This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Business Unassessed 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: Idaho Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

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

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

I disagree that there is a need for "quantification" of the sort indicated. If it is possible to be precise, fine; if not, no big deal. The sort of language indicated in George's post above is pretty normal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This strikes me as disruptive tagging. If there is anything that truly needs to be counted, George could have simply counted it and added the number instead of tagging. However, most of the content specified does not need to be quantified at all, and demanding quantification seems rather pointless in most if not all of these instances. Furthermore, instead of putting the onus on other editors to address a problem that only you seem to see, propose a concrete solution George (i.e., make specific text proposals), or better yet, just fix it. Also, I don't see how this non-issue is serious enough to warrant you abrogating your pledge to abstain from editing for a month.[1] Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the question asked in the third point in GeorgeLouis' original list, I read the section about patents out loud to myself and found it clunky. I removed references to patents and made it flow better. (Moved to proper section of Talk page.) Andrew (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we can quantify a sentence, then surely we should. I'm especially in favor of adding years, and names of the politicians he endorsed provided those politicians would be considered notable people. This seems like useful information for readers. Also, "several" could mean two or twenty--there's a big difference so why not reword to avoid a vague term or quantify? HtownCat (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible substitutions

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

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

Or, for a more detailed version:

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

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

Neither. The statement that's in the article is accurate and well supported. A number of sources have clearly characterized VS as a conservative/Republican political financier, and his contribution history backs it up. The proposed edits seem intended to mislead. Aside from that, the issue has nothing to do with quantification, and the addition of the tags, as I stated before, seems unnecessary and tendentious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is in the lede should be supported in the body of the story. The sentence as it now stands is not supported by the sources. I would be open to simply deleting the sentence. The fact that he was a donor to the Romney campaign is well-sourced.GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of the more detailed version. Naming the specific candidates that VS favors seems pertinent. HtownCat (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to go along with the more detailed version. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

This has been taken care of through editing carried out by Andrewman327. Here's what he did: [2] GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

One possible solution would be this:

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

Part of the second advertisement said that:

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

I'm in favor of rewording to avoid the word "several" in this case. HtownCat (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I favor the suggested rewrite above. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I favor this solution, inasmuch as "various" means "different kinds." These are all basically the same kind of source, with the same political outlook. See http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=Define+various. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A comment on "#2": GeorgeLouis says above that there are "exactly two" incidents. But we then read that these two are (1) a billboard and (2) two advertisements. Well, that strikes me as 3, not 2. Now, we could argue about it -- but why? I repeat that I don't see a need for "quantification", and the possibility for disagreement on this issue shows why: it's trivial and pointless, not worth the effort given that there's nothing misleading about the current version. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The proposed text for #2 also removes "journalists" and leaves behind "commentators". That proposal strikes me as careless given that we've already discussed the fact that most of the sources cited are in fact journalists, not commentators. Seems like bending over backwards to undermine the credibility of the sources. My general objections to the other proposals still stand. We can continue to discuss it, but I don't find the proposed changes to be helpful, and I don't see any problems with the existing text or a justification for the addition of the "quantify" tags. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed text: "He sponsored outdoor-billboard and newspaper advertising that drew opposition from commentators and gay-rights groups," does not include either the numbers 2 nor 3, so I don't see how that's an issue. We could use "journalists, political commentators, and gay-rights groups." HtownCat (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True -- but right now there's a tag on the sentence requesting that we "quantify". If we don't have to discuss "quantifying", then the tag should be removed. As for the proposed text: why is it an improvement over the existing version? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existing version is now different than the one I commented on above, but I'd say that the proposed version is just more specific. It sums up the section below it. I did not add the quantify tag so you'll need to take ask GeorgeLouis about that one.HtownCat (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generalizations have been made from isolated events several times on this BLP. No one person's entirely at fault, but it's important to be precise when referring to a specific event or small number of events, especially when those events are not current. It's what I did to resolve issue #3 above. GeorgeLouis isn't saying his proposals must be used, but I see them as a good starting points. It doesn't make sense to give a range of dates and exact number for ranch awards, for example, but make sweeping generalizations about more serious topics. I like HTownCat's proposal for this specific question.Andrew (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I looked up WPs article on journalist and checked the backgrounds of the sources cited. Most of them do in fact clearly meet the definition of journalist. (Personal attack removed) Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have forgotten the fulsome discussions at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Synthesis_and_sources and at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_4#Four_citations_removed. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

No. 3. No longer a problem.

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

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

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

Made change in above text per RIR comment just below. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out the above count in favor of taking up the issues one at a time, as proposed below. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your tally is off George. I expressed my opposition to all of your proposed edits. You're correct that there is no groundswell of support for your proposals, but I fail to see how that sets us up for a looming edit war. Seems that you are saying that edit warring is a suitable response to not getting support for your proposals. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted RIR's negative votes in the sequence just above. If he or she will propose some wording that will result in a consensus, that would be just fine by me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I'll refer you to WP:POLL so that you will understand why a straw poll of the type you provided above isn't an effective means for reaching consensus or addressing editorial issues. Clearly, there is no consensus on any of the 7 issues. If you wish to discuss any of the points you raised further, I suggest that it would be better to tackle each point one at a time, rather than as batch, to simplify the process (i.e., start one new thread, summarize the proposals, and discussion can proceed towards a resolution before moving on to the next issue). Throwing 7 proposals at us all at the same time is overwhelming (and hasty straw polls seem like railroading); it's like spinning plates. We're not going anywhere, so let's be patient and get it right. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no problem in taking up the issues one at a time, so I am starting new discussion below. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major financial contributor

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

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

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

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

We have addressed this detail already prior to this thread. Multiple sources have identified and described VS as a major contributor to Republican campaigns -- they are cited and quoted in the body text of the article, so it would be inappropriate to obscure this fact. I see no reason for any changes. What is the rationale for the proposal? The lead, where the text in question appears, is merely supposed to summarize the content in the body of the article, not to reiterate every detail. BTW, it's not necessary to indicate that you favor your own proposal; that's pretty much self-explanatory. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current statement in the lead is not overly broad. The lead is a summary of the body text, not a recapitulation of every detail in the body text. The lead says the following: “He has been a major financial contributor to Republican campaigns and paid for advertising in opposition to several[quantify] Idaho Democratic political candidates."

The body text states: “VanderSloot has generally favored and been a major donor to Idaho Republicans;[100][101] he has been described by Popkey as the "most boisterous conservative financier”[8] and by America Online’s Eamon Murphy as "perhaps the single most influential campaign donor"[49] in the state of Idaho.” The body text further describes numerous instances of Vandersloot’s funding of conservative/Republican political candidates and attacks ads against Democratic candidates, which were highlighted by multiple sources.

I fail to see how the lead’s summary is even the slightest bit misleading. Your proposed edits (grossly) inappropriately downplays VS’s support of conservative/Repub candidates and attack ad funding and overplays his very early and clearly atypical support for 2 Democratic candidates (the exception to the rule as noted by Popkey, Trillhase et al). The proposed text omits mention of some of VS's most significant contributions (for example the $100,000 donation in the judicial race) and his extensive funding of PACs and attack ads. Why would you want to introduce such a skewed/distorted POV into the lead I wonder? What I see is that you initially object to the use of the word "several" in the lead (inserting a "quantify" tag for reasons that are still unclear) and are no using that as a pretense to introduce a non-NPOV into the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very happy to remove the entire sentence. This would be a good solution since the current version does not have consensus. What do you say? GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would make me happy, and satisfy WP policy, if you didn't completely ignore the comments I raised or the fact that there is no justification whatsoever for the change you proposed to the text in question. The existing text is entirely appropriate as per WP:LEAD and the text you proposed would introduce a skewed POV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is pretty obvious that there right now there is no consensus on what this sentence should say, so how do you propose that consensus be reached? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we have quite a few sources stating that VanderSloot is a major donor to Republican candidates, but we also have sources detailing his contributions to Democrats in Idaho, so I'd say that the lead is misleading in that it mentions that he only donates to Republicans. In favor of editing, or just taking that sentence out since the fact that he contributed so much to the Romney campaign suggests that he's a major political donor anyway. HtownCat (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Absolutely. We all know that the sources refer to VanderSloot as a major Republican donor and a conservative, but these sources are usually political in nature. Instead of "major political contributor to Republican campaigns" we should reword to "major political contributor to Republicans [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] and Democrats [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME]. The current lead paints a rather biased view of VS. HtownCat (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gay-rights issues

Lede sentence

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

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

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

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

No good. The "opposition" was not limited merely to VS's billboard campaigns and attack ads. It was also based on his subsequent comments, his wife's financial support of Prop 8, and his outing of Zuckerman. To limit the sentence in question to just the billboards/attack ads would misrepresent the position of the opposition. Also, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that most of the sources cited are "journalists", not "commentators" (i.e. media "pundits"), and that the latter term is often viewed as denigrating -- it unnecessarily undermines the credibility of the sources, as indicated in the lead of the WP article on commentator which says "In certain cases, it may be used in a derogatory manner as well, as the political equivalent of 'ideologue'." I trust that you will take the time to verify for yourself that the backgrounds of most of the sources qualify them as journalists, and that ignoring this fact while insisting on labeling them as commentators instead is not NPOV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refer all concerned to Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_4#Discussion. As for "commentators" being labeled "pundits," yes, that was a very unfortunate titling of the Wikipedia article on the subject: When I searched for "commentator" in WP, it took me to a page labeled "pundits." There is nothing wrong with being a "commentator," but being labeled a "pundit" leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. For the record, the word "pundit" is not used in this article on Frank VanderSloot, and I believe it never has been. I have since [3]redirected the "Political commentator" page to the more logical, and neutral, Advocacy journalism page. More important: There is no consensus that Mr. A or Ms. B is or is not a "journalist," so without consensus the appellation should not be used. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, many/most of the sources meet the standard definition of "journalists" -- you already conceded this point in the old discussion thread to which you linked above, so it's confusing as to why you are now contradicting yourself. Therefore, it's highly tendentious to argue on the one hand that they should not be referred to as "journalists" because of lack of consensus that they are journalists, while on the other hand proposing that they should instead be labeled using derogatory terms such as "commentators" or "advocacy journalists". Denigrating the sources with such labels is not NPOV. The easiest way to bypass this argument would be to just refer to them as "sources" without any other labels. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud this solution and have attempted to carry out its spirit by editing the sentence to read "His public stances on gay-rights issues have generated opposition." I think that should do the trick unless somebody finds a Reliable Source which applauds him for the his stances, and then we would have to use the word "controversy." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences in LGBT section

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

On 2 January 2013 Nomoskedasticity reinserted an older version of the above sentence. At the same time, Nomo restored the full sentence that had been truncated from the lede, as follows: "His public stances on gay-rights issues have generated opposition from journalists, commentators, and gay-rights groups."

I am reverting Nomo's changes based on two facts:

(1) Discussion on the Talk Page resulted in a consensus that the type of Sources making the accusations against VDS should simply be omitted. See, for example, Rhode Island Red's statement on 22 December 2012 that "The easiest way to bypass this argument would be to just refer to them as 'sources' without any other labels."

(2) BLP policy requires that "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. . . . The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

I hope we can close this episode and move on to other parts of the article. All of the accusations again VDS are still extant in the article without these controversial round-up sentences being included. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I merely offered a suggestion that splitting hairs about "journalists" vs commentators" could be avoided by simply referring to them as "sources". I never indicated that I supported removal of the entire sentence -- my position on that point was unambiguous -- I opposed it. Nomo's reversion of your deletion was appropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I went a step farther than RIR's suggestion, but I hoped that the simple removal would meet with his approval. I have now removed the two contentious "roundup" sentences concerning VDS's stance on gay rights on the basis that they add no information to the article and that they seem to be inserted only to make this Living Person seem like he has nothing better to do with his time than harass gays. Remember that consensus is needed to add material, not to remove it. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two sentences were reinstated by another editor with the Edit Summary "rv edit based on misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS", and so I am now proposing another solution that might be acceptable. First sentence would read: "His public stances on gay-rights issues generated opposition." Second sentence would read: "VanderSloot's stances on some issues of interest to the gay community drew criticism.[12][49][93][118][119][120][121][122]"GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is still about "journalists", isn't it. You object to the notion that certain people are being identified as journalists. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's about finding compromise in a contentious issue and completing the tasks set out for us as editors. We are in the discussion phase of a WP:BRD cycle. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that doesn't address the nature of the contention. Is it about "journalists"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the two sentences on 5 January 2013 with the Edit Summary "Removing two contentious "roundup" sentences which add no additional information and seem to be there only to cast aspersions on the character of this man." There has also been controversy bruited about here at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Lede_sentence and elsewhere on this Talk Page. Yes, the quality of the Sources has been questioned several times in the past few months, including the identification of some of them as "journalists" or "pundits" or whatever, but the proposed change submitted just above does not really address that issue. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can use "VanderSloot's stances on some issues of interest to the gay community drew criticism." We go into specifics on who exactly criticized VS in the paragraphs below: "VanderSloot's efforts and his wife's donation drew criticism from the Human Rights Campaign.[120]" in regards to Prop 8; then Glenn Greenwald in the first paragraph about Zuckerman and a list of people in the last paragraph about Zuckerman: "Various sources[quantify] said that VanderSloot's advertisement outed Zuckerman, including television host and political commentator Rachel Maddow[121] Glenn Greenwald in Salon magazine,[49] the editorial page of the Boise Weekly,[132] Post Register editor Dean Miller[119] and Zuckerman.[133]" I suggest making it easier on ourselves by not classifying each of these people as journalists, commentators, etc. HtownCat (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Warning against edit war

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

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

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

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

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

Early discussion

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

• "454111 - Electronic Shopping"

• "454390 - Other Direct Selling Establishments"

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

I'm curious about the notion that Hoover's Company In-Depth Records constitutes something "official". I'm not (yet?) persuaded that we need to have our article reflect what that particular company says about Melaleuca. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We engaged in a lengthy discussion about the MLM designation long ago. We reviewed multiple sources (in the dozens) establishing that Melaleuca is an MLM company. The issue was brought to several noticeboards and resolved conclusively. Since then, "multilevel marketing" gradually got pushed farther and farther down the lead and then finally diluted with other terms such as internet sales etc. That's not cool at all and it smack of whitewashing. There's no point in having these discussion if the participants refuse to abide by the outcome. Hoover's (one source) does not outweigh all of the other sources that establish the company as an MLM, and if you think otherwise, then the onus is on you to make a compelling case here instead of edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Hoovers isn't good enough, we'd need something from a news source where a third-party discusses the issue, before we reopen this can of worms. I'm less firm on its permanency of the term MLM, considering the attractiveness of words like "pyramid scheme" or "MLM" to journalists trying to sensationalize or sell copies of their publications, but no Hoover's doesn't work in comparison to third-party commentary. No source to support the contention still. So not conversation yet. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I guess I missed the big consensus concerning reference to ML as an MLM. When was it? Maybe RIR or Nomo can enlighten us. And I suppose some editors missed this comment I made on 13 November 2012, because I never did get a response to it: 'I call everybody's attention to the fact that this article was stabilized for two months, without referring to Melaleuca as a multilevel marketing organization, a term that Frank VanderSloot himself (the subject of this article) vigorously denies. The stable version was instituted here. and was reverted here by Rhode Island Red, who had been absent from the discussion for that length of time. The two-month-stable version was reinstated by User:Collect [here, with the Edit Summary stating succinctly, "I suggest you read the discussions which led to one versionbeuing stable here." So you see, this issue was never really "settled," as alleged above.' GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't doubt that it meets RS. But I reject the notion that it amounts to something "official" as per Andrew's post, and I see no good reason it should direct the way we describe Melaleuca in the lead sentence. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NAICS classifications are established by the US Government. Is that "official" enough for you? Hoover reports on the classifications which a company falls under. Hoover is WP:RS and has been considered so for aeons on Wikipedia. NAICS is not a creation of Hoover. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Collect -- it's not official enough. The government makes the codes -- but Hoover's decision to label a company with particular codes is Hoover's own decision (or so it would appear). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The codes are not generated by Hoovers. Period. The codes are used on government forms which the company is required by law to furnish. Companies are required to accurately state the business they are involved in. The codes are used by multiple government agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of the Census, EPA, etc. They are numbers which have the same legal value as social security numbers have for individuals in some respects. Is this sufficiently clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- so the company itself determines what number to report? Fascinating. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No more than the company also "determines" what income to report to the IRS. The IRS would put the company under horrid fines if it lied about its status on forms sent to the IRS, folks. The NAICS number is thus used with the weight of the federal government. You act like the company simply lies on all its government required forms? Really????Collect (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the "creativity" of many large corporations' tax affairs, I do think you've come up with a rather apt analogy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very dim view of MLM's and the like, but your approach here is not helpful. If you are editing here under the premise that he is doing something illegal I suggest you provide some evidence or go elsewhere. Arzel (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation NAICS code is: 813410, Civic and Social Organizations. [4]. Not a number generated or assigned or created by Hoover's. A number required by federal law. Collect (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even more fascinating -- WIkipedia is a "civic and social organization". Who knew? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -- read the definitions thereof. Collect (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found just one citation to the Hoover's group in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I'm posting a notice at Project Business for others to chime in here if they like. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later discussion

Post new remarks here.

NAICS is referenced at insideview.com [5]

Manta.com [6]

Gale company profiles

Industrynet.com

And a few hundred more sites.

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be that the article shouldn't refer to Melaleuca as a multi-level marketing company because of Hoover's. You do realize that's an unsupportable argument right? So why continue to split hairs? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote absolutely nothing of the kind, and I would ask you to remove your errant comments saying I wrote something I did not write. Making such claims is uncollegial entirely. And a really, really poor method of discussing anything. What I did post is that Hoover's did not "create" or "assign" anything at all to the company whatsoever, that the NAICS number is required by the US government, and is controlled by US government agencies. I would also note that by your apparent standards, Sam's Club is an MLM as it charges a "membership fee" and allows resale of its goods. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing that warrants removal. Be specific and other editors won't have to guess what you're getting at. I'd like to cut to the chase and understand why we're bothering talking about the source at all -- what edits are being proposed? The analogy about Sam's Club isn't constructive because, unlike in the case of Melaleuca, there aren't more than 20 reliable sources that identify Sam's Club as an MLM company. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I was here at the time, I would have replied above. The NAICS number is self-reported, and there is only a penalty if willfully misreported. In other words, if they don't call themselves and MLM, and they believe they do not qualify as the NAICS code for MLM, then they can properly report otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that two different issues are being confounded here: if Melaleuca is an MLM and if Melaleuca sells its products through retail and Internet means in addition to other ways. I don't get why Melaleuca running a store and a website somehow changes the MLM issue. The edits I made did not change the MLM wording whatsoever. More to the point, reliable sources state that the company has stores, so there should be no controversy over saying so. The company operates stores from Idaho to Shenzhen for members to use.^[1] Similarly, there is no doubt that members can buy things from the company website as well.^[2] Andrew³²⁷ 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to mentioning that the company sells online, etc., but the way the text was modified watered down the essential point that the company is an MLM. A series of modifications were introduced without discussion that gradually pushed the MLM designation further and further down in the description, ultimately obscuring the facts. It should be stated upfront that the company is an MLM without obfuscation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the other parent, and the actual NAICS numbers in question:

• There isn't a specific NAICS number for MLM.
• A company with either of the codes (454111 or 454390 ) could still be entirely MLM (with some effort — "retail" customers are arbitrarily assigned to a sponsor — specific example available by E-mail), or primarily MLM.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur: As I said before, I am not looking to argue the MLM issue based solely on NAICS. The reason I posted them was to draw attention to NAICS 454111 as evidence that the company sells products over the Internet, which is well established. The sentence that was repeatedly reverted did not change the MLM wording. Andrew³²⁷ 02:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recent addition of subheadings to the Melaleuca section of the article has been reverted[7] because they did not accurately describe the content. For example the "founding" section refers to the company's current product portfolio (nothing to do with founding); the business model section refers to details that have nothing to do with the business model (distributor earnings) and it fails to mention the most central characteristic of the business model -- that the company is an MLM; the "reach" section describes details that have nothing to do with reach (eg, revenue); the membership section refers to Vandersloot's role on the executive of DSA and his contributions to the DSA's PAC (which have nothing to do with membership per se); and what are labelled as "government inquiries" were not not in fact inquiries (they were "investigations" and a warning letter). The newly added subheads create more problems than they solve. If there is any further interest in adding subheads, which don't seem to be necessary, then a proposal should be presented here for further discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor above has taken the second step in the WP:BRD model, Reversion, and has begun the third step, Discussion. He seems to have two objections to the editing changes I suggested in this diff, wherein my Edit Summary said "Dividing Melaleuca section with subheaders for ease of understanding and of editing. Moving one fact from one part of the Section to another; no change in wording." RIR reverted, with the Edit Summary as "these subheads don't work -- square pegs in round holes -- see Talk." His explanation above seems to be based on two premises: (1) Subheads are not necessary, and (2) they don't accurately describe content.

We should handle the first objection first: Are subheads necessary (or even desirable)? I say yes, they are desirable, because the section is pretty long right now, covering a wide variety of subjects, and the average reader might like some help in switching from one major detail to another. (I couldn't find any guidance to the use of subheads in the swamp of Wikipedia policies and advice, but that doesn't mean there is none.) Anyway, I made this proposal primarily for the ease of reader comprehension: The advantage of editing ease is just a positive side effect. If we have a WP:Consensus that this long section should be broken into its parts, then we can talk later about just what those parts should consist of and what the subheads should say. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the cart before the horse. If the material fits well into a specific set of subheads, then using subheads might be appropriate. If they don't (as in the recent revision), then it is not appropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general

I'm wondering something at this point. The MLM issue has been beaten to death here unless new sources are provided, but why is it in the lead? That Melaleuca is considered by this article to be an MLM is mentioned in only a four word phrase very low down in the article, and is not in any way a major part of the article. If it is contentious as to whether or not the phrase could be harmful to the person represented in this article (that's not something anybody disagrees with), and is a minuscule, non-important part of the article, can we not remove it from the lead, leaving it lower down? I know that previously the MLM issue was a larger part of the article, but most of those items have been removed. Is it still necessary for the lead? I don't see how removing it harms the article, other than perhaps an impulse to flag this minor point due to its potential connotations that are not really fleshed out in the article. Just wanted the opinions of those who have been working so hard to get this article into shape :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MLM aspect is a cardinal feature of the company, and it has been established that the company is an MLM by about two dozen sources, which were discussed already at great length. Whatever connotations the term MLM might have to some people are irrelevant; it is not slang and it is not inherently negative. As I've said before, the argument you have raised is akin to saying that we shouldn't include the fact that a company sold credit default swaps because the term might arouse negative emotions. The discussion about MLM has dragged on way too long already. Beating dead horses is not constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy is on to something, and I applaud his endeavor. I would like to remove the MLM issue from the article entirely, since it is contentious and really minor in "real life," but getting it out of the lede is a good idea. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it quite obvious already that you would prefer the article be whitewashed of the term MLM -- you have been campaigning unsuccessfully to do this for the better part of a year now. But the fact remains, the MLM feature is a defining characteristic of the company that has been established by a plethora of sources. Persisting with this argument is counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this is a cardinal feature of the company worthy of being included in the lead. I don't know much about MLM as a term or as a practice, but I think we have too many conflicting sources to proclaim Melaleuca as an MLM in the second sentence of this article. Here's a new one that I plan to incorporate soon: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100366770. This source quotes VS stating that Melaleuca is not an MLM and says that the company does not meet state or federal criteria.HtownCat (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "federal criteria", except in VanderSloot's opinion. To quote that article, "everybody has their own definition of multi-level marketing." There are criteria for an organization being a pyramid scheme, and that is alleged (in this case) by a number of reliable sources, but not proven. See, for example Multi-level marketing#Criticism for the difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MLM issue is a non-issue. The company is unequivocally an MLM. In addition to the 20+ sources (which have been presented and discussed already) that establish the fact that Melaleuca is an MLM, Vandersloot himself admitted it to the Utah Attorney General in this official affidavit he signed.[8] It says "The Attorney General is informed and believes that Melaleuca sells various nutrition, personal care and homecare procucts, pursuant to a multi-level marketing plan" -- and Vandersloot signed it! So if Vandersloot turned around and attempted to deny that the Melaleuca is an MLM, he was either not being truthful, or he was not truthful when he signed the AGs affidavit. Either way, any denial of the MLM nature of his business that Vandersloot may have issued subsequently can be dismissed as PR fluff -- inconsequential noise -- and an apparently less than honest attempt at damage control. Regardless, the WP article cannot be a party to misrepresentation of the nature of Vandersloot's business. Please let this issue die once and for all and stop wasting WP resources by continuing to beat this long dead horse. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed an MLM - they may not want to be labelled that to distance themselves from the moniker, however a company is MLM based on its compensation structure (getting paid for not just your own customers, but also sales the people you recruit do as well). They use a 5x7 "Forced Matrix" compensation plan. I found a PDF of their compensation plan online here: http://mlmhelpdesk.com/wp-content/Docs/Melaleuca/BB_CompPlan_enUs.pdf

The question on whether to include it in the lede, I'll leave up to the active editors here to continue discussing.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three different issues

There are three issues that are now being considered, discussed, and confused.

Does Melaleuca use the Internet and retail locations to sell products?

There is no doubt. They have stores all over the world and the website is self-evident (in addition to being referenced in reliable sources). Rhode Island Red says that (s)he does not want the words multilevel marketing to be obscured by having retail and Internet in their vacinity. This is not a valid reason to repeatedly revert edits.

Should the words "multilevel marketing" be placed in the article's lead?

I see more opposition than support on this front. Remember that this is a BLP, not an article about the company. It would be akin to starting the article on Henry Ford as "Henry Ford (July 30, 1863 – April 7, 1947) was the founder of Ford Motors, a franchise-dealership business."

Is Melaleuca an MLM?

This is a larger question and one that has not been resolved. I'm just about the only person who has actually written content on the BLP about the company's business model as opposed to clinging to catchphrases. The Consent Decree states that, in the 1990s, the Idaho Attorney General believed that Melaleuca was an MLM. I'm sure that VanderSloot would still agree that that was the AG's opinion at the time. Trying to read legal documents is tricky at best and interpreting them is in danger of becoming WP:Original Research. Leef5 states that Melaleuca is an MLM based on his own review of a compensation plan found on a website, which fails both WP:OR and WP:SPS. Arthur Rubin states that there is no federal definition of MLM, which is not true. A previous editor pointed to the definition adopted by the FTC in rule-making documents here. The company does not appear to fit that definition, which refers to multiple levels of distribution or sale. Melaleuca sells products directly. I have not reviewed each of the state’s laws (and it does not appear that any other editors has either), but it appears that VanderSloot may be correct in that the company does not fit the definitions that rely on multiple distributor or sales levels.

In any event, the Talk page of a Wikipedia article is not the place to have a scholarly debate about the meaning of the term MLM. We are not MLM experts. We are here to report on what the sources say. Some sources describe the company as an MLM (although most of the sources cited by RIR do not actually analyze the issue and/or are from political sources without deep backgrounds in business). Some sources describe the company as a Consumer Direct Marketing Company. Other sources describe the company as a network marketing company. VanderSloot has steadfastly maintained that his company is not an MLM based on material differences between the distribution methodology between his company and others, such as Herbalife (that is making headlines in the news). Let’s not take sides and act like we know better. There is nothing definitive here that conclusively establishes the company as an MLM. I see no reason for this in the lead, and I see a need to revise the description in the body of the text to incorporate all sources and viewpoints, particularly those held by the subject of this BLP. Andrew³²⁷ 02:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than 20 sources including VanderSloot himself acknowledged that Melaleuca is an MLM. According to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence -- it's an MLM company. The detail is not ambiguous; we've addressed it on multiple noticeboards and talked about it ad nauseum. I can't understand the reason for your confusion about the issue or why you are still trying to challenge the validity of using the term in the article.

As for the lead, the MLM detail is a defining feature of what the company is/does, as established by a preponderance of sources, so it naturally belongs in the lead as per WP:LEAD – ie, Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing company that sells x,y,z”. The phrase " multi-level marketing company" had been in the lead for quite some time, so it seems very odd to campaign for its removal all of a sudden, given the preponderance of evidence and past discussions. The suggestion is WP:TE.Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things: First, the attorney general's affidavit that states that the AG believes that Melaleuca is an MLM does not mean establish that the company is an MLM nor that VanderSloot believes that it is an MLM. Second, in footnote 34 on page 16113 in this register, an MLM is defined by its distribution method, not its compensation method.

I'm throwing the above out there for general knowledge, but I agree with Andrew that we don't need to debate whether or not Melaleuca is an MLM. Going by the sources, however, is inconclusive. Sure there are quite a few articles that refer to the company as an MLM, but there are also quite a few that refer to it as Consumer Direct or quote VanderSloot denying any relationship to the MLM structure. So based on the sources, we don't know if Melaleuca is an MLM and it should not be in the lead.HtownCat (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to debate this in the face of such overwhelming evidence is really counterproductive (i.e., WP:TE). I suggest you go back and read the archives and let this issue die once and for all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I previously stayed out of this argument but lately it has become absurd. The lead is supposed to reflect the preponderance of secondary sources, so I searched to see how (mostly) reliable sources refer to the company, especially in their leads.

VanderSloot's own words

• "We don't want to be thrown in the multilevel bucket because there are programs there that we just don't want to be affiliated with. Nothing else we do is even similar."^[3]

• "It's unfortunate that someone would suggest that Melaleuca is something like Amway. It's not. We started Melaleuca 26 years ago to market environmentally responsible products and to provide a business opportunity for folks who weren't successful in climbing the corporate ladder and didn't inherit wealth from their parents. We try to be champions of the little guy. My father was a little guy. And I still see myself as a little guy. Contrary to those who do not know us, our business model is nothing like Amway or Herbalife. I challenge anyone to find any similarity whatsoever. There is no investment of any kind unless you want to call a $29 membership fee an "investment." And anyone can get a refund on that by just asking. We do offer a home-based business opportunity. But it is no "pyramid scheme." We have long been critical of the many MLM/pyramid schemes operating in this country. I agree with those who say that typical MLM companies destroy people?s finances. Most are designed to attract people to "invest" in large purchases with the promise of "getting rich" quickly by getting others to invest. The guy at the top always wins and the guy on the bottom always loses. In Melaleuca's case there is no investment and no getting others to invest. We do pay commissions to those who have referred customers based on what those customers purchase. There is really no way to lose money on referring customers. And there's no way for customers to lose either when they're buying high-quality products at grocery store prices. Customers just order the products they use every month directly from the factory. We have hundreds of thousands of customers who buy from us each month. They don't ever resell anything. They don't invest in any inventory. There can be no pyramiding without some kind of investment. In 26 years, no one has ever complained that they lost money. It?s simply not possible. Our business model works pretty well for most folks. We have already paid over $2.9 billion in commissions to households across the country. Our mission is to enhance lives by helping people reach their goals regardless of their beliefs, backgrounds, or affiliations. Last month we sent out almost 200,000 checks to American households alone. Members of those households tell us we are doing a pretty good job achieving that mission."^[4]

Op-ed and pundits

• "Frank VanderSloot is the CEO of Melaleuca Inc. The 63-year-old has run that wellness-products company for 26 years out of tiny Idaho Falls, Idaho."^[5]

• "The founder of Melaleuca, which sells $700 million in wellness products a year, Vandersloot puts business first, partisanship second."^[6]

• "Turns out Idaho Citizens for Justice got half its money from Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho Falls firm owned by Frank VanderSloot..."^[7]

• Even Rachel Maddow didn't think it was important to mention MLM in initially describing the company: "In addition to being the national finance co-chair for the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, he also runs a company called Melaleuca, which sells all sort of household products."^[8]

Organizations

• BYU Hawaii press release: "Johanson...most recently worked as Communications Manager for Melaleuca Inc. in Idaho Falls, Idaho, an $860 million worldwide wellness products company."Foley, Mike (21 January 2009). "BYUH names new Director of Communications and Marketing" (Online) (Press release). Hawaii: BYUH. Retrieved 2013-01-19.

• DSA profile written by the company: "Melaleuca manufactures all types of wellness products, including nutritional supplements, pharmaceutical products, cosmetics, eco-friendly cleaners, and personal care products."

Business databases

• "Deriving its name from the tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia), the company is a leading manufacturer and direct seller of more than 350 personal care and household products, many of which are environmentally friendly."^[9]

• Orbis categorizes the company as an "Industrial company" and files its distribution model under "Direct selling establishments".^[10]

• MarketResearch's report is behind a huge paywall, but the abstract is available: "Melaleuca, Inc. (Melaleuca) is one of the leading manufacturers of wellness products, based in the US. The company manufactures and distributes nutritional supplements, pharmaceutical, personal care, facial care, cosmetics, home hygiene and various wellness products. Melaleuca delivers its products directly to customers through a catalog and internet shopping system. In addition, it offers more than 400 products for home and family, which include wellness products for kids, including a complete line of skin care and cosmetics, bath and body solutions, and pharmaceuticals. The company carries out its operations in the US, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, China, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, Puerto Rico, Jamaica and Bahamas. Melaleuca is headquartered in Idaho Falls, Idaho, the US."^[11]

• The Million Dollar Database categorizes Melaleuca under the following codes:

"SIC Codes

28 - CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS

2833 - MEDICINALS AND BOTANICALS

28330109 - VITAMINS, NATURAL OR SYNTHETIC: BULK, UNCOMPOUNDED

Other SIC Codes

28340000 - PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS

28410000 - SOAP AND OTHER DETERGENTS

28440000 - TOILET PREPARATIONS

51220000 - DRUGS, PROPRIETARIES, AND SUNDRIES"

Line of Business

MFG MEDICINAL/BOTANICALS WHOL DRUGS/SUNDRIES MFG TOILET PREPARATIONS MFG SOAP/OTHER DETERGENT MFG PHARMACEUTICAL PREPS

Products Manufacturing

NAICS Codes

325411 - MEDICINAL AND BOTANICAL MANUFACTURING

Other NAICS Codes

325412 - PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATION MANUFACTURING

325611 - SOAP AND OTHER DETERGENT MANUFACTURING

325620 - TOILET PREPARATION MANUFACTURING"^[12]

Journalists

• "Melaleuca Inc., the Idaho Falls-based wellness products company that employs more than 3,400" ^[13]

• "One of Idaho's largest privately held companies, Melaleuca is headquartered in Idaho Falls and has over 3,400 employees, including sales offices in Hong Kong, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom."^[14]

• "Melaleuca markets personal care and household products."^[15]

• "Melaleuca, The Wellness Company, a manufacturer of 350 health and wellness products sold directly to consumers around the world..."^[16]

• "Melaleuca, Inc., an Idaho Falls company that sells its products friend-to-friend, word-of-mouth throughout the country, is expanding into Canada."^[17]

• "Melaleuca, an Idaho-based natural products company."^[18]

• "An Idaho Falls manufacturer of nutritional, pharmaceutical, personal care and household cleaning products is ranked No. 4 in the nation in absolute dollar growth and No. 5 in job creation by Inc. magazine, hitting the most categories of any Idaho company on the list."^[19]

• "Melaleuca thrives on well-oiled direct-marketing plan" (in title).^[20]

• "[...]wellness products maker Melaleuca in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The 2,500-employee company manufactures and direct markets nutritional, pharmaceutical, personal care, home hygiene, and other wellness products throughout the U.S. and various global markets."^[21]

• "Now in its 22nd year, Melaleuca Inc. sells nutritional supplements, skin creams and other products largely through home-based businesses and personal-product presentations."^[22]

• "Frank L. VanderSloot , president and CEO of Idaho-based Melaleuca Inc., agrees the industry got a bad reputation from some overzealous firms."^[23]

• "His Idaho-based company, Melaleuca, which manufactures and distributes natural products ranging from shampoo to vitamins to tile cleaner, has reinvented the direct-marketing model, beginning by dialing back the sales pressure."^[24]

• "The Idaho Falls-based manufacturer of health and beauty products..." The title refers to the company as a "health products manufacturer".^[25]

• "Health and wellness company Melaleuca..."^[26]

• "Melaleuca produces cosmetics, household products and nutritional supplements."

• "Melaleuca Inc., the producer of cosmetics, household products and nutritional supplements..."^[27]

• "Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho Falls-based health products company, found the family and paid for their transportation, gas, lodging and food on the trip West, Harris said."^[28]

• New York Times: "Melaleuca, an Idaho-based company that manufactures skin and nutritional products."^[29]

• "Frank Vandersloot, who owns the health care products company Melaleuca Inc., is donating the money after a drive to replace crumbling McDermott Field had fallen short of a $1.35 million fundraising goal..."^[30]

• "An Idaho Falls businessman who already owns a health-care products company with $650 million in annual sales is thinking about expanding -- into radio."^[31]

• "US-based Melaleuca Inc., a fast-growing direct marketing company..."^[32]

• "Melaleuca markets personal care and household products. The company is based in Idaho Falls."^[33]

• "Melaleuca Inc., a direct sales giant in the USA, announced in Shanghai on December 12th that it obtained a direct sales license from the Ministry of Commerce."^[34]

• "Melaleuca Inc., The Wellness Company is expanding its facility in the Forks of the River Industrial Park. The company manufactures nutritional and pharmaceutical products."^[35]

• "A health care products company has broken ground on a $3.28 million manufacturing facility in Bonneville County."^[36]

• "Melaleuca Inc., which manufactures nutritional and pharmaceutical products, will hold a ground breaking ceremony at 11 a.m. Thursday for a $22 million expansion of its Forks of the River distribution center."^[37]

• "Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho-based maker of nutritional supplements, cleaning supplies and other products, is building a 231,000-square-foot distribution center that will nearly double the size of its facility in Forks of the River Industrial Park and bring jobs to Knox County."^[38]

• "The Idaho Falls-based health care products company Melaleuca Inc...."^[39]

• "The reach of Melaleuca Inc. long has stretched beyond the borders of Bonneville County. The company offers 352 household products and sells its wares directly to customers in the U.S. and 13 foreign markets. Melaleuca has been a global player for 14 years, since the company entered Taiwan, its first Asian market. The company employs nearly 3,100 workers worldwide."^[40]

All sources after this line are currently cited in the BLP

• "Frank VanderSloot is best known as the successful owner of Melaleuca, a global supplier of cleaning and wellness products made with natural ingredients."^[41]

• "Four contributions of $250,000 to Mr. Romney’s super PAC came from affiliates of Melaleuca, an Idaho-based company that manufactures skin and nutritional products."^[42]

• "...his health and home products company, Melaleuca, had lost hundreds of customers, and asserting the Obama campaign list and liberal websites have misrepresented his company and political activism."^[43]

• "The 1966 Sandpoint High School grad makes his home in Idaho Falls, Idaho, where his international manufacturing company is headquartered."^[44]

• "Mkts. pharmaceuticals & personal-care prods."^[45]

• "Frank VanderSloot, CEO of the Idaho Falls-based wellness company Melaleuca..."^[46]

• "He is chief executive of Melaleuca Inc., which sells cleaning supplies and personal-care products."^[47]

• "Vandersloot, the founder and CEO of Idaho Falls-based health care products company Melaleuca Inc., said he learned of the two federal inquires within the last month and intends to cooperate."^[48]

• "Yet VanderSloot, owner of the Melaleuca wellness product company, never expected to be branded on an presidential campaign website as a 'litigious, combative and bitter foe of the gay rights movement.'"^[49]

• "Frank VanderSloot, founder and CEO of the eastern Idaho Melaleuca Corp. and listed by Reuters as one of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's top contributors, says he's on a White House enemies list and is the subject of two federal investigations..."^[50]

• "Vandersloot is the CEO of Idaho Falls-based health care company Melaleuca Inc. and among donors who have given $1 million to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney."^[51]

• "Meanwhile, Frank VanderSloot, owner of Idaho Falls-based health products direct marketer Melaleuca Inc., injected some $1.5 million into the pro-overhaul effort..."^[52]

• "...it emerged that the funding for both came from Melaleuca Inc., a personal-care products firm in eastern Idaho headed by conservative activist Frank VanderSloot."^[53]

• "That helps explain why, Thursday evenings in the downtown building of Melaleuca, a health-products company owned by Frank VanderSloot, one of Idaho's richest Mormons, groups of Rexburg college students and townies get together."^[54]

• "The zillionaire CEO of Melaleuca, Eastern Idaho's huge health-products company?"^[55]

• ""People are thinking a lot more about the price of freedom," says Frank VanderSloot, president of Melaleuca, a company that sponsors one of the country's largest fireworks displays in Idaho Falls, Idaho..."^[56]

• "Since Melaleuca began in September 1985, CEO Frank VanderSloot has directed its growth into an international company that reaches hundreds of thousands of households across the globe."^[57]

The striking thing is that even sources that have mean things to say about VanderSloot still generally do not introduce the company as "Melaleuca, a multilevel marketing company...". In fact, the vast majority of coverage that the business has received, especially in the neutral press as opposed to politically biased sources, make no reference to MLM. There is no overwhelming evidence to support MLM and, more immediately, there is no justification to keeping it in the lead. It should be removed from the lead.

Andrew³²⁷ 05:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick study indicates that no sources other than VanderSloot, himself, say specifically it isn't an MLM. We have some reliable sources which say that it is. Now, I agree, we do need to determine which of the reliable sources would have said it was an MLM if they believed it was, to determine whether it would be undue weight to include the statement that it is, but you have not proven your case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right -- in fact it's hard to imagine what that big long list is supposed to establish given that none of the sources except for VS himself are saying it isn't an MLM. For a big long list of sources that say it is, see here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only apparent reason why anyone would argue against describing Melaleuca as an MLM company, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary, is the belief that the term, which in reality is inherently neutral, somehow evokes negative reactions among consumers, and that those perceptions could negatively impact someone’s (i.e., VanderSloot’s and Melaleuca distributors’) bottom line. Thus, these vehement but completely baseless arguments for excluding the term, in the face of such overwhelming evidence that it applies to Melaleuca, violates WP:NPOV and is strongly suggestive of a conflict of interest.

As I’ve said before, this ridiculously tendentious argument to exclude the term MLM is equivalent to saying that a WP article should not mention that AIG sold collateralized debt obligations, even though multiple sources establish that they in fact did, because the term CDOs might evoke a negative reaction among investors. Non-evidence of the type that Andrewman327 posted above, is equivalent to saying that several articles mentioned that AIG sold “investment vehicles” but did not specifically mention CDOs, therefore the AIG article must not mention CDOs. Obviously such arguments are patently absurd.

Just for the record, the quotes provided above by Andrewman327 do not even indicate that VanderSloot denies that his company is an MLM. Vandersloot merely says that he doesn’t “want to be thrown in the multilevel bucket”, and that, essentially, Meleleuca is somehow not like Amway, neither of which even remotely resembles a denial that Melaleuca is an MLM, VanderSloot signed the Utah AGs affidavit stating that Melaleuca is an MLM – that’s official and on the record. His other statements appear to be mere obfuscations of the facts to serve the interests of his company. Vandersloot’s signing of that affidavit, along with detailed evidence from multiple sources across the spectrum (including recognized experts on MLM, the FTC, investigative reports, court documents, etc.) leaves no room for debate. In fact, we’ve already wasted far too much time belaboring this issue. The only “sources” that say Melaleuca isn’t an MLM are the 3 editors (George Louis, Collect, and Andrewman327) who have been campaigning since mid 2012[9][10] to whitewash the term (and, subsequently, everything else that could even remotely be construed as critical) from the article. Around that time, Collect went so far as to evoke WP:SPA/sockpuppets as evidence that there was prior consensus to support his whitewashing all mention of the term MLM from the aricle.[11][12]

I also find it disturbing that whenever George Louis claims, in the midst of being rebuked for improper conduct (e.g., edit warring[13] most recently), to be taking a break from editing,[14] one of the other members of the conservative/VanderSloot PR spin-doctor contingent (e.g., Andrewman327 in this case), immediately moves over and takes the wheel, driving home the exact same tendentious arguments that George was trying to push. This is exactly the type of conduct that has prompted me to raise concerns about WP:TAGTEAM in the past.

(PS: Andrewman327, when providing hyperlinks the Talk page, enclose them in brackets without the reference template format, otherwise they don’t directly link to anything.) Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

The consensus seems to be at this point that the term "multi-level marketing" should be removed from the lede. Rhode Island Red, Nomoskedasticity, and Leef5 believe Melaleuca is an MLM, but Leef5 says he "will leave it to the active editors" whether that assertion should be mentioned in the lede. Others who expressed an opinon that either (1) Melaleuca is definitely not an MLM or (2) they are undecided or (3) they just don't want that fact in the lede even if true are GeorgeLouis, Andrew327 ("I see no reason for this in the lead'), Jeremy112233 ("Why is it in the lead?"), Arzel, Collect, ArthurRubin, HtownCat ("I think we have too many sources to proclaim Melaleuca as an MLM in the second sentence of the article") and Katnotario. If I have made a mistake, feel free to line out your name or comment below. Anyway, I am changing the lede accordingly. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly made a mistake, as there was no basis or consensus for removing the term MLM. Whether or not any of the editors here "believes" that Melaleuca is an MLM is irrelevant. The fact that it is an MLM is established by the sources that we have already discussed here ad nauseum. Railroading through your preferred version is not the way to proceed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I fully support leaving the MLM mention in the career section where the companies are discussed in more detail; but I have no problem with the mention being dropped from the lead paragraph. In fact, I would say the lead should be trimmed to remove all the descriptions of the companies, only leaving their names. The details are secondary, not about the article subject (ie: the person), and are better suited for the career section that expands on the understanding of what was introduced in the lead. So, I would take the existing wording of the first paragraph:

Frank L. VanderSloot (born August 14, 1948) is an American entrepreneur, radio network owner, rancher, and political campaign financier. He is the founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca, Inc., a multi-level marketing company, headquartered in Idaho Falls, Idaho, which sells nutritional supplements, cleaning supplies, and personal-care products. His other business interests include Riverbend Ranch, an award winning commercial ranch operation, and Riverbend Communications, a group of broadcast radio stations in Eastern Idaho. VanderSloot also serves on the board of directors and executive board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In 2011, the Land Report listed him as the nation’s 92nd largest landowner.

I would rewrite as:

Frank L. VanderSloot (born August 14, 1948) is an American entrepreneur, radio network owner, rancher, and political campaign financier. He is the founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca, Inc. His other business interests include Riverbend Ranch and Riverbend Communications. VanderSloot also serves on the board of directors and executive board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In 2011, the Land Report listed him as the nation’s 92nd largest landowner.

Although, if others object to purging the descriptions of the companies, then the MLM mention should remain in the lead as well so that the full appropriate description exists.

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a journalist

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

I suggest reading this and reverting yourself -- at least insofar as she is named as one of VS's targets. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, you're embarrassing yourself by reverting before reading the source I suggested to you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chang is mentioned specifically as one of Vaandersloot's defamation targets (and identified as a "journalist") in the secondary sources cited.[15][16] The primary source (i.e. Melaleuca's letters to Chang) is from a reputable source (Salon Magazine) and are perfectly acceptable according to WP policy. Collect's deletion of this material,[17] for which there was no basis, has been reverted.[18] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have now edit warred five times in under 24 hours on this BLP, RIR. I have now asked you three times to self-revert. Collect (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's really hard to admit an error/oversight, isn't it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And snark !- discussion, Nomo. How many requests to self-revert ought it take? Collect (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None. There is no reason whatsoever to self-revert. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

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

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

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

Nothing more to say in the previous section, Collect?? Any more reverts coming? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if RIR recognizes that 5RR is under 24 hours is unwise. Collect (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a relevant point about the EFF lurking somewhere in Collect's incomprehensible post? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Frank and Kathleen Zundel had a son -- Brian,[19] the 3rd child from VanderSloot's first marriage[20]. By deduction, VS has been married at least 4 times, but that's speculative so the article doesn't draw that conclusion; just the facts reported by the sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

What do you mean none of the sources named the EFF? That makes no sense whatsoever and is not a valid reason for deleting the reference. The EFF article[21] directly backs up the statement for which it was cited.

"According to Rachel Maddow, the National Journal, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and similar legal action against critics and outlets that have published critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho independent journalist Jody May-Chang.[22][23][24][25][26][27]

As for reliability, the Electronic Frontier Foundation would seem to meet WP:RS in general but especially so in this context. It is an “international non-profit digital rights group”[28] that has been widely cited in the press in the context of internet-related legal issues, like SLAPP, of the type covered in the WP VanderSloot article.[29][ http://news.cnet.com/8300-5_3-0.html?keyword=electronic+frontier+foundation] There is nothing in WP:QS that precludes it. Furthermore, the statement in question the Vandersloot article is accompanied by multiple citations, so no statements in the WP article rest solely on the EFF. Lastly, WP:SOURCE says:

“Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.”

That’s an apt description of the EFF, whose primary expertise and responsibility is “checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments”. No basis for deletion of this source. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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