| ::::I came here looking for info on this guy as a big Republican donor,and this discussion has been a very annoying diversion, way off the topic. Frankly, my dears, I do not give a darn about this minutia, or is it minutium? But I agree with GeorgeLouis that we have to get back to the basics.63.146.74.219 (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)|}
I noticed that the philanthropy section refers to an annual Melaleuca-sponsored fireworks show. Along the same lines, I was thinking of adding a blurb about Melaleuca donating more than a half-million dollars to the Idaho Falls Chukars stadium fund-raiser campaign, bu then I found out that they received naming rights in exchange (the ballpark was named Melaleuca Field as a result of the donation), so I was left wondering about the extent to which things like fireworks shows and baseball stadium naming rights (which Melaleuca presumably gets involved in, at least partly, for corporate publicity) constitute philanthropy. When I hear philanthropy, I think of feeding the homeless, fighting diseases, setting up charities, donations to non-profit groups, etc; not fireworks and stadium naming rights. Where should we draw the line on what constitutes philanthropy? Is re-naming the section a better option? Adding a new section? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps a broader term might do. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are secondary (i.e. news) sources that provide more information about charitable activities. I read the Foundation's records in the Foundation Center's database and what they do is legitimately philanthropic. I also pulled IRS paperwork going back a few years and it agrees with other sources. More directly to your point, it's common for people to engage in philanthropy with some element of publicity. Andrewman327 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe you could try providing some of those...um....what are the called again...oh yeah...LINKS! Or should we just put in a sentence in the article that says "what they do is legitimately philanthropic" and cite "Andrewman327" next to the claim? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't provide links because I think the philanthropy section is pretty good as it is with the sources provided. I can't link to the Foundation Center but it's mostly summary data anyway. Here's the most recent tax return available that shows the level of charitable funding versus administrative overhead and other spending:
- http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/200/200513976/200513976_201012_990PF.pdf
- Andrewman327 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I am once again suggesting that this article be reverted to the status it was in on July 2, 2012. Reasons:
The article is a Biography of a Living Person and must not contain any potentially harmful material.
- "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced, because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be balanced and fair to their subjects at all times."
- Frank VanderSloot has said his company is NOT a multilevel marketing scheme, a term that to him at least has a pejorative import.
The idea that Melaleuca is organized on a multi-level marketing (MLM) basis is a Fringe Theory.
- "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter." "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." A serious discussion of this MLM idea has not occurred outside of Wikipedia.
- "Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written." The sources cited so far have referred to Melaleuca as an MLM only in passing reference, perhaps as a descriptor of the organization, and certainly not more than once (in a fairly minor position) per article.
- "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To be notable, secondary reliable sources must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it." Nobody has submitted any reliable sources that have commented on or discussed the idea (controversial, it seems, only on this Talk Page) that Melaleuca is (or is not) an MLM.Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your central premise is wrong. The fact that Melaleuca is an MLM is not a fringe theory and it's absurd to make such a suggestion when overwhelming evidence to the contrary has already been presented.[3] That you would still insist on pushing this baseless assertion indicates that this is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Secondly, where exactly does Vandersloot say that his company is not an MLM? Third, if Vandersloot did say that his company is not an MLM, then it his "opinion" that is WP:FRINGE -- it flies in the face of reality. Fourth, the term multi-level marketing is most certainly not pejorative, it's standard terminology. Lastly, begging for the article to be reverted under such a faulty premise is indicative of obstructionism and whitewashing. Not cool. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- None of the sources cited by Rhode Island Red analyze Melaleuca’s distribution model or any of the points that Frank VanderSloot has raised since he opened Melaleuca 26 years ago. None of them is a WP:Reliable source. These are the problems I see:
- The footnote in a “Staff Letter” to the FTC certainly does not analyze the issue.
- The majority of the news articles cited are filled with epithets towards VanderSloot and Melaleuca and are not reliable sources.
- The Rolling Stone article is devoted to name-calling Mitt Romney’s political donors. (I don’t believe Bob Perry’s Wikipedia cite should call him “THE MCmANSIONEER” and I don’t think VanderSloot’s Wikipedia cite should call him “THE PYRAMID SCHEMER”).
- Other articles simply repeat the Mother Jones article (which I and other editors have already addressed).
- The “expert” articles do not analyze any of the points discussed here or made by VanderSloot and assume the dispositive fact. One source actually just asks people to mail in lists of companies they would deem to be MLMs.
- Two citations are to brief comments by two former Melaleuca employees (Timothy Transtrum and Spencer Reese) and are offered as definitive proof that Melaleuca is an MLM. It is improper to give credence to these sources while ignoring repeated statements by Melaleuca, Melaleuca’s CEO, and Melaleuca’s President indicating that Melaleuca is not an MLM. Here are few sources that may shed light on the situation:
- [4] (I told our distributors, "We're not going to be operating in that multilevel-marketing deal you guys were interested in.);
- [5] (“It's the many differences in our business model and culture that set Melaleuca apart from any multilevel marketing company.”);
- [6] (VanderSloot discussing the problems with MLMs, explaining the differences between Melaleuca and MLMs, and offering $10,000 to anyone that can locate a successful MLM)
- [7] (explanation by Melaleuca’s President of differences between Melaleuca and MLMs);
- [8] (Frank VanderSloot’s explanation that his company is not an MLM);
- [9] (company explaining differences between Melaleuca and MLM)
- I would like to correct the characterization that Melaleuca’s court “affidavits” have described the company as an MLM. The two court memorandum opinions cited previously say that Melaleuca competes with MLM companies (not good sources, particularly in decisions where the Court did not analyze the issue). Anyway, Wikipedia frowns on this kind of WP:Original research.
- One of the citations offered by Rhode Island Red refers to allegations filed by a former contractor who is suing Melaleuca. Of course, a document filed by an opposing party in a lawsuit is hardly the place to look for objective statements of fact. Basically, see WP:Reliable.
- I might note that this page was stable for two months. Since then, Rhode Island Red has reintroduced contested changes made by multiple editors without obtaining a consensus on the talk page. In fact, RIR came into this page making controversial edits that had already been discussed for months without announcing any intentions or reasoning until after the changes had been made.
- A few more points to address before concluding:
- First, at least one editor has claimed that the term MLM is innocuous. Not so (as shown by sources cited by others on this page).
- Mother Jones itself equated the MLM model used by Amway and Herbalife as “controversial.”
- Daily Finance said that multi-level marketing is “essentially a pyramid scheme.”
- Rolling Stone uses the MLM description to then characterize Frank VanderSloot as a “Pyramid Schemer.”
- It has been asked on this page if Frank VanderSloot really disputes that Melaleuca is an MLM. Well, yes, he has (see above, and sources repeatedly cited on this talk page). Anybody who has done a little research can find that out. --Roadpeace (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's counterproductive to keep trying to re-litigate the same issue after having already received feedback that contradicts your opinion here on the talk page, on the RSN, and on the the BLPN. Like I said before, I'm not going to get sucked into a never-ending misleading debate with an SPA/advocate. Vandersloot seems to be the only source who believes (or at least tries to sell the idea) that Melaleuca is not an MLM. At best, his claim is WP:FRINGE. Time to move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The disagreements that have been going on here warrant an NPOV tag until we can find consensus. I am still wading through the more controversial points so I will wait to weigh in on those, but the fact that there are currently over 40 different citations of Wikipedia rules used here to defend one position versus another fits the idea of disputed neutrality. Andrewman327 (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- No they most certainly do not. It has been discussed on the Talk page, on BLPN, and on RSN and the conclusion was the same each time. This is an example of disruptive tagging done with the intent to undermine the perceived validity of the article to readers. Play fair or don't play. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The references on the page are now equal as to those that state company is MLM and those that state company is Direct Marketing. Of course this article should mention MLM past as well as present suspicions, and indeed as it stands in the lead. Why would argue against that? But now the article has a balance of sources claiming each description, so this should be reflected in the lead. 4 of these sources were previously accepted for other parts of the page, the 1 addition is a book. A solution should be found where both descriptions are mentioned as this obviously a controversy, but the references currently state that it is a controversy and not a "fringe theory" that it's an MLM company nor a definite fact that it is direct marketing. To disallow the nature of the controversy into the lead, if it is a major enough part of the article for one side to appear in the lead, is not neutral.Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- The text is now balanced so far as sources between the two--I don't have time to solve this mystery, but I do know it is a controversy and both sides should be represented. Is it an MLM? Is it a direct marketing company? The sources don't point either way, they point both ways. Perhaps we should be adding copy regarding this controversy, if it's notable enough. Otherwise, it seems apparent that there is equal support for either claim.Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- They are not even close to being equal (I posted more than 20 sources[10] that established that the company is an MLM) and the argument is disingenuous at its core because direct marketing is a broad top level category and MLM is a sub category of multi-level marketing, so you argument is akin to saying "Bugs Bunny isn't a rabbit, he's a mammal". Your edit is also inconsistent with WP:LEAD; your edit also goes against the previous loose consensus supporting the use of the MLM designation here on the Talk page[11] and on the RSN.[12] and it implies a controversy with regard to nomenclature that simply does not exist. In other words, your edit was indefensible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- No one is inferring they are equivalent, nor was anything written that way, and it's not the job of this page to debate if they are or are not. There are at this moment more references on this page calling it direct marketing, that is more important than any conversations that occurred before the new sources arrived, because those debates did pay heed to these sources. There are not more than 20 sources on this page calling it an MLM, and if there were, well great. There are still 7 sources supporting a different definition. That is substantial, and you cannot ignore those sources. A loose consensus is not the same thing as a full consensus, and if you want a new consensus voted with the new sources, let's do it. Especially considering the article has been altered in terms of the balance of reliable sources.
- If you want to discuss logic, I suggest you revisit your statement. Just because something is direct marketing doesn't make it MLM, though apparently (not that you've provided any sources for this), being MLM makes it direct marketing. That's first year philosophy. And your logic doesn't say anything about which sources are more accurate, which is the point here. By the way, you just stated that the terms are in no way equivalent, but then stated that there is no controversy by saying that they are equal in your mind. Which is it? Perhaps you should merge their separate Wikipedia pages if you feel that strongly :)
- So far as your lead argument, read Wikipedia:LEAD#Relative_emphasis. The emphasis is equal between the MLM and Direct Marketing descriptions, so no, this edit remains well within its bounds. Why is it that you disagree?Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your argument hinges on the flawed premise that direct marketing and multilevel are somehow mutually exclusive. They are not. As I explained, multilevel marketing is a more specific subtype of direct selling. Go back and read the Bugs Bunny analogy. Your argument has no merit -- it is akin to arguing that "some people say that a red shiny Macintosh is an apple but others say it is a type of fruit". The false dichotomy is especially inappropriate for the lead because the lead is supposed to summarize the text in the body of the article, and the text of the article does not (and should not) refer to your false dichotomy. If you wre to add it to the the body text, it would still be misleading, nonsensical, and inappropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- You were the one who introduced this argument, and are using it wrongly. Let me try this again. If every husband is a man, that does not mean every man is a husband. If every rabbit is a mammal, not every mammal is a rabbit. That's the logical argument that is used by logicians, not yours. You are claiming direct marketing companies are ALL MLMs, which is not provable. You need to provide evidence that they are equivalent. You also need to provide evidence why mentioning both is harmful to the page. You've done neither, and as I said, I'm more than happy to invite others into this discussion :) Otherwise, you have no reason to delete the reliable sources I have added to the page.Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have a leg to stand on. The FTC refers to it as an MLM, so do numerous journalists, so do former executives, so do recognized MLM experts; even the BBB.[13] You have no excuse for introducing this as a controversy in the lead, and especially not in such a lopsided manner (citing only 2 sources for MLM vs 8 for direct marketing). You don't even seem to understand that WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the text of the article. It's not the place for you to introduce your original observations about terminology. Again, the edit and your heavy-handed approach (failing to establish a consensus and wikihounding me from Protandim[14]) are indefensible. Are you aware that some sources also call the company a pyramid scheme? If we were to apply your logic and include every secondary term used to describe the company, we'd have to deal with "pyramid scheme", "pyramid selling", etc. The company is an MLM, and MLM is simply a subtype of direct marketing/direct selling. It's very simple. The term MLM is most appropriate. There is no reason to use a vaguer less descriptive term. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well that was less than civil of you, you don't own this page... Just happened to run into you on two of them, and I tend to help those being browbeaten by uncivil editors where possible :) I've simply added new sources constructively to the text, which you apparently have a significant problem with. The more you press your identical points, and I respond to yours without the same courtesy, the nearer we come to a real need to invite outside editors. If you want to call the company a pyramid scheme, go right ahead, just be sure to use sources instead of outrage as your rationale. Each line you write becomes more and more uncivil. I don't care how the company appears, this is simply a matter of protocol. Also, can you now tell me how MLM is more represented on the page than direct marketing, why you feel sources that refer to it that way are not valid if they are considered notable, and why you aren't doing your own due diligence by adding the sources you feel exist for supporting a definition as MLM? If you believe its original terminology, why separate Wikipedia pages for direct marketing and MLM? Glad you've stopped with misusing logical terminology though :) Can we not find a mutual agreement, or does this argument have to continue with myself wanting a compromise and you wanting your own way?Jeremy112233 (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also, check the edit history before making such accusations, you can clearly see I had edited this page previously before having to add citation-needed tags to the last article I saw you edit :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Jeremy, you are ignoring the point about MLM being a subset of direct marketing. There is no contradiction between these descriptors, as your edit implied -- so I have reverted your edit. If you feel the sources are somehow necessary, I wouldn't object to their being restored; on the other hand, those sources do not dispute the notion that the company does MLM. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
A comment left by an anon WP:SPA[15] was off-topic and was therefore redacted (30 minutes after it was posted) as per WP:TPG on Sept. 11.[16] The redact was mutually agreed on by two editors (one of which was me), and no one ever raised any objections; yet today (a week later) the redact was arbitrarily reverted. No argument was presented to justify the change or to indicate how the post can be construed as any thing other than a throwaway off-topic comment. Merely saying "I object" without a reason is not sufficient justification for reversion. The revert is tendentious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I have undone a recent blanket reversion that essentially deleted all the Sources stating that Melaleuca's marketing plan is not an MLM. Some editors say there is no difference between an MLM and a direct-marketing plan. Others say there is. The Sources don't really examine the question; they just use one term or the other without really prodding or poking at them. Jeremy has found some sources he wants to use here, and I can't see any reason to remove them in such a blanket way as has recently been done: With his additions the article at least seems more neutral than it did before. I hope you agree. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree. I've said it many times now: the sources Jeremy has produced do not say that Melaleuca's marketing plan is not MLM. The way we know this is true is that they do not discuss MLM at all. They use "direct marketing", true. But your effort to conclude that this amounts to a claim against the MLM assertion is pure WP:OR, as is your edit setting up a (false) opposition between DM and MLM. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Right, MLM is a type of direct marketing, so saying it's DM is in no way contradicting MLM. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- This "issue" has been raised and rejected how many times and in how many forums now...BLPN, RSN, etc...It's an MLM and the reversion is WP:TE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the opening claim in this thread was false: none of the sources stated "that Melaleuca's marketing plan is not an MLM". Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I moved it from the article text to an External link. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's no less inappropriate there as it was in the main text of the article. Did you not listen to Vandersloot's various allegations about third parties, as I pointed out in my previous edit summary? This source violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Rhode Island Red (talk)
I reverted the recent edit[17] that included the following quote at the end of the main paragraph on LGBT issues -- i.e "VanderSloot responded, 'Our company has thousands of gay customers, independent marketing executives, and employees. I believe they feel welcomed and valued. I believe that people deserve freedom, respect, and privacy in their own lives'."[18] One of the problems here is that the quote was added at the end of the paragraph on Zuckerman's Boy Scout articles, and it makes it appear as though this was a direct response to the outing issue, when in fact it wasn't. It's a very generic and uninformative comment, and according to the source text it was made in reference to gay rights in general -- i.e. the sentence is prefaced with "On Gay Rights...".[19]
So what we had there was a clear case of improper synthesis. An option would be to offset the comment as a seperate paragaraph and preface it with something that makes it clear what he's responding to; e.g., "On the issue of gay rights, Vandersloot has commented...(X, Y, Z)...", but using the quote above from Vandersloot wouldn't be a NPOV because it makes it seem as though VS's position on gay rights is something along the lines of "but some of my best friends are gay", which has no bearing on the issue of gay rights and makes him look callous to the issue. In other words, we don't want to take one passing quote and use that to summarize his position on the issue of gay rights. It would be quite a different story if we had a situation in which a reporter had asked Vandersloot to clarify his position on gay rights, and VS responded directly and articulated his position on gay rights. but that's not at all what we're dealing with here.
The only comment that VS made that was truly relevant to the issue of gay rights in general was "I believe that gay people should have the same freedoms and rights as any other individual", which seems like an oddly contradictory/insincere thing to say given his controversial stances on various LGBT issues and that he is a proposition 8 supporter. If were to include that quote at all, it would be best at the beginning of the LGBT section, and then it can followed up with the details about what others have reported about him with respect to LGBT issues. That would be fair and balanced. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. The quote didn't quite work where I put it. I noticed another editor moved to a higher paragraph, so I replaced the source and clarified his statement a little. VanderSloot does state in the cited news article that this is his position on gay rights. I'll add the rest of the quote that you feel is the most relevant to the paragraph.HtownCat (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- The problems I mentioned above still remain. In addition, the quote, which is from 2012, was subsequently sandwiched between his 1999 billboard campaign and his 2006 editorials about Zuckerman, so a new problem was created with respect to chronology. As I said before, Vandersloot's claim about supporting gay rights has been more or less contradicted by his own actions and he is regarded by various journalists and gay rights supporters (as evidenced by various WP:RS), as being decidedly anti-gay, so the only way to included this quote and maintain fair balance would be to use it to preface the section and then present the opposing side with proper weight; something along the lines on "Vandersloot has stated that 'gay people should have the same freedoms and rights as any other individual'; however..." and then present the opposing side along with the details of his comments and actions with respect to LGBT issues. I've moved the quote and amended it so that it includes only the portion that's relevant (i.e. excluding the useless "but some of my best friends are gay"-like comment. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand the concerns here, but this is different than their other trademarks because it describes how the company views itself. It wouldn't make sense to include "clarity Clear Skin Essentials" in this section, but it does make sense to tell people that this phrase, which sounds like it's a common phrase from a business dictionary, is actually a trademarked term. It's not an undue weight question as this is an encyclopedic explanation of the official position of the BLP subject. There's plenty of weight given to how the company is described by outside organizations and I've never questioned that. Andrewman327 (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Quite the contrary. The source describes nothing other than the fact that it is a trademarked a name. It does not speak to the significance of the name at all. In that sense it's no more significant than any of the other 100+ names the company has trademarked. It makes no more sense to include it in the article than it would to include "clarity skin essentials". It is clearly a case of WP:UNDUE and misuse of a primary source. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I am restoring the external link Bloggers Briefing from the Heritage Foundation because it just makes common sense to have accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of Frank VanderSloot and cannot be integrated into this article because of copyright issues and the amount of detail it offers.
The hour-long video of a meeting of the Heritage Foundation on May 29, 2012, is in two parts:
- A talk by Grover Norquist on, principally, the drive to have Republican candidates for office sign a no-tax pledge. He mentions the following living people in his speech: John Lawton, Paul Ryan, George Bush, Bob Dole, Pete Dumont, Gorman, Obama, Coburn, Simpson, Sandovan, Warner, King, Harry Reed, Boehner, Frank Wolf, Romney. The only person he said anything negative about was President Obama, because of his tax policies.
- A talk by Frank VanderSloot on his upbringing, childhood, college, marriages, raising children and faith in the free-enterprise system, as well as his reaction to President Obama's "enemies list" ("living hell for two weeks") and other criticism of him ("I have never said a mean thing to a gay person in my life"). He mentions the following living people in his speech: Obama, Kim Stossell, Michael Wolf. Glenn Simpson, Neal Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Tom Donahue. The only people he said anything negative about were President Obama, because of the "enemies' list," which VanderSloot called "scary," and Glenn Simpson, who he said "digs up sludge on companies." (It's at 50:00 minutes into the speech if you want to hear it.) He suggested that his listeners search for Glenn Simpson, Berkeley and the Wall Street Journal to find out more about him.
The video offers a rounded portrait of Frank VanderSloot in his own voice and gestures which cannot be replicated by words alone in our encyclopedia article. In addition, he is able to explain his position on his political stands in a way that matches the video by Rachel Maddow already included on this page.
Wikipedia: External links WP:EL
This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.
What can normally be linked WP:ELYES
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
In biographies of living people WP:ELBLP
In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP.
Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, the video is a good resource for information about VanderSloot, as long as it is put in context. Andrewman327 (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the source is appropriate in External Links. Fits the description of helpful to reader/directly relevant to article.HtownCat (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Expanding on my earlier post, the video should definitely remain. BLP issues do not apply if we are accurately reporting on an opinion that the subject of an article said. That standard would lead to major cuts from Wikipedia. We'd never be able to write about controversial people without fear. Of course we need to make sure that everything we write about it accurately reflects what the subject has verifiably said, but I don't see any problems with including the link. Andrewman327 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agree: Unless there is a series of difference of opinions on this to the point that the current consensus is broken, the link should probably be put back up.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
George, I don’t understand how you are able to quote WP policies that clearly argue against linking to this video, and yet paradoxically continue to argue for its inclusion and edit war about it.
- WP:EL: “External links… should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.”
The video is not directly relevant (see below).
- WP:ELYES: “Sites that contain neutral and accurate material”
The material in the video is neither neutral nor accurate.
- WP:ELBLP: “In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP.”
The source is highly questionable and of dubious value; no caution is being shown by including it; it contains derogatory comments about third-parties; it is not a high quality/higher standard source; and it is clearly non-compliant with the GLs and WP:BLP.
These WP policy/guideline statements are unambiguous enough that I shouldn't have had to waste more time offering further explanations for why the video was deleted.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative political think tank, is a highly partisan source. As for the video from HF that was linked, there is (a) no transcript (b) no evidence of editorial oversight, and (c) no reputation for factual accuracy or fact-checking as described in WP:RS. This is in contrast with journalistic sources of autobiographical information which do meet the requirements for WP:RS. On that basis alone, the video is a poor source by WP standards. However, beyond those simple reasons, there are other far more serious and overarching issues with the video that I’ve pointed out several times already (e.g.., it contains personal allegations/slurs against third parties and thus violates WP:BLP). Why this still seems to elude some of the editors who have defended this video as a source makes me wonder whether they even bothered to watch it. It’s indefensible and I’m vexed that I had to waste my time listening to and transcribing the video and then writing a long drawn out response to fight a case that should never have been contested. This sort of war of attrition places an undue and unfair burden on NPOV editors and it's not something that can be tolerated indefinitely. If it continues, I'll have no choice but to take this to the admins as a serious user conduct issue and request selective blocks and/or page protection.
More than half of the video consists of a lengthy lecture on the tax pledge by Grover Norquist, which is entirely unrelated to Vandersloot. The 1-hour video includes less than 10 minutes about VanderSloot’s background and all of the most important details are already included in the WP article and attributed to reliable independent secondary sources. If gleaning biographical information is the true goal of the editors that have weighed in on this video here, then there are other better sources for biographical information on VS that don’t require the reader to visit a partisan site like the Heritage Foundation to sift through an hour-long partisan video filled with allegations about third-parties and an unrelated tax lecture from Norquist.
The video makes various non-NPOV and factually challeneged allegations against the President, Mother Jones, Salon, Michael Wolf, and Glen Simpson; e.g., the following:
- 32:50 – (Moderator) “Frank is somebody who probably wouldn’t be here today if it weren’t for our President, who back on April 20 through a campaign website, named him along with 7 other individuals as part of an enemies list; the first Presidential enemies list we’ve seen since the Nixon era...He’s going to tell us about…the resulting impact of this inclusion on the President’s enemy list.”
- The list names 8 of the top billionaire Republican donors who were making million dollar plus contributions to Romney’s PAC. The list,[20] which arguably serves the public interest by providing transparency about who is funding election campaigns, was generated by the campaign team, not the President personally, as was stated or implied throughout the HF video; and it was not titled anything remotely resembling “The President’s Enemy List”).
- 45:30 -- (Vandersloot) “Some bloggers and Mother Jones and Salon picked up the story and started tagging me with all sorts of evil deeds – I hate gay people, I’ve had run-ins with the law”.
- An unsubstantiated allegation against both parties. Neither Salon[21] nor Mother Jones[22][23] ever said that Vandersloot hates gay people.
- 46:04 – “But when the President came out and put us on the list of 8 bad guys.”
- The President didn’t put anybody on a list -- the list of million-dollar-plus Republican campaign financiers was generated by the campaign team and was not a list of “bad guys” as alleged.
- 46:36 – “For some reason they said I hate gay people.”
- 48:40 – “We had people sniffing around the Idaho Falls courthouse…If you’re going to hound the courthouse…getting information on Frank Vandersloot, they know what you’re doing and they don’t like it.”
- A scandalous contention that a perfectly legal and constitutional FOIA request about Vandersloot would draw the ire of courthouse officials.
- 49:17 – “The guys name was Michael Wolf; on his website he said he worked for a subcommittee of Homeland Security -- that scared us because they can tap phone lines and read emails and all that”
- Allegations about Wolf suggesting that a simple FOIA request would be followed up by phone tapping and email surveillance.
- 49:42 -- “A guy by the name of Glen Simpson…he has a business where he digs up sludge on companies and publishes it; that’s his 2 part deal – so you can pay him…he says you don’t necessarily have to have pure motives; you can hire him; you want to put someone out of business, you hire him, he’ll dig up sludge, he’ll get it published and hopefully put your competitors out of business. Somebody’s hired him to do that. We know that. And now some interesting things on Michael Wolf – he may or may not work for Homeland Security…that’s an interesting connection there.”
- This goes well over the line – a clear mudslinging attack on Simpson; and more allegations about Wolf.
- 50:50 – “This is the first time that President of the United States has yielded to the temptation to make an enemies list and put it out for the public to see…this is the first time a President actually made a list and put people’s names on it.”
- Unsubstantiated for reasons stated above.
- 51:55 – “People are calling in and asking ‘who are you guys, what are you selling? We want to buy some whatever it is, whatever the heck it is you’re selling, we wanna buy some’. The conservative talk show hosts all over this country have said whoever Melaleuca is look ‘em up go on the Internet, buy their products.”
The core of WP:BLP says "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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." I hope this is now 100% crystal clear. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I very much disagree with what Rhode Island Red has said, and feel that much of what he has said is biased. The Heritage Foundation is as partisan as the Mother Jones news source, and Rhode Island Red wants that source kept. This video shows the page subject describing their life, which is relevant to their page. There's a consensus here that Rhode Island Red has the wrong policy when it comes to this video, and I find his manipulation of Wikipedia policy to fit his own agenda in this debate to be questionable. The source is not dubious or questionable, because the source is the person talking about himself. The source is directly related to the article because it is the source talking about himself. And, finally, someone talking about themselves should be considered accurate, I would think. There is a consensus here. To threaten people with the spectre of being blocked is absurd, how many times one must request that his behaviour become civil :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mother Jones is a widely respected multiple-award winning source of investigative journalism. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative thinktank and political lobbying organization. It should be easy for anyone to discern the fundamental difference between the two sources, and more importantly, to recognize that the slurs against third-parties contained in said video clearly violate WP:BLP. Lastly, quoting the core part of WP:BLP, which explains in no uncertain terms exactly why the video should have been immediately deleted and also happens to address the consequences of ignoring the rules, does not constitute a threat nor is it incivil -- it's simply a gentle reminder about the realities of WP. Don't know why that's so hard for some people to comprehend it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a Source: It is a conduit. (Don't blame the messenger.) Grover Norquist is the source for anything HE said, and Frank VanderSloot is a source for anything HE said. Both are giving their opinions about Public Figures: The two speakers are not claiming any criminality on the part of these Public Figures, but they are exercising their First Amendment rights. P.S. If THIS external link is disallowed, how many other similar video links must be removed from Wikipedia? Hundreds? Thank you for your attention. I am sure we all just want to improve this article. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to completely misunderstand how Wikipedia operates. While you have first amendment rights to say pretty much anything in the US outside of WP, those same rights do not apply within the realm of WP. There is a very rigid set of operating rules for what can and cannot be said. I shouldn't have to remind you of that.
- Furthermore, the video is of a Heritage Foundation meeting -- it shows the Hertitage Foundation's name and logo on the screen behind the podium AND you even added the note to the link saying "VanderSloot speaking at a meeting of the Heritage Foundation", so I don't see how you can even try to argue that the Heritage Foundation is not the source. And regardless, the video still contains blatant slurs about third-parties that violate the core of WP:BLP. You are simply refusing to get the point and being disruptive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
"Please do not circumvent talk page. If you have an issue with this being here, address the consensus there." What consensus? I see no consensus here, never mind one that supports adding the link to the video! As there is no consensus the article remains as it was before the contentious addition of the link in question. You will need to obtain a consensus to ADD the link! NOT to remove it! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the new Politics top-level heading and the Endorsement subsection were created by GeorgeLouis [24] in response to the objection I raised previously in my edit summary[25] about inclusion of VS's 2006 endorsement of a Democratic candidate (Twilegar) under the Political Campaign Contributions header; i.e., because it did not constitute a campaign contribution. However, this new version, which lists only one endorsement in the Endorsement section, simply doesn't work because it creates the false impression that the only candidate VS ever endorsed was a Democrat, which is patently untrue (in fact, VS has a long history of endorsing and financing almost exclusively Republican candidates) and this has been well recognized in the news media -- thus the new edit creates a glaring WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV problem. If the Endorsement section were to stay, we would have to list every single Republican candidate that he's ever endorsed, and in that case, it would pretty much be repeating the Campaign Contributions section, which wouldn't make sense. I've gone back to the old headings and moved the text about Twilegar into the beginning of the Contributions section, where it is put in proper context and no longer causes such a massive POV skew.[26] Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Very sorry, but there seems to be some confusion. There was a note left at the Edit Summary when this diff was made, stating " 'However' is supposed to be there for context. It's part of the compromise and reflects what the quoted source stated in connection with EchoHawke donation." I am not sure what "compromise" the editor was talking about. Can you enlighten me? In the meantime, I have put back the other changes I made to this particular section. If they are unacceptable, I hope that this unacceptability will be explained here. Thank you so much ! GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you're still confused. The sources (Popkey, Trillhase et al.) that are cited noted that the two instances of VS's support of Democratic candidates were exceptions to the rule and that VS has “otherwise favored Republicans” and is “the state’s most boisterous conservative financier”. So when citing these sources to indicate that VS has twice supported Democrats since 1994, then the original context and POV of the sources must be maintained. This has now been addressed with direct attribution, proper context, and direct quotes.[27] Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, OK, but what "compromise"? Was there an editors' compromise at some point? (Also note that I never blanked anything in that section. It only looked so because I put in a paragraph break before the word "However," which resulted in an enormous white space, but I see now that the word has been changed to but, with a comma in front of it.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- False, you blanked a large swathe of the article -- both the LGBT section and the Defamation lawsuit section.[28] Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
OMG! So I did! I didn't realize that! I did not notice what I had inadvertently done. (Much abashed.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The recent addition[29] of generic praise for Melaleuca creates a glaring WP:UNDUE issue, since, as I am sure you are well aware, many reliable sources have been highly critical of Melaleuca's business practices. Curiously, not one of these sources is quoted in the article. The generic praise doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic or noteworthy (has anyone ever quoted these sources in any other NPOV publications about Vandersloot?) nor are the generic quotes even remotely informative -- e.g. "“highly-productive, performance-driven organization"..."employees are taught to take the high road on everything, especially the seemingly trivial." This doesn't give me the impression that the material was added with NPOV in mind, but rather that gratuitous quotes were thrown in to burnish VanderSloot's image. If such quotes are to be included, then the counterbalancing POV needs to be included as well, and I have no doubt that that the sum total of those comments would not be flattering. So there are a couple of ways we can proceed going forward. (1) Delete the gratuitous quotes; or (2) keep them, in which case counterbalancing comments will be added. If the latter option is chosen, then it might make sense to move the praise and critiques into a new section that deals exclusively with outside comments about Melaluca's business practices. Make a choice and then let's more forward. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
A comment was added[30] from VanderSloot in response to the Zuckerman outing scandal. The original version of the WP article referred to the fact that VanderSloot denied that he outed Zuckerman, but the newly added text with details of his denial was added at the end of the section, inappropriately giving VanderSloot the final word. This is inappropriate for several reasons, including the fact that his denial came in Feb 2012, whereas the other sources that were cited in the article, to which it was made to appear that VS was responding to, in fact came later in 2012, so it's misleading because it misrepresents the chronology. The other problem was that the added text was redundant; i.e., his denial was already mentioned in the preceding sentence. For now, I have revised the text so that it is chronologically accurate and in proper context with respect to the other sources that commented on the issue, and I removed the redundant portion.[31]
The outstanding problem is that VS's denial doesn't jibe with what other reporters have said about the incident. There are several reliable sources, including Maddow, who pointed out that VS's denials were not consistent with the facts at hand. So again we have a WP:UNDUE issue. The choice as I see it is either to go back to the original version, referring only to the fact that VS denied that he outed Zuckerman, or include the details of his denial i.e., "Zuckerman had published his sexual orientation on a public website, that a local radio show and the community had been discussing the fact, and that he attempted to defend Zuckerman's motives" and then include detailed commentaries that picked apart his denial and painted it as insincere and inaccurate. Which shall it be? Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm only going to say this once before re-editing this page. The only person with UNDUE issues is yourself, and it's just about time to take you to administration. Keep disallowing adequate sourcing and get BLOCKed... again. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Don't threaten, address the issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to remind all editors that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style." It is true that "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style," but the editing on this particular article has actually resulted in a multiplicity of citation styles, most of them good but some quite erroneous. There seems to be actually no "established citation style" in this article. At some point, there may be discussion on the Talk Page about which style to adopt, but it seems to me that there are more important matters to talk about first. Of course, what I am saying here is only a guideline, and not a policy. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some ambiguity about the details of VanderSloot’s early life and career. The current version of the article says “He paid his own way through school, ‘selling beef jerky in bars and teaching Dutch to future missionaries. He lived in a laundromat, which didn't have a shower, so Vandersloot took sponge baths’.” It’s a pretty poor summary (and the part about sponge baths is trivial and should be removed). Coverage of VS’s early years is scant in general, and much of what’s out there seems sketchy, but I did find one source (albeit a really bad Melaleuca promotional puff piece) that says that VS paid his way through college by selling butter from the cows his father gave him and that he worked at a laundromat, and that this is how he paid his college tuition and expenses.[32]
Also, there is a huge gap in coverage of VanderSloot’s life from his college graduation (1972) up to the start of Oil of Melaleuca (1985). The article currently says that he was a VP at ADP for 9½ years, but I don’t see that mentioned in any of the sources, so if someone can quote the original paragraph it would be appreciated. It doesn’t seem accurate, since new BA graduates don’t typically get hired as VPs straight out of college. Also, as far as I can gather, VS’s jobs at ADP and Cox were in Washington State. Can anyone confirm this? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- (1) The summary mentioned in the first paragraph came from http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/10/12/1835874/ruthlessly-protecting-the-franchise.html. (2) In one of the recent edits, his experience after college was noted as "management," without specifying the exact titles. I believe that word has just a while ago been deleted in favor of using his later titles. It would be OK to go back to "management," because that would cover his jobs both fresh out of college and at the end. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- This article: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=IDRB&d_place=IDRB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=112385415BEB7600&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM (currently source #20) says "management jobs" at ADP for 9 1/2 years. Paragraph says, "Before his turbulent first days at Oil of Melaleuca, VanderSloot had worked in management jobs for 9 1/2 years at Automatic Data Processing in three cities, then as an executive for three years at Cox Communications in Vancouver, Wash." Forbes calls him regional vice president of Cox in the seventh paragraph down of this source: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1011/089.html "Before VanderSloot bought into the company, it subsisted on a handful of products tied to the melaleuca, or "tea tree" of Australia. Discovered in New South Wales in 1922, the melaleuca sprouts leaves that supposedly have antiseptic and analgesic properties. Colleagues at Cox Communications, where VanderSloot was a regional vice president, were so skeptical of his move that as a parting gesture they set up a tree and strung tea bags from it." HtownCat (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Edit_summary#Use_of_edit_summaries_in_disputes, some of the comments in many of the Edit Summaries seem to be contradicting Wikipedia:Civility; in a word, flaming. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Stowell is a living persopn. Claims made in this article about him require strong sourcing per WP:BLP, and the articles which are referred to as being by Zuckerman do not meet that requirement in this article. And again -- we need reliable sources as to "fact" and not opinion pieces by anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- This comment makes no sense at all. What do you mean by the "articles which are referred to as being by Zuckerman"? You seem to be expressing doubt as to whether he actually wrote them. Secondly, which "claim" about Stowell do you feel is not adequately supported by citations, and be specific please. Lastly, by what stretch of the imagination do you think it's reasonable to dismiss an award winning series of investigative journalism articles (i.e, Zuckerman's articles) as "opinion". Are you not aware that Zuckerman's investigative expose on the Boy scout molestations received the Scripps Howard Foundation Award for Distinguished Service to the First Amendment[33] and the Livingston Award,[34] and that Stowell was convicted and sentenced already? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Stowell is a living person. All claims about him must abide by WP:BLP whether you like it or not. The inclusion of claims which are not strongly sourced is a violation of policy'. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- No one is arguing otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Which means that since Stowell's name is not relevant to this BLP, and the claims about him which are given inferentially are not supported here by strong sources, that his particular name should be removed per WP:BLP even if he were Satan incarnate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Faulty premise. Stowell is relevant to this BLP. Vandersloot made it so by by running his editorial. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- If he is relevant, then the claims about him must be supported here by reliable sources. Your pick. Right now the "source" is the article by Zuckerman, which is insufficient to make the claim made in this article as worded In 2006, VanderSloot issued a critical statement[25] regarding an award-winning series of investigative articles[26] in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by Brad Stowell while serving as a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council. The Zuckerman source is valid for the claim that Zuckerman wrote the articles, but not for the internally catenated claim about the evil Stowell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I can't discern what your issue is. Zuckerman's articles were about Stowell; Vandersloot's editorial was about Zuckerman and Stowell. Stowell was tried and convicted for molestation -- the fact is incontestable. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the name of this person from the article because there may be more than one individual with the same name. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a plausible/convincing reason for removing a name. Very few English names would be unique, and acting on this basis would mean almost never using names. Oh, and you're now at 3RR on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Seems implausible and unconvincing. The text in the article reports exactly what was covered by the sources. Removal was contentious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
On a national basis - Evan Bayh and Barack Obama each have received contributions from vanderSloot per Newsmeat. Individual Idahao records are not searchable online by contributor, but I think Bayh and Obama are, indeed, Democrats. YMMV. Collect (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- The funding databases show that VS's contributions have in fact been overwhelmingly in support of Republican candidates; of that there is no question, and VS has been characterized as a major donor to Republicans by many numerous secondary sources. Attempting to skew the article to obscure this fact through the use of primary sources and WP:SYNTH is clearly inappropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. It is imptoper to make a blatantly unsupported and unsupportable claim. Cheers. Collect (talk)
Just a note to remind everybody that Edit Summaries should be used to, well, summarize the edits and not to engage in back-and-forth chit-chat, nor weird sniping. We reserve all that for these oh-so-polite Talk Pages.
Edit summary dos and don'ts
[35]
Remember you can't go back and change them!
Do
- Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess it quickly
- Use neutral language
- Be calm
Don't
- Make snide comments
- Make personal remarks about editors
- Be aggressive
GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
With a great deal of trouble, I have succeeded in restoring the proper links to the newspaper article written by Marisa Bodnar after it was reverted twice by the same editor. The article, which includes a lengthy statement by Frank Vandersloot, is on two screens, and if you only link to the first one, you don't get the citation that should lead to the second one. If I am wrong about all this, just comment here. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Must have taken a whole minute. I've never seen a precedent for using two links to the same article in this way. I always felt that the "next page" button was pretty much self-explanatory. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, I assure you that it took a great deal of time to go back to the way I had it originally, what with all the changes that were made on the page, finding the links, checking to see if the links were actually properly applied (one of them wasn't the first time I edited it). Not only did I have to go through all this fooferaw the original time, but thanks to the revert, I had to spend almost as much time again. Very annoying. It takes much longer to undo damage than simply to press an "Undo" button. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I heard you the first time you explained about how long it took you to paste the 2 links, but that's not an editorial issue. As I said, why in this case are you assuming that people are incapable of hitting the "next page" button on the article. Two separate links aren't needed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hunting for two very similar links in a morass of Wiki code in a Version that was Reverted quite some time ago was, I assure you, a difficult chore for a Bear of Very Little Brain, like me. Also, a Bear of Very Little Brain, like me, yes, was indeed incapable of figuring out that he (the Bear) would have to click to go to the next page to find the quotation cited, when he (the Bear) had been led to a particular page by a faulty footnote. Regrettable, but true. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Listing of perps and victims not directly relevant to a BLP is a WP:BLP violation. See the WP:BLP/N discussions thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've already replied on BLPN explaining why your charge is without merit.[36][37] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Collect; so long as a person or entity has not been established as notable, a persistence in reinserting their names into Wikipedia articles raises questions about neutrality and motive. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- What it is is an editorial dispute. Questioning motives is unwarranted -- WP:AGF. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd never looked at this until today, and am impressed by the sheer length of the above discussions. WP:AGF is a wonderful precept. Repeated restoration of controversial content without consensus is an unusual path for resolving editorial disputes. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Proposal
Currently, the article states:
In 2006, VanderSloot issued critical statements[75][76] regarding an award-winning series of investigative articles[77][78] in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council. Reporter Peter Zuckerman wrote that the Mormon Church and Idaho Boy Scout officials had received prior reports of some of the incidents at the Council's Camp Little Lemhi and that the director was a pedophile, but had failed to take appropriate action. Zuckerman also reported on the 1983 rape of a junior counselor by an Idaho Scout camp swimming instructor, and the case of a Scoutmaster counselor at Camp Little Lemhi who was convicted of lewd conduct for molesting a Scout.[79]
I propose we eliminate everything but the first sentence so it would read:
In 2006, VanderSloot issued critical statements[75][76] regarding an award-winning series of investigative articles[77][78] in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council.
That's all that's necessary for the VanderSloot article. The rest of it is undue with only marginal relevance, if any, to this article. And that, to me, is the easy part. The rest of the section is way too much, with the back-and-forth between VanderSloot and Zuckerman, not to mention the Post Register itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, on general principle. Most of the time when 'controversy' sections expand to include an abundance of detail it's unwarranted, in that the content is less about encyclopedic value than a sort of news/tabloid fascination, a bit prurient at that. The tendency to include play-by-play legal proceedings, even when sourced, is not the encyclopedia's proudest tendency. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - and similar contraction of the extensive BLP problem involved in listing a long roster of people who got contributions from vdS etc. as well. In fact - pruning the article to simple salient facts and not an extensive campaign article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can live with Bbb23's proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate the effort but the proposed text is off the mark in several respects. The series wasn't just about one incident involving the director. There were 4 individuals named. Secondly, I see no reason to remove the name of the camp (camp LittleLemhi) where the incidents took place. Lastly, the detail about the Scouts and the church not taking appropriate action was a central theme of Zuckerman's reporting and it was one of the themes that VanderSloot focused on when he issued his attack on Zuckerman. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- But the section is about VS's public actions re LGBT -- and I think we don't really need a great deal of detail to set up what VS did in relation to Zuckerman. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I totally agree in principle with the general idea about brevity of the setup, and I do appreciate where Bbb was going with his proposed edit; it seemed pretty reasonable and not too far off the mark. But an important part of the setup is the fact that the series focused not only on the acts of molestation themselves but were also critical of the church and the Scouts for failing to take appropriate action. It's an important detail because it was the very basis of VSs attack ads (which argued strenuously that Zuckerman's statements about the church/Scouts were unwarranted) and a central feature discussed in many of the counter-replies cited in the article.
- So far, the section only devotes 2 lines/sentences to the setup of what Zuckerman's articles were about. We could perhaps whittle that down a little, but I'm not sure there's a pressing need to do so. If the information is relevant, informative, and properly-weighted and it doesn't overtly pad the article, what's the impetus for chipping off a few words, especially when they omit/alter key details? I suppose we could move and re-contextualize the detail about the church/Scouts role by describing that it was one of VanderSloot's points of criticism, rather than describing it in the setup about Zuckerman's articles, but again, would that solve a problem or make the article better? That's not a rhetorical question BTW. Maybe it would, maybe not.
- Regarding the number of incidents of molestation, it's important to indicate that it was 4 incidents not 1, and we could probably come up with a shortened version of that particular text that would still accurately refer to the 4 incidents, but again, I'm left wondering what the compelling reason is for doing so and would that really make it a better article? I respect your opinion, so let's keep up this nice civil scholarly discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping to address just the narrow issue of that one paragraph first without getting into the broader issue of the entire section, but that may not be possible, although I think we have a consensus for my proposal as it stands. As I understand our article (without reading the sources), Zuckerman reported on multiple incidents in a series of articles, and VanderSloot criticized the articles. The fact that there was one incident reported on by Zuckerman or four incidents is relatively unimportant to VanderSloot's involvement. The idea is that VanderSloot criticized articles related to sexual incidents at the Boy Scouts. So, I now have a broader proposal. The paragraph starting with "In 2006" would be:
In 2006, VanderSloot issued critical statements[75][76] regarding a series of investigative articles[77][78] in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation at Boy Scout camps.
- (I intentionally removed "award-winning" as non-neutral. We do too much to aggrandize Zuckerman in this section.) The rest of that paragraph would be eliminated (as in my earlier proposal).
- The rest of the section would continue as is through the paragraph that ends with "close friends and colleagues". The rest of the section after that would be completely eliminated.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looks okay to me -- except that I think we need some reference (added to your blockquote proposal immediately above) to the Grand Teton Council (this would help the reader understand why VS was exercised by Zuckerman's articles). I do agree that some of the later paragraphs here are unnecessarily detailed; sometimes less is more, thinking of the take-away message in this section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I also like Bbb23's proposal and am glad to see editors working together to improve the neutrality and focus of this section of the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Good proposal. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree as well, though I suggest the text of any ads should be reduced to a bare minimum, perhaps down to:
- VanderSloot placed ads in the Post Register challenging the articles, and indicating the sexual oritentation of their author could have affected the articles.[8][63][68][70]
- VanderSloot was accused of outing the author.[11][63][12][68][42][81][72][82] In 2012, VanderSloot denied the charge, saying the author's sexual orientation was previously posted on a public website. Post Register editor Dean Miller wrote later that the sexual orientation had been known only by a few of the author's close friends and colleagues.
- Leaving only VanderSloot's name here, and not contributing to "outing" anyone at all. Collect (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't object to removing "award winning" from the intro line, since the awards are mentioned further on in the paragraph (which is a critical point, since VS argued that the reports were shoddy biased journalism and factually inaccurate). And I agree with Nomo that the Teton Council should be mentioned; I'd argue the same for the name of the camp too; in general the proposed text seems a bit too vague and generalized -- i.e. it wasn't just "boy scout camps", it was a specific set of camps in Idaho affiliated with the Grand Teton Council/LDS church.
- Two further points -- (1) I still haven't seen anyone make a compelling case as to why Stowell's name should be deleted; that was the crux of what we were debating and no one presented a valid policy argument for removing it. (2) I do not agree with removal of the text after the sentence that ends with "friends and colleagues". That text hasn't even been discussed yet. It makes no sense to me to eliminate the points of contention that VanderSloot raised about the articles, or the counter-replies that his criticism generated. That seems to be a central part of the story. It wasn't just that VanderSloot outed the reporter; he argued strenuously that the articles were biased and innacurate, but his charge was pretty much universally denounced. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- But the section isn't about criticisms, replies, and counter-replies -- the section is about VS's public actions/statements regarding LGBT. The details about replies and counter-replies aren't necessary for conveying what is important about his public actions/statements regarding LGBT; in fact, I think the details are getting in the way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK I'm listening. I didn't mean criticism per se. My view of this part of the article is that it should provide an overview and a few key details about the articles that Vandersloot was attacking; what Vandersloot's stance was (i.e., that the article was inaccurate and biased, and that the reporter's orientation led him to be biased) and what the outside views/consequences were (i.e., regarding the outing and that Vandersloot's charges of bias and inaccuracy were essentially baseless). I also think it's important to include that Zuckerman's investigative reports earned 3 significant awards for journalistic excellence. I think we would be doing the article justice as long as those key details are addressed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Concerning this section:
VanderSloot took out full-page ads in the Post Register that challenged the stories and devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Zuckerman was gay.[8][75][68][63] One of VanderSloot's advertisements asserted that "the Boy Scout’s position of not letting gay men be scout leaders, and the LDS Church’s position that marriage should be between a man and a woman may have caused [Zuckerman] to attack the scouts and the LDS Church through his journalism."[70]
First, the current citation does not include that quote from VanderSloot: http://www.advocate.com/politics/2012/03/10/hrc-romney-ditch-antilgbt-finance-chair
Second, we need to include the full quote from VanderSloot, as seen in the actual advertisement in the second paragraph under the header "The Reporter: The Post Register's Peter Zuckerman." (Source: http://media.salon.com/media/pdf/2005_0605_ResponsibleJournalism.pdf) That quote reads, "Much has been said on a local radio station and throughout the community, speculating that the Boy Scout’s position of not letting gay men be Scout Leaders, and the LDS Church’s position that marriage should be between a man and a woman may have caused Zuckerman to attack the scouts and the LDS Church through his journalism. We think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman’s motives."
The way the quote currently appears in the article makes it appear that VanderSloot himself is suggesting that Zuckerman is attacking the scouts and the LDS instead of responding to the radio station's speculations. HtownCat (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest that HtownCat make the desired changes to let the other editors know exactly what he or she has in mind. See wp:BRD. Perhaps HtownCat's changes would not be Reverted but would be acceptable to everybody. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's possible that some changes are indeed required in that passage. I'm not sure that the solution is to include the quote that HtownCat proposes -- I think it would result in a rather confusing presentation. Of possible interest is some of the material appearing at this page (e.g. "According to the Nexis transcript, during the segment VanderSloot asserted that the documentary was using taxpayer money to bring "the homosexual lifestyle into the classroom and introduce it to our children as being normal, right, acceptable, and good an appropriate."). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- The full quote should not be included; the portions that are in the article are those that are directly relevant to the controversy that is described -- i.e., (a) VS revealed that Zuckerman is gay and (b) VS indicated that Zuckerman being gay caused the author to be biased against the Scouts and that this bias was pervasive in the article. Those were the statements that generated problems for Vandelsoot and were covered by the media, and they are addressed appropriately in the WP article. The WP article already says that VS denied that he outed Zuckerman (a charge that was refuted by Zuckerman himself as well as the editor of the Post-Register). After revealing that Zuckerman is gay, and saying that the author's orientation caused him to write a biased article; VS merely tacks on the gratuitous comment “we think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman’s motives." This is ridiculously hypocritical, and this particular act of hypocrisy was pointed out by several press sources. So if you want to include that part of the quote, then we’ll also have to include all the press commentary that pointed out how hypocritical it was of VS to say this. While we’re at it, we can also include some of the more extreme criticism that referred to VS as an anti-gay zealot. So far I’ve avoided doing so because the current version is nicely balanced and neutral, but if you want to start injecting VS’s lame denials, then that would require inclusion of the press’s reaction to those denials, not to mention the devastating consequences of being outed, which Zuckerman described to the media.
- There seems to be a pattern with VS acting like somewhat of a bully and then playing the victim card and not accepting responsibility for his statements (and some WP editors here seem to be trying to weave this victimhood mentality into the article). For example, multiple sources have analyzed the company and concluded that it is an MLM (it is quite obviously); and yet VS wants the historical record to read that his company isn’t an MLM. Vandersloot pours millions of dollars virtually exclusively into the coffers of conservative Republicans, and yet he wants to be viewed as non-partisan. Among his other assets, VS owns half of a company that’s worth several billion dollars, and yet he takes umbrage to the fact that the media has called him a billionaire. He and his wife fight to overturn gay marriage rights in California, and he takes controversial stands on various gay issues (e.g., he called the PBS documentary “child abuse” as I recall), and yet he wants to be referred to as a supporter of gay rights. He outs a gay reporter and, on the basis of the author’s orientation, VS slurs his award winning journalism on the Boy Scout scandal, and yet VS wants the record to say that he didn’t out anyone nor suggest that Zuckerman's being gay influenced his reporting. He jumps into the political arena as Romney’s campaign finance director (and puts $1.1 million of his own money behind the candidate), and then he takes offense to the fact that, in the interest of transparency, he was listed as one of the key financiers behind Romney’s campaign, and he then falsely tries to portray himself as a mere “private citizen” who is being unfairly attacked. His reality distortion field would make Steve Jobs envious.
- So in summary, if you want to start including more of VS’s disingenuous denials in the article, I might be OK with that as long as we also include all the relevant press sources that indicated that his denials were hollow lip service and indefensible.
- Here is an excerpt from one of VS's screeds against Zuckerman. It leaves little room for doubt as to where he stood on the Zuckerman issue or that he brought in the issue of the author's orientation as a basis for attacking his journalistic integrity.
- Biased Reporter
- "One strange aspect of the original story, last year, was that the Post Register had assigned a gay-rights advocate, Peter Zuckerman, to be the 'investigative reporter' on the story. There is nothing wrong with having homosexual reporters, but since the Boy Scouts’ policy of not allowing homosexual men to be scout leaders has produced so much anger against the scouts from the homosexual community, it seems that if the Post Register had wanted a fair and balanced story on the Boy Scouts, they would have assigned a reporter who did not have a personal ax to grind."
- This blatantly offensive attack stands in stark contrast with his disingenuous denial:
- "Much has been said on a local radio station and throughout the community, speculating that the Boy Scout’s position of not letting gay men be Scout Leaders, and the LDS Church’s position that marriage should be between a man and a woman may have caused Zuckerman to attack the scouts and the LDS Church through his journalism. We think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman’s motives."
- Unfair, absolutely. But it's exactly what VS did. This is a perfect example of attack, deny, play the victim. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- No matter what your opinion of VanderSloot's actions, we still can't misquote him. The current article is not representing both sides of the issue and including his full quote will help provide balance. Whether you “see a pattern” in VanderSloot’s actions or not, let’s just add information to this article that comes directly from sources and leave it at that. Wikipedia is not a battleground for personal politics. WP:Battleground HtownCat (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with personal politics or personal opinion. It's a candid summary of the details presented by various WP:RS on the subject. I'm not saying that the full quote can't be included; just pointing out that the context and chronology needs to be accurate and that the commentary from sources who pointed out the contradictions between VS's comments needs to be included. Simple enough. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Remember that this isn't an article about the controversy, it's an article about VanderSloot. It's important to capture him accurately and avoid editorializing or trying to advocate a specific point of view. Andrewman327 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. Once again, I am proposing to add the complete quote to the fourth paragraph in the LGBT section so that it reads like this: VanderSloot took out full-page advertisements in the Post Register in which he challenged aspects of Zuckerman's stories and devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Zuckerman was gay.[8][71][76][78] One of the advertisements stated that "Much has been said on a local radio station and throughout the community, speculating that the Boy Scout’s position of not letting gay men be Scout Leaders, and the LDS Church’s position that marriage should be between a man and a woman may have caused [the reporter] [sic] to attack the scouts and the LDS Church through his journalism. We think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind [the reporter's] motives." Then I would cite the ad that ran in the Post Register, which we already use in this article: http://media.salon.com/media/pdf/2005_0605_ResponsibleJournalism.pdf.
- Including the full quote still supports the sentence stating that VS took out ads and "devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Zuckerman was gay." Shortening the quote skews the meaning. I was reverted last time I added the quote so I'd like to check for consensus before posting again. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty clear that there isn't consensus for an edit along those lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
|
