatively unimportant to VanderSloot's involvement. The idea is that VanderSloot criticized articles related to sexual incidents at the Boy Scouts. So, I now have a broader proposal. The paragraph starting with "In 2006" would be:

In 2006, VanderSloot issued critical statements[75][76] regarding a series of investigative articles[77][78] in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation at Boy Scout camps.

(I intentionally removed "award-winning" as non-neutral. We do too much to aggrandize Zuckerman in this section.) The rest of that paragraph would be eliminated (as in my earlier proposal).

The rest of the section would continue as is through the paragraph that ends with "close friends and colleagues". The rest of the section after that would be completely eliminated.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks okay to me -- except that I think we need some reference (added to your blockquote proposal immediately above) to the Grand Teton Council (this would help the reader understand why VS was exercised by Zuckerman's articles). I do agree that some of the later paragraphs here are unnecessarily detailed; sometimes less is more, thinking of the take-away message in this section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I also like Bbb23's proposal and am glad to see editors working together to improve the neutrality and focus of this section of the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Good proposal. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree as well, though I suggest the text of any ads should be reduced to a bare minimum, perhaps down to:

VanderSloot placed ads in the Post Register challenging the articles, and indicating the sexual oritentation of their author could have affected the articles.[8][63][68][70]

VanderSloot was accused of outing the author.[11][63][12][68][42][81][72][82] In 2012, VanderSloot denied the charge, saying the author's sexual orientation was previously posted on a public website. Post Register editor Dean Miller wrote later that the sexual orientation had been known only by a few of the author's close friends and colleagues.

Leaving only VanderSloot's name here, and not contributing to "outing" anyone at all. Collect (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to removing "award winning" from the intro line, since the awards are mentioned further on in the paragraph (which is a critical point, since VS argued that the reports were shoddy biased journalism and factually inaccurate). And I agree with Nomo that the Teton Council should be mentioned; I'd argue the same for the name of the camp too; in general the proposed text seems a bit too vague and generalized -- i.e. it wasn't just "boy scout camps", it was a specific set of camps in Idaho affiliated with the Grand Teton Council/LDS church.

Two further points -- (1) I still haven't seen anyone make a compelling case as to why Stowell's name should be deleted; that was the crux of what we were debating and no one presented a valid policy argument for removing it. (2) I do not agree with removal of the text after the sentence that ends with "friends and colleagues". That text hasn't even been discussed yet. It makes no sense to me to eliminate the points of contention that VanderSloot raised about the articles, or the counter-replies that his criticism generated. That seems to be a central part of the story. It wasn't just that VanderSloot outed the reporter; he argued strenuously that the articles were biased and innacurate, but his charge was pretty much universally denounced. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

But the section isn't about criticisms, replies, and counter-replies -- the section is about VS's public actions/statements regarding LGBT. The details about replies and counter-replies aren't necessary for conveying what is important about his public actions/statements regarding LGBT; in fact, I think the details are getting in the way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

OK I'm listening. I didn't mean criticism per se. My view of this part of the article is that it should provide an overview and a few key details about the articles that Vandersloot was attacking; what Vandersloot's stance was (i.e., that the article was inaccurate and biased, and that the reporter's orientation led him to be biased) and what the outside views/consequences were (i.e., regarding the outing and that Vandersloot's charges of bias and inaccuracy were essentially baseless). I also think it's important to include that Zuckerman's investigative reports earned 3 significant awards for journalistic excellence. I think we would be doing the article justice as long as those key details are addressed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Marriages

Can somebody explain or rewrite this. I removed the part about Vivian being his 3rd wife since the citations didn't really directly support that. One cite was from a sons obituary and the other one I didn't see that mentioned either. How many wives has this guy had? What are their names and do we have reliable sources for that? Could that info please be added here first> Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The details were in the 2 references you deleted. The first source[7] indicates that Frank and Kathleen Zundel had a son (Brian) together; the second source[8] says that Brian was the 3rd child from VanderSloot's first marriage (ergo Kathleen Zundel was his first wife) and that Vivian was his third wife. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi RIR. The 2nd citation, I can't seem to get the article to scroll down?? Is anybody else having a problem with it? I am not seeing where it says in it that Vivian is his 3rd wife? Does that mean that his current wife is his 4th wife?? What do others think about this?--Malerooster (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's coming up fine for me. It's displaying as 2 columns and in the second column 6th paragraph it says: "Cassie is the youngest child of Frank's third wife, Vivian VanderSloot." I guess that means current wife has to be at least #4. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I still can't get the page to display correctly. If it actually says that, then I guess thats ok. Again, does anybody else have an opinion. This really isn't that big a deal, imho, it just seemed like OR and was really confusing, imho. Who was his 2nd wife? Also, in your revert, you included VanderS;loot's first name which doesn't seem necessary. --Malerooster (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

MaleRooster, the layout of that page is indeed goofy. On my screen the picture lies over the second column, obscuring it. I was able to read the text by going into Source Mode and reading the raw copy. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, finally got it to load so I could read it. I tweeked it slightly. Still wondering about wife #2 :) --Malerooster (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great, I was just about to paste a Google cache link for you. Tweak looks good. Thanks for the catch. Yes, mystery wife #2 -- maybe someone here knows of a source. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I am reverting back to an earlier, simpler paragraph that does not contravene Wikipedia:SYNTH#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. If anybody finds a source that EXPLICTLY states the number of his marriages, and to whom, then we must omit all this speculation, even though some of it is very clever. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. The article isn't speculating about the number of marriages but simply directly quoting the source that said his third wife was Vivian. You are deleting text based on a direct quote. That's WP:DE/WP:TE so please stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How about an edit along the lines of "VanderSloot was previously married to Katherine VanderSloot and Vivian Vandersloot"? That would make the paragraph a little less confusing until we find a source mentioning another wife. HtownCat (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources specifically state that Kathleen was wife #1 and that Vivian was wife #3. There's no confusion. You may never find any other public sources with more info, but if you find any, please let us know. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

For the time being, I can see nothing wrong with HtownCat's proposed change. It is truthful. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's no more truthful than the original version. Both of you have failed to provide any reason why the existing text should be changed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess it is just a matter of acceding to the desire of another editor as long as it does not harm the article. I support the proposed change. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not my desire, and there's no reason to alter it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis and sources

Discussion

I've updated the GLBT Section in two ways:

A. As the article has been built up over the months, it has developed into a good example of WP:Synthesis#Synthesis of published material that advances a position, which states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (Emphasis supplied.) I've removed such syntheses.

• "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."
• "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."

None of the sources cited in the Section explicitly states that "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates," as the article has put it up to now.

B. Some of the sources cited are not Reliable.

Of the sources cited, only four are Reliable:

1. The LGBT Weekly story is an example of good journalism.
2. George Prentice is a journalist.
3. Stephanie Mencimer is a journalist. She did say that "VanderSloot has long been a controversial figure in Idaho politics, particularly when it comes to issues involving gays and lesbians," but she did not explictly state that "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates."
4. Trudy Ring is a journalist. But in this particular article, she wrote only that "Greenwald also reported that VanderSloot has often threatened journalists who write about him and outed a gay one," citing an opinion piece by Greenwald and doing no independent reporting of her own.

None of these four sources state explicitly that VanderSloot's "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates."

The following sources are not Reliable, except in a very limited sense:

1. The Glenn Greenwald article is not a WP:Reliable source because Greenwald is a "political commentator," as Salon stated on his page, and in this particular article is not writing as a journalist (pretty well nailed by Greenwald's non-journalist assertion that VS "has a history of virulent' 'anti-gay activism, including the spearheading of a despicable billboard campaign)."
2. Jodi-May Chang may be "an independent journalist who lives in Boise," as she puts it, but in this particular article she is giving her opinion "As one of those very Idahoans active on LGBT issues," not simply reporting the facts as a journalist would. Also, nowhere in his article does she state that VS's "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates."
3. Rachel Maddow is described in her WP article as an "American television host, political commentator, and author," not as a journalist.
4. Dean Miller is certainly a journalist. But this particular citation is to an opinion column, written in the first person, not to a news story that can be used as a Reliable Source.

And even Greenwald, Chang, Maddow and Miller do not explicitly state that VanderSloot's "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates."

Of course sources like the four just above can be used as WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, but not if they involve "claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)."

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to revert everything you've done today as ridiculously tendentious and downright silly. First, you remove the sources that amount to journalists and gay rights advocates criticising VanderSloot's views/actions re gay rights. Then, you remove the statement about "criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates" because you don't perceive that that statement has any support in sources. There is nothing at all in RS saying that opinion pieces cannot be used to support statements about the opinions of the commentators -- in fact, RS says precisely the opposite. The point about self-published sources is entirely irrelevant given that these are not self-published sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

One may not agree with the reasoning, but it is hard to argue against the fact that the new version says what the Sources say and says it accurately, without editorializing and without violating WP:BLP. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As per Nomo's comment, there was no justifiable reason for deleting the sources or the text. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The reasons are: Pure synthesis and faulty sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Except there is no synthesis and the sources are clearly WP:RS. Several sources have referred to VS as virulently anti-gay, so it would not be out of line if the article mentioned that. However, the current version of the BLP takes a much more conservative approach and merely says that his stances on gay issues have generated controversy -- perfectly reasonable. The repeated attempts at whitewashing are tendentious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A discussion on this topic has been opened at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Frank L. VanderSloot. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

The questions are:

1. Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
2. Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
3. Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?

The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Frank L. VanderSloot.
GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Notices have been sent to all editors who have posted at Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot, except for User:Chum and change, who could not be located. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Some experienced editors are completely ignoring WP:3RR on this article. Rather than embarrass you with notices on your usertalk pages, I hope a reminder here will suffice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've fully-protected the page for a week because of the edit warring. From my quick scan it didn't look like the participants were very close to finding a consensus version in the WP:ORN discussion - how about opening an RfC instead? If you think an RfC would be a good idea, it would probably be worth discussing its format here for a couple of days so that when the discussion proper opens it has a good chance of finding a consensus outcome. If you need any help with that, just give me a shout. I'll be watching the page for edit requests too, in case anyone has a request that isn't related to the dispute. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a Good Idea. See WP:Request for comment: "When starting an RfC, you must first decide if the primary issue is a user's conduct, in which case you use the Request for comment on user process; otherwise, use the process described below in the Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues section." GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we would do best to treat this as a content dispute. Most often, when the content issues are sorted out the conduct issues tend to disappear. Do you have any suggestions for a question to ask in a potential RfC? I generally find that it is best to keep the question itself neutral and then put any evidence/arguments in the RfC body, although other structures can work as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

---

No, I hate to say it, but it is a user's conduct which is at issue. The content has been talked to death here. As for the questions, they can be found at Wikipedia:ORN#Frank_L._VanderSloot, but nobody has chimed in to answer them yet.

The questions are:

1. Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the [LGBT] Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
2. Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
3. Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?

Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

---

There is also a question asked at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Very_many_bad_sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Improving GLBT section

I am proposing that, instead of making a blanket statement that VanderSloot has been accused by "journalists and gay-rights advocates" (which begs the question as to their numbers or their importance) that we instead specifically state who these accusers are, with citations to their criticisms.

Proposed version

Some have accused VanderSloot of outing Zuckerman, including journalist Jody Mae Chang (in an opinion column), Mother Jones magazine, television host and political commentator Rachel Maddow,[84][85] Salon magazine,[citation needed] the editors of the Boise Weekly,[86] and Zuckerman himself.[87] In 2012, VanderSloot denied the charge, saying that Zuckerman had already posted his sexual orientation on a public website, that a local radio show and the community had been discussing the fact and that he, VanderSloot, had attempted to defend Zuckerman's motives;[88] Post Register editor Dean Miller, however, wrote later that Zuckerman's sexual orientation had been known only by Zuckerman's family and a few of his close friends and colleagues.[83]

Version as it exists now

VanderSloot was accused of outing Zuckerman.[11][72][12][77][51][90][81][91] In 2012, VanderSloot denied the charge, saying that Zuckerman had already posted his sexual orientation on a public website, that a local radio show and the community had been discussing the fact and that he, VanderSloot, had attempted to defend Zuckerman's motives;[92] Post Register editor Dean Miller, however, wrote later that Zuckerman's sexual orientation had been known only by Zuckerman's family and a few of his close friends and colleagues.[51][77][79]

Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that that's an improvement. It's more verbose, for one thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was invited to comment on this article. My initial reaction is that the Zuckerman stuff seems to be worth including, but if you're going to include it, you should explain who 'Zuckerman' is and give his first name! Reading the article as it is now, I came across the references to 'Zuckerman' and thought 'who the hell is this guy?'. How about 'VanderSloot issued critical statements[84][85] regarding a series of investigative articles[86][87] by Peter Zuckerman in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council.[88]...' (italics added) Robofish (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly a good point. Some people have been doing some deletions but not considering the consequences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is longer, but it is also more accurate. (1) Instead of using the passive voice (which hides information), the revised version uses an active voice to tell who did the accusing. (2) It cites the person or the agency doing the accusing to the place where the accusing is done (the actual words of the accusation, in other words). GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the proposed version looks good. It's longer, but also much more specific. I also agree with Robofish and suggest adding Zuckerman's name to this sentence (edits shown in caps): "In 2006, VanderSloot issued critical statements[84][85] regarding a series of investigative articles BY JOURNALIST PETER ZUCKERMAN[86][87] in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council.[88]"HtownCat (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I restored that paragraph, but we still need a source for the Salon magazine claim. I have also explained who Zuckerman was, or is. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• RIR, did you mean to delete Zuckerman's name/affiliation? It's hard to imagine why. Please fix it, and be more careful with that sort of thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No Nomo, I totally missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. I made a correction.[9] Does that look OK? Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

edit request

The "FDA letter" paragraph was discussed at several noticeboards, and by consensus was found not to be properly in this BLP. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_51#Frank_L._VanderSloot

The case has gone on for ten days and should be closed by now, as partially resolved. There is a rough consensus not to include the paragraph on the 1997 warning letter, which was the original issue that was brought to DRN. The Rolling Stone and Slate articles don't explicitly mention the 1997 letter, but do refer to the controversy over Melaleuca's supplements. Inclusion of a more general statement describing the controversy will have to be discussed on the article's talk page, as DRN is not a substitute for talk page discussion.SGCM (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What I was getting at is the common situation where there is a clear consensus against an editor's preferred version and a long history of him inserting it and being reverted (but not in the last 24 hours -- see WP:3RR). sometimes in such cases the editor with the minority opinion keeps trying to get it into the article again and again, each time arguing -- again -- for inclusion on the talk page and seeing -- again -- everyone else disagreeing. That's the sort of situation where WP:BRD isn't much help. WP:STICK may be of help, though... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thus the paragraph:

Melaleuca has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations including "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[39][40][41][30][42][43]

Should have the FDA charge removed, as well as the "false and misleading claims" quote removed, and the remaining sentence is simply SYNTH in the first place as no source catenates the claims. What should remain is that Melaleuca has been accused of making excessive claims about supplements. and delete the FDA letter primary source (from fda.gov per DRN consensus) Collect (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but the sentence "Melaleuca has been accused of making excessive claims about supplements" is not needed as an introduction to whatever will follow. It might be better to write: "On Jan. 3, 2011, agency XXXX accused Melaleuca of making YYYY statement about Melaleuca, to which the company responded ZZZZ and the result was QQQQ." In other words, details instead of a generality. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The aim is not perfection, but undoing what was described as edit war insertion of the section by one editor. As there was a "broad consensus" that the material was UNDUE, it seems proper to ask that such insertion be undone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph should be eliminated. Completely. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no basis for your objections. The sources cited are reliable and the text in question is an accurate summary of what the sources said. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

DRN was pretty clear consensus, RIR -- time to drop the stick. Collect (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

DRN was about a different portion of text, sources, and context. It's blatantly misleading to claim that a consensus was established in relation to the current text and sources. Use of the template in this case was inappropriate because the requested edit is controversial and had not been through prior discussion. Again, the current text is an accurate summary and it's properly sourced. Time to stop the POV pushing, railroading, and whitewashing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

But, Red, I checked one of the sources (Greenwald), and it said nothing about making excessive claims about supplements. I really didn't want to waste my time checking the others for a subject that most everybody has agreed to drop, or at least consented to dropping. That's what consensus means. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please spare me your "buts". Your edit request was not only inappropriate given the lack of prior discussion or any consensus supporting it, but it's completely without merit. Your comment about the Greenwald article (In Salon magazine) was just plain wrong -- the article did in fact refer to the FDA's involvement over deceptive supplement claims.[10] Just so that you don't waste any more time with this red herring of a request, here is the text in the article, as it stands now, as well as the relevant excerpts from the sources that support it:

Current text:

• "Melaleuca has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations including "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[30][39][40][41][42][43]

Supporting Excerpts:

• In 1991, Melaleuca entered into a voluntary compliance assurance with the Idaho attorney general's office, which found that "certain independent marketing executives of Melaleuca" had violated Idaho law…The company was ordered to pay the state $1,000 for the cost of the investigation…In 1992, the Michigan attorney general's office investigated Melaleuca's business practices…Melaleuca…signed an agreement with the state assuring that it would "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid," and that it would enforce its own policies to prevent distributors from referring to the FDA, FTC, or attorney general in its marketing materials…The Food and Drug Administration also has accused Melaleuca of deceiving consumers about some of its supplements—which the company claimed could treat clogged arteries or cure arthritis." [11] (NB: The MJ article also links directly to the FDA warning letter, which is cited in the BLP)

• Melaleuca’s get-rich pitches have in the past caused Michigan regulators to take action, resulting in the company’s entering into a voluntary agreement to “not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid”‘; it entered into a separate voluntary agreement with the Idaho attorney general’s office, which found that “certain independent marketing executives of Melaleuca” had violated Idaho law; and the Food and Drug Administration previously accused Melaleuca of deceiving consumers about some of its supplements.[12]

• "Not everyone has been so admiring of Melaleuca's business practices: The "wellness company" has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations."[13]

• The FDA has rebuked Melaleuca for making "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid."[14]

• The FDA has rebuked Melaleuca for making ‘false and misleading’ claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to ‘not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.’[15]

Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I misread the article. Sorry, Red. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a chronic "misreading" problem that arises, curiously, whenever you try to POV push. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility, Rhode Island Red; Assume Good Faith. And I suggest you stop edit warring, the article has already been put on SYSOP lock. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The drive-by comment (a banal civility/AGF/3RR lecture) isn't constructive Jeremy, and stalking me here, after having a previous disagreement on an unrelated page (Protandim) shows poor judgement. Appropriate steps were already taken to resolve the dispute, so you're a day late and a pound short, so to speak. FYI, it was I who just requested SYSOP lock. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And the person warned by Admins to stop edit warring beforehand. Now stop being uncivil. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, as you appear to suddenly have forgotten, I was editing this page before I found your shoddy work on the Protandim page. Be civil and assume good faith. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Your claim is false Jeremy. You first edited Protandim on Sept 13/12, at which time I left you a warning for disruptive editing.[16] Your first contribution on Vandersloots BLP was on Sept 18.[17] The transition from your confronting me on Protandim to attacking me on Vandersloot is chronicled clearly on my Talk page[18], and it culminated in my Sept 18 report of your second round of edit warring and stalking to WP admin.[19] So, suffice it to say, your excuse is dead wrong and my charge of stalking stands. My assumption of good faith is to not to call you a liar. BTW calling my work shoddy while admonishing me to be civil strikes me as more than a tad hypocritical. This entire issue is a distraction, so just recuse yourself. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Abusive behavior is frowned upon with Wikipedia. You leave out that I've left several warnings on your talk page. Are you really this resistant to civil behaviour? I have no interest in your edits, only in the benefits of this page. My first correction was to correct your grammar (that gets tiresome, trust me), I then added a source that you had no problem with, and it appears you only cared when I began trying to actually help the page in terms of content, when you began edit-warring. I don't know why you've decided you have any authority on Wikipedia, but your warning is bound to turn into a block considering the high level of edit warring you've immediately resumed. If it's a distraction stop writing as if you think it's a competition. I have no time for such childishness. If you have a charge, address the appropriate channels, I'll assume you're just blustering if you don't ;) Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat they key point one last time -- you stalked me here and you should recuse yourself. That aside, this thread is devolving, so keep it focused on content and take your petty vindictive bloviating elsewhere.

Getting back on track

When we start talking about the section that replaced the FDA letter, we can't seem to stay focused. Moving past the talking points, let’s look at what the company actually did wrong using the cited sources.

• The Rolling Stone piece doesn't have much information.
• The billmoyers.com piece only quotes the RollingStone piece and does not provide any new information. It should be removed.
• DailyFinance contains mostly references to other articles.
• The FDA letter was already taken to DRN and it was decided that it was not worth including.

The Salon piece actually cites a few interesting sources:

• The link that accompanies the content about the promise “not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid” was improperly added, which is frustrating.
• Likewise, this link appears dead
• An article in the Orlando Sentinel from 1992 finally provides some detail: "During the past year, Melaleuca has signed agreements with Idaho and Michigan in which it agreed to stop its distributors from promising prospective salespeople that they could make thousands of dollars a month selling the products. Officials in both states cleared the company's marketing plan and blamed renegade distributors for any problems." http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-09-04/business/9209040518_1_melaleuca-distributors-network-marketing
• There is also a link to a 1991 primary source from the Idaho state government that says that "certain independent marketing executives of Melaleuca have failed to comply with certain policies of Melaleuca, and that the actions of these independent marketing executives are in violation of Idaho law." There was no admission of guilt.

All in all, it seems that we can verifiably say that the company had problems with some of its sales force making outlandish claims in the early 1990s. The current section of the article does not give the reader the correct impression.

VanderSloot's website has a response to this issue, including a letter from the Idaho government. Andrewman327 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems that you're saying that the sources cited are not reliable or do not support the text that's currently in the article -- neither of which is true. You say that the the Rolling Stone article "doesn't have much information". I'm not sure what this nebulous observation is supposed to mean, but in fact the Rolling Stone article contains enough information to back up the text in the BLP. The Bill Moyers article quotes the Rolling Stone article, which makes it a tertiary source -- highly desirable. Similarly, the Daily Finance article contains all the information necessary to support the text in the BLP. It's deceptive to say that it was previously decided that "the FDA letter was not worth including". The FDA letter was discussed in an entirely different context; however, it fits perfectly with the the revised text and several editors have already commented to that effect. The FDA letter was also referred to directly by two secondary sources cited in the BLP, so clearly it is appropriate to cite it.

All in all, what "we can verifiably say" is exactly what's currently in the article. I sincerely hope that hope you abandon this attempt to POV push and whitewash the article, as these pointless discussions are a waste of everyone's time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation overkill.

Just a note to recommend a fine essay at Wikipedia:Citation overkill, particularly the paragraph that states:

One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples such as "Garphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5] of ...". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up his point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for his edit.

Using just one or two good citations at good points in the VanderSloot article instead of a host of them would really improve the piece. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific than that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)