Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Content tag refers to 'multi-level marketing'

[Header name changed after conversation started Andrew³²⁷ 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)]

I have no objection to removal of the {{content}} tag as long as MLM is appropriately mentioned (i.e., the first sentence of the section about the company). However, if someone (e.g., Collect or GeorgeLouis) wants to retain the tag for the reverse reason (that MLM is mentioned), I shouldn't remove it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with having a generic tag, but I've tried adding tags in the past to this article only to be reverted. My only objection would be if there were a controversial statement embedded in the tag. Andrew³²⁷ 17:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the purpose of that particular tag, which I had never seen before:

This tag should be used when it is believed that particular information being deleted from an article is relevant and therefore should be allowed in the article. Importantly, the tag lets the reader know he may not be getting the full story due to the exclusion of that piece of information. On the article's Discussion page, note the information you believe should cease being excluded before placing the tag.

The tag may assist in moving the dispute to the talk page, and reduce edit-warring when a piece of information is being repetitively inserted and deleted. If a consensus is reached that the information is notable and relevant, the information is inserted in the article and the tag is removed. If a consensus is reached that the information is not notable and relevant, the information is not added and the tag is removed.

My objection to the tag was that it did not specify which information had been removed. I understand now that the info referred to is the wording "multi-level marketing," so I have added that to the header. If I am wrong, just change it back. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I'm not endorsing any specific tag in any specific place. I just think that when there are differences of opinion, it's OK to flag them. I do believe that we should avoid adding text beyond the generic template text unless a specific reason tag is required. Andrew³²⁷ 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC closing decision

Thanks to LR for your input; I appreciate your being willing to stick around to help mediate one of Wikipedia's more admin-unfriendly disputes. Andrew³²⁷ 16:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for helping in this dispute, hopefully this will help us improve this article more collaboratively moving forward. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just one note, and this is probably the best place to put it: LR has stated that the term "multilevel marketing" is applied to Melaleuca by a wide variety of "reliable sources" (may not be his exact words). I beg to differ. Many of the sources are extremely unreliable and refer to VanderSloot negatively and only in the context of his being a donor to Republican causes or his other social or political activity. None of the sources, to my knowledge, have explicitly examined Melaleuca's business practices in a disinterested way and labeled the company as an MLM. In fact, User:Andrewman327 has listed for us above, under "Three different issues:Is Melaleuca an MLM?," a really substantial number of sources that do not refer to Melaleuca as an MLM, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reopening of Rfc at ANI

I have proposed reopening the Rfc at ANI after numerous parties expressed concerns and the closing admin expressed some retractions. I am asking to reopen and continue the Rfc for broader attempt at consensus. This is an issue that has importance for precedence, as I see it, and we need to take the time we need for clarity. Thank you. Jusdafax 22:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Collect (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree, as I neither started the subject here, nor took it to ANI. Jusdafax 01:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

MLM in body of article

The term "multi-level marketing" was reintroduced into the body of the article here, with the edit summary "Undid revision 538067575 by Jeremy112233 (talk) per consensus." Just for the record, there is no consensus to use this term anywhere in the article, and there never has been. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not good at judging consensus; however, no real policy-or-guideline-based argument has been presented for exclusion. One "include" and a dozen WP:IDONTLIKEIT "exclude" posts would constitute a (limited) consensus for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• From the RfC close: "There is consensus that reliable sources describe his company as a MLM and that this isn't something that is the subject of debate among those who have written articles on the question." George is of course free to disagree. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Yes, the rewritten close has MLM included in the body at this point. We didn't really argue about it to any great extent in the RFC, so future arguments on the subject are likely to continue as has been pointed out by others. Those opposing it have as much right to argue for its removal as others had right to challenge the RFC close to delimit its scope. Jusdafax suggested more debate, and though I disagreed with throwing out the RFC in its entirety, I do think additional RFC debate or other means could be helpful if there is still a staunch disagreement over the term. And if there isn't, well then, it may just go away. Why don't we give it some time to see what happens? Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sure -- anyone can argue for anything. But one salutary outcome from this episode is that even a "conservative" (in the BLP sense) admin was willing to see through the crap and recognize which argument had better roots in reliable sources. It's actually rather impressive: despite a wailing chorus of opposition, LR perceived that there was consensus regarding the way the company is described in reliable sources. Hey, quality of the argument, not just numbers on one side vs. the other. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Popkey deadlinked article

Any article which can not be verified at all which makes contentious claims in a BLP should be removed. The deadlink is one such, and should be removed by anyone per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not available via click != not verifiable. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Funny, I'm sure you know this, Collect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Consumer Direct Marketing

The phrase "Consumer Direct Marketing" (CDM) and the fact that it is a trademark were deleted from the article here. VanderSloot is pretty insistent about Melaleuca not being a multilevel marketer (MLM). Shouldn't the CDM claim be returned to the article in some fashion, and if so, how? We have a source for it being a trademark on this Melaleuca page, and we have the official record from the U.S. Patent Office (although you have to type in the name). We can use the former because of Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Just want to get some consensus about the rather important omission. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a reasonable path -- though it depends entirely on what sort of text you have in mind, where it would go, etc. I suggest you propose something here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "Consumer Direct Marketing" has no inherent meaning and is not used by other companies. It is simply an invented marketing slogan and a neologism, and as such is only of passing interest at best. The term does nothing to describe Melaleuca's buisness model in concrete terms nor does it differentiate Melaleuca's model from that of other MLM companies. In fact, their models are pretty much interchangeable. The section of text containing this term was removed, as explained in the thread I started above (why a second thread was started is a mystery to me), because it violated WP:SYNTH. I don't necessarily object to including some mention of the term, as long as it is not misleading or unduly weighted and doesn't involve WP:SYNTH like the last version did. I agree with Nomo's suggestion that any proposals should be brought first to the Talk page for discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The company's business model should be described in greater detail than in the current version of the article. Neither self-published websites nor government documents are ideal sources (though allowable in this case), but I've found reliable secondary sources that describe the business model and use the phrase "consumer direct marketing". Some of these sources were cited in the paragraph that was removed. Andrew³²⁷ 17:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would do two things: First, I'd rearrange the "Melaleuca, Inc.," section as follows: (A) history, (B) business model, (C) memberships and (D) investigations. These could go as subsections or all in one long section, I don't care: I would simply rearrange the existing info to fit; it is rather disjointed right now. When discussing the business model, I'd put something like this:

Some sources refer to the Melaleuca business model as one of multi-level marketing [sources go here], but VanderSloot has disputed the characterization.[sources]

Vandersloot eliminated Oil of Melaleuca's requirement that contractors purchase and store products without any guarantee that they would be sold. In the new arrangement, which is still in effect, contractors receive commissions from Melaleuca for each purchase their customers make, but the customers buy directly from Melaleuca, which ships them directly to the consumer.[Find new sources, since these are disputed. If they can't be found, just eliminate the sentence.] The company refers to this arrangement as “Consumer Direct Marketing,” a term it has trademarked. [We have some sources.] After the changes in business practices, half the distributors retained from Oil of Melaleuca left the new company.[2]

Melaleuca distributors can earn commissions and bonuses based on sales to end consumers.[21] ] According to Dan Popkey of the Idaho Statesman, Melaleuca had 800,000 customers for its household and nutritional products Template:As of. Roughly 37 percent were also part of the company's sales force of independent contractors, referred to as “marketing executives", and about 90 percent of the sales force averaged less than $2,100 in annual income from Melaleuca.[1] According to Laura Onstot of the Seattle Weekly News, a 2006 company report stated that the average annual income for 72 percent of Melaleuca's marketing executives Template:As of $90. VanderSloot estimates that roughly 190,000 marketing executives "earn a check from Melaleuca each month", 20,000 of whom "make their primary living through the company". As executives recruit, their title changes and they make more money.[26]

According to Melaleuca, 62.2 percent of the company's monthly sales come from customers who are not and have never been distributors and another 23 percent who were once distributors continue to buy the product for personal use.[21]

GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You (or someone else, can't recall for sure) have already tried that wording suggested for the first (new) paragraph. I think it's inappropriate for being inconsistent with NPOV, in drawing false equivalence between the two positions (is an MLM, but disputed by VS). In fact it gives far too much weight to the non-MLM position, by then going into detail about "consumer direct marketing". That weight is particularly inappropriate for its reliance on lower-quality sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a comment on GeorgeLouis' proposal, there should be some space for the actual business model used by the company, since it's been such a source of contention. Andrew³²⁷ 18:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure -- and the consensus of the RfC was that the business model as described in reliable sources is multi-level marketing. One of the things that needs to happen here is provision of more detail about that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can put that off and move on the idea of rearranging the section in a more logical way. I've made a new proposal below, which doesn't touch on the issue of "Consumer Direct Marketing."

The lead

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have read the archives. The PDF was over 100 pages,

although

indenting

helped

make

it

so

long.

You make the logical leap that, even if Melaleuca were an MLM, that it is the best apposition for the company. For that to be the case, it would require additional policies, precedent, or proof. Andrew³²⁷ 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you purposely trying to be not understood? Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the majority of sources I've found (I cited over 50) do not refer to "Melaleuca, a multilevel marketing company". Even many sources that associate with company with MLM do not call it "an MLM" or language like that. Andrew³²⁷ 06:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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."
• "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."

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."

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

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

• 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."

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."

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

• 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."

• 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"

Journalists

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

• "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."

• "Melaleuca markets personal care and household products."

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

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

• "Melaleuca, an Idaho-based natural products company."

• "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."

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

• "[...]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."

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

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

• "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."

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

• "Health and wellness company Melaleuca..."

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

• "Melaleuca Inc., the producer of cosmetics, household products and nutritional supplements..."

• "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."

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

• "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..."

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

• "US-based Melaleuca Inc., a fast-growing direct marketing company..."

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

• "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."

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

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

• "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."

• "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."

• "The Idaho Falls-based health care products company Melaleuca Inc...."

• "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."

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."

• "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."

• "...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."

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

• "Mkts. pharmaceuticals & personal-care prods."

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

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

• "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."

• "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.'"

• "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..."

• "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."

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

• "...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."

• "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."

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

• ""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..."

• "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."

[Edited for formatting Andrew³²⁷ 17:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)]

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)

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)

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)

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[2][3] 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.[4][5]

I also find it disturbing that whenever George Louis claims, in the midst of being rebuked for improper conduct (e.g., edit warring[6] most recently), to be taking a break from editing,[7] 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)

The majority of the 20 sources you cited do not refer to Melaleuca as a multilevel marketing company in their leads. In fact, the way that the current article refers to the company in the lead isn't present anywhere in the literature, which a basic search of Google/EBSCO/ProQuest/Hoovers/etc will demonstrate. There has heretofore been minimal discussion regarding the lead. And, per your example, AIG's article has no reference to CDOs in its lead.

In a larger sense, there are important attributes of Melaleuca's business plan that you have been burying over the past two weeks in the interest of applying the MLM label at every opportunity instead of providing greater context or more specific information.

On another note, I am frustrated at the accusations that I am in league with other editors. As my user page says, I am always open to talk about my edits, and that's true. It makes as much sense to tell me I'm tagteaming as it does to say that I'm in league with the Chinese government. The two links you cite to 2012 discussions do not have anything to do with me. Every interaction I have ever had with any editor is publically available, with three exceptions for rejected AFC authors who e-mailed me. This is only one of the thousands of articles that I have edited this month. It is not constructive to the editing process to say that editors who disagree with you have conflict of interest. Andrew³²⁷ 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Andrewman327

“The majority of the 20 sources you cited do not refer to Melaleuca as a multilevel marketing company in their leads.”

Huh??? Red herring? When the sources mention Melaleuca, they refer to the company as an MLM; that’s all that matters, not the physical location of the text in the source article. The point is irrelevant.

Actually that's not true, they refer to the company as a range of things but most refer to the company's business model as MLM. There's a difference. Andrew³²⁷ 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong yet again. A majority (at least 90%) of the articles I've cited do not even mention "business model".[8] You can stop making baseless statements any time now. The tendentiousness is grating. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

“In fact, the way that the current article refers to the company in the lead isn't present anywhere in the literature…”

The fact is that Melaleuca is an MLM company. Are you splitting hairs about precisely how we should say “Melaleuca...a MLM company”. I don't see any ambiguity in the current version.

“There has heretofore been minimal discussion regarding the lead.”

We apparently have very different definitions of minimal. IMO we've wasted entirely too much time beating this dead horse already. What further discussion is needed?

“And, per your example, AIG's article has no reference to CDOs in its lead.”

The metaphor was used merely to illustrate the absurdity of arguing that the term MLM is defamatory simply because some people (who they may be, you never mentioned) may or may not have a negative opinion about MLMs. I really don’t understand why you are pursuing such tenuous arguments; it gets us nowhere and it makes the process more painful than it should be.

But you should use arguments that relate to the lead of Wikipedia articles when discussing what content is appropriate for the lead of Wikipedia articles. Andrew³²⁷ 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Restoring comment that was deleted. Comment satisfies WP:TPO, specifically Sectioning. Comment also edited for formatting.Andrew³²⁷ 06:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

“In a larger sense, there are important attributes of Melaleuca's business plan that you have been burying over the past two weeks in the interest of applying the MLM label at every opportunity instead of providing greater context or more specific information.”

You misrepresented my activities. The term MLM is mentioned exactly TWICE in the entire article. It’s clear that I have not applied “the MLM label at every opportunity”. What precisely is it that you think I’ve been burying for 2 weeks and why are you focusing on me? The term MLM isn’t in the article solely because I think it should be there. Multiple editors have been discussing this for ages. You and George seem to be the only editors expressing any skepticism about the company’s status as an MLM. Consensus does not support that POV.

“On another note, I am frustrated at the accusations that I am in league with other editors…It is not constructive to the editing process to say that editors who disagree with you have conflict of interest.”

That has nothing to do with the MLM issue, so we can take that up on your talk page if you’d like. It’s not really appropriate to have a back and forth discussion about it here (c.f. WP:TPG). You already know my position regarding the connections of several editors with WP:WikiProject_Conservatism and the past attempt at canvassing the group for support; it set a bad precedent and is reasonable grounds for concern, particularly when the editing and opinions expressed by some of these editors have been tendentious to the extreme. To me, such tendentious editing on an article about an MLM company that has thousands of independent distributors is suggestive of a potential COI. WP:AGF aside, WP is not a a suicide pact. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have never canvassed. I was a member of that Wikiproject but left before you started complaining about it because it was pointless and I did not engage in any of the Project's activities. I have never canvassed anywhere. In fact, I'm proud of my edit history. I've made mistakes, but it would be hard not to once your edit count enters five figures. Your account only edits one kind of article, but I've never implied you have a conflict of interest because I don't know you. If you believe that I have violated a single Wikipedia policy, then present your evidence on the proper noticeboard and I will explain myself to an administrator. As it stands, I have an exemplary record.

Remember that WP:PACT is an essay by user:Fences and windows that reads in part, "...we can cut some serious slack to administrators who are doing the good work of defending us from nonsense" (emphasis mine). You are not an administrator, and regardless, an essay does free you from your obligation to assume good faith, which is "a fundamental principle on Wikipedia". Andrew³²⁷ 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn’t say that you canvassed. I said that you already know my position, because I assumed that I’d explained it enough times already in past discussions that it was unambiguous (i.e., GeorgeLouis canvassed, not you), and made the cause for my concerns quite clear. Why would you feign as though you don’t know what I’m referring to? You commented twice on the Vandersloot page on Sept 25/2012[9][10] – just shy of 2 weeks after joining WP Project Conservatism [11] -- and backed up George’s edit warring over an absurd video that he was trying to railroad into the article.[12] Surely you must remember that video[13] – it was Grover Norquist’s tax pledge lecture from the Heritage Foundation that was being cited and linked to support some inanely trivial tidbit of drivel about Vandersloot eating ice cream and milking chickens on the farm when he was a boy.[14] The one chock full of Vandersloot making slurs about other people. Remember now? The absurd video that got summarily executed because it violated every tenet of neutral, reliable sourcing.[15] That was so memorable! I can’t attest to the rest of your contributions, but that one (my first real glimpse) was quite a bit shy of exemplary.

If you’re accusing me of being an WP:SPA, then all I can do is shake my head in dismay at this hamfisted attempt at misdirection. I did suggest that issues like these would be better taken up on your talk page (as per WP:TPG) if you wanted to discuss them further. If you don’t, then you can simply stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My edit history is available for public viewing. I've reverted over a thousand acts of vandalism, reviewed hundreds of articles at AFC, participated in AFD and RFC, and created or made major content contributions to a wide range of articles (including one that I'm more proud of than I should be). Although I've made mistakes, I've never been warned or the subject of any form of Wikipedia sanction.

Regarding the WikiProject accusation, what exactly are you asserting? That I joined a WikiProject and then used it to find an article that isn't even listed as being part of the project (IIRC)? Or that I responded to canvassing before it even happened? I might be wrong, but I don't think there was any link to the BLP from the WikiProject page, not that I ever made any edits based on the project's page anyway. It's a boring WikiProject that I left.

If there is a specific allegation you'd like to make than I would be eager to clear my name. Otherwise, you are required to assume good faith.

Being an SPA does not violate Wikipedia policy. In fact, I doubt Wikiproject Trains would exist without them. But it doesn't change the fact that your entire edit history is devoted to a narrow range of topics. Andrew³²⁷ 17:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You do know that this page is for discussing specific content issues right? I've invited you several times to take off-topic discussions about conduct to your talkpage, lest this thread get derailed, and yet you are still at it (and making unfounded accusations about WP:SPA). Again, I refer you to WP:TPG. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Instead of taking it off-Talk page, I'd rather you stop making accusations about me in any forum. Andrew³²⁷ 17:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) I didn't make nor am I continuing to make any "accusations"; at least nothing explicit like your WP:SPA charge. (2) Again, this is not the place to engage in a lengthy discussion about user conduct issues (c.f. WP:TPG). Capiche? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I don't want to move this conversation to my talk page is that you have made identical claims about several editors who are affiliated with this BLP dozens of times over the past several months and it's worth discussing here. Andrew³²⁷ 07:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

Comment before the first block

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)

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)

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)

I would agree with Barek's approach, as this is a BLP article, and not an article about Melaleuca. It appears there is enough material here to create a separate Melaleuca article where a lot of these debates could continue and not WP:COATRACK it here.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead is probably a bit top heavy with details, but a descriptor of Melaleuca is necessary in the lead so that the reader has some idea of the nature of the company. "Cattle rancher", "radio network owner", etc. are self explanatory. "CEO of Melaleuca" is not. WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." There are more than 20 reliable sources establishing Melaleuca as an MLM, so it would seem improper to not reflect this in the lead, as per the guidelines. The fact that Melaleuca is an MLM is a critical deatil that has been stressed by those sources. In other words, it is not a trivial aspect.

I figured that the suggestion to spin off a separate article on Melaleuca would come up eventually, since the details that were added about the company over the last couple of months really have nothing to do with VanderSloot. It seems that much of the material was added as filler to dilute the less than flattering details. However, even if it is spun off as a separate article, that doesn't mean that the critiques will vanish from VanderSloot's article, which I infer would might be the ultimate goal of some of the editors here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Stating that he was "founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca, Inc" is more than adequate to describe the subject of the article. He was founder and CEO of a company. As you pointed out, WP:LEAD states "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" ... that last word is critical: the topic/subject of the article is the person, not the company. Being an MLM is an important aspect about the company, not the person. It's important to recognize the distinction between the two.

As I said, the MLM mention is most certainly appropriate in the career section that expands upon an understanding of the company for which he was CEO. And that mention would most certainly be appropriate if the company were ever spun-off into its own article (in which case, MLM would belong both here in the career section and in the spun-off article.

All that said ... I honestly don't care enough about either the company nor the person enough to debate this. I only have this article on my watchlist due to edit warring complaints in the past. My opinion is out there - if others want to agree, fine - if not, that's fine too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions to the discussion here, but there is a flaw in that argument. Many sources have written detailed articles about VanderSloot that prominently feature the MLM aspect in their coverage; these are not articles on Melaleuca but rather on Vandersloot. If they deem that MLM is worthy of including in the discussion of VanderSloot, then it is not our place to say that it's not relevant. We have to take our lead from the sources themselves. Hope that provides some clarity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually -- it is up to the editors here per WP:CONSENSUS to choose placement of claims and weight given thereto. The lede does not contain every factoid in the BLP, nor ought it do so. We can make an MLM claim in the text, but that does not mean it should be iterated in the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note this thread is not about any "factoid" or "claim". Writegeist (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, the word "claim" refers to anything written in any article. "Factoid" simply means a minor fact - one not of earth-shaking importance to the subject of a BLP. Minor facts do not belong in the lede. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the BLP contents. In Wikispeak: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Note the words "most important." It is up WP:CONSENSUS to value claims as to being important or unimportant. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's highly disingenuous to keep steadfastly insisting that the MLM detail is minor when it has been established that it is not. It is a central defining feature of the company that has been discussed by more than 20 sources and acknowledged by VanderSloot himself. When you keep ignoring the facts in support of the POV you are pushing (i.e. that Melaleuca is not an MLM), it makes achieving a reasonable consensus next to impossible. That's a problem that has plagues this article since mid 2012. A review of the history of the discussion about the company's MLM status (dating back to mid 2012) makes it clear that the POV you and George have been pushing has nothing to do with facts, evidence, reliability of sources, or WP policy. It's just that you believe the term is unflattering and that, for that reason alone, it is OK to whitewash it from the article. That is indicative of a serious misunderstanding of WP:NPOV at least, and a WP:COI issue at worst. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How is this MLM claim important to a biography of a living person. Do you wish us to say he was the one who started the company deliberately and specifically as an MLM? That he somehow makes MLM a key part of his business plans? What, precisely, makes it an important fact about the person? Note that the claim may well be present in the body of the article, but the lede is specifically supposed to contain the most important information about the person. So far, you have not demonstrated that it is directly and personally important to the biography. Can you explain exactly why it is important to VanderSloot personally? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish us to say nothing other than what multiple sources have identified as notable about Vandersloot -- that he is the founder and CEO of an MLM company by the name of Melaleuca. It's not just any old run-of-the-mill company but an MLM company specifically, as emphasized by multiple sources that stressed this point in particular while reporting on Vandersloot, thereby conclusively establishing notability. It's just that simple. I already quoted the significant parts of WP:LEAD that establish the basis for why it has remained in the lead for the better part of the past year. I hate to bring up the subject of POV pushing but it bears pointing out that you (and George Louis) have argued vociferously to purge the term MLM from the article entirely since mid 2012,[16] and have continued to do so even as the evidence against your POV mounted, which suggests to me that you have more than a casual interest in the matter.

Extended content

First, you tried to out-argue other editors who opposed your POV, and you didn't even bother to look for any sources then would have supported ther position (I was later able, with very little effort, to find 20+ sources that did so) -- and instead you cited SPAs and sock puppets as evidence of a consensus supporting the purge of "MLM". When that approach failed, you argued that the company isn't an MLM at all, then you quibbled about sources, and finally, now that you have expended all this effort for naught campaigning to purge the term, your new tack is to argue that the detail is too insignificant to warrant being mentioned. It's been a series of steadily eroding nit-picking arguments culminating in this last attempt, which has been aided by SPAs and edit warring. The entire approach belies a non-neutral POV on the matter.

Melaleuca is an MLM -- numerous sources establish this as a fact for WP purposes, and at this point no one is even trying to argue that it isn't. The sources demonstrate that this fact is directly relevant in a discussion about Vandersloot himself and not merely in a discussion about Melaleuca. There is absolutely zero potential for violating any WP policy or harming the encyclopedic integrity of WP by referring to Melaleuca as an "MLM company" in the lead or elsewhere. The MLM "issue" may be of greater PR consequence for those who peddle Melaleuca products for a living, but WP doesn't bend to accommodate such interests when they run counter to editorial and policy objectives. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

IOW you do not wish to answer my question - other than to attack me for a POV which I do not have. I have no connection direct or indirect with VanderSloot, Meleleuca, anyone mentioned in this article, or anything remotely connected to this article. You give absolutely no reason for the term being in the lede at all -- unless, of course, every fact should be in the lede. But WP:LEDE goes against that odd position. Further note that I am not trying to excise "MLM" only noting that it is not needed in the lede, so histrionics about this are silly. Nor have I removed anything related to "MLM" from the article. You have 174 edits to this article - I have a total of 15 edits here. The issue boils down to: While MLM is in the body of the article, does it have sufficient importance to be in the lede? That is all that is being discussed - not absurd claims that I support socks, or tagteams or anything at all on that order. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC) To claim an editor accused you of "supporting" sock puppets when he or she did no such thing is an egregious misrepresentation of the editor's position (RIR merely said, rightly or wrongly, that you cited SPAs and sockpuppets, so your histrionics about this are silly), and constitutes a clear personal attack, which I trust you will now withdraw. To identify Melaleuca as an MLM is no more a "claim" than it is to identify Obama as President of the United States. To, er, claim otherwise is fatuously, um, errant. That Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing company is neither trivial nor (factoid's other common meaning, as you will know) an invented fact. Claim #1 -- fails. Claim #2 -- fails. Claim #3 -- fails. Hat trick! Writegeist (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC) He wrote and instead you cited SPAs and sock puppets as evidence of a consensus supporting the purge of "MLM". which sure looks to me like he thinks I support socks. In point of fact I have not "cited" socks or SPAs, and I find your appearance here to be ... interesting. In Wikipedia, anything at all about someone or something is a "claim" and your apparent belief that Wikipedia uses the wrong word is useless. This is the word generally used on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I note you now admit that what RIR actually wrote was not at all, in fact, that you supported socks but that you cited them; and that you now say that when you read what he wrote it looks to you as if he is thinking something else altogether, an imaginary something to which you object. Thus, curiously, you defend your right to attack another editor not for his actual comments but for whatever you care to say he was thinking when he wrote them—a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:NPA, as NPA does not, AFAICT, allow you to attack other editors for what you choose to say they are thinking. Writegeist (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And what you assert happens to be a palpable falsehood. The consensus included some editors who were later accused of being socks, but as I had no way of assuming bad faith, as you seem to wish, I looked at the overall clear consensus on the issue at the time. Given what appears to be a consensus, that is what WP:CONSENSUS tells us to do. You apparently feel that one ought to automatically assume bad faith - such as noting that a nameless person who has not done anything other than appear to post attacking me on a talk page may not be actually seeking to improve the article. Cheers -- now do you have any suggestions on improving this BLP? Collect (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) If your post ("what you assert happens to be a palpable falsehood . . . ") is, as appears from the indent, a reply to mine about the fact that RIR commented that you cited socks, which you yourself immediately confirmed as palpably true with "He wrote . . . 'you cited . . . sock puppets' " it's just hilariously absurd. If it is a reply to someone else, perhaps you would like to clarify who that is. Do I have any suggestions on improving this BLP? Yes: I suggest its improvement would best be handled by the various intelligent and objective editors who have demonstrated a real grasp of the subject matter, and also of policies, guidelines and simple logic, and who would not misrepresent scrupulous accuracy as, e.g., "palpable falsehood". Not that I expect this suggestion will be taken up, of course; but you did ask. Another suggestion, for which I though my support was clear and unequivocal, is to retain the fact that the company is an MLM in the lead, for the compelling reasons laid out by RIR et al. Is that clear now? Writegeist (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC) In point of fact Collect, you most certainly did cite SPAs/socks as evidence of a consensus supporting a purge of the term MLM from the article. In reference to my restoration of “MLM” to the article, you claimed the following:

“This is to discuss whether consensus has changed - as one editor appears to wish…” Collect (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)”[17]

Extended content

That so-called "consensus" Collect referred to was based on shallow inaccurate comments from 3 SPA/sock puppets.[18][19][20][21] and he proceeded to edit war on that basis, attempting to purge MLM from the article.[22][23] I did not draw any conclusions about the underlying actions of that claim of consensus, but logic would dictate that there are only 2 possibilities: (a) Collect knew that they were socks and SPAs and claimed consensus based on input that he knew was tainted, or (b) Collect did not know they were socks/SPAs because he failed to make even a cursory attempt to find out who the comments were coming from, in which case he should have apologized and retreated after the facts were pointed out to him -- but he (and George Louis) doubled down instead.[24][25][26] This is uncannily similar to what happened in just the past week. After vehemently arguing to purge MLM from the article, George gets nailed for violating 3RR and announces he's taking a week-long wikibreak; SPA suddenly appears out of nowhere to delete the term MLM from the article; George ends his wikibreak prematurely to shower that SPA with wikilove and then adds a claim that I "bit the head off the newcomer" to his ridiculous witch-hunt roster of my alleged misdeeds.[27] As I've said before, these editors have used every means possible to game the system in favor of the POV they are pushing. It is strongly indicative of a non-NPOV at least and WP:COI at worst. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC) On what grounds should I have automatically assumed bad faith of these editors? And what were the results of the SPI investigations which clearly showed all of them to be socks? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) By the way - as they do not appear to be labeled as "socks" by anyone but you, I would suggest you tone down your rhetoric. If no one labels someone as a sock, it is idiotic to say I must have known them to be socks. Is that clear? See WP:AGF and WP:NPA while you are at it -- calling editors whome you do not like "socks" without even filing an SPI report is raher inane. Collect (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Since you are choosing to belabor and obfuscate the issue, I am compelled to expound further. When I initially brought this serious issue to your attention, I clearly stated that these SPA accounts were “looking an awful lot like sock puppets”, rather than saying that they were confirmed socks,[28] so don’t pretend that you don’t know what the real issue is. You choose to quibble about whether or not any of the users in question were confirmed socks while failing to admit that they were clearly and unequivocally SPAs, and that you should have known better that to cite them as part of a consensus supporting you edit warring and attempt to whitewash “MLM” from the article. WP:SPA states: “Experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or whether they are editing for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. Although the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy.” Aside from that, one or more of the accounts in question fits the M.O. of a sock listed in WP:SIGNS (see “Possible signs”). Furthermore, WP:CAST states: “Whether or not a sock puppet, those who follow the leader and just go along with what someone else says do not help advance the cause of the discussion. Such votes are generally discounted when determining the outcome of the discussion.” It does not matter whether you and/or George Louis were directly colluding with any of these accounts or whether you just blithely cited them as representing a valid consensus, without doing the expected due diligence, because they conveniently supported the skewed POV you were attempting to push. The heart of the matter is that you have been working aggressively to purge MLM from the article since mid-2012; you have done so in a manner that contravenes the policies, GLs, and spirit of WP to an extent that can easily be characterized as WP:GAMING and WP:DE/WP:TE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC) If you wish to call someone a "sock", be man enough to accuse them in the proper venue. I have not "contravened" policies here - and your tirade is of nugatory value to this article talk page. And please stop citing essays as being policies - it ill suits polite discourse. And your insinuation that I "collude" with anyone is asinine, silly, inane, improper, errant, ill-annered, and egregiously objectionable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC) As so often seems to be the case, you are refusing to get the point. Again, I have made it clear that these were obvious SPAs and suspected socks. I quoted the relevant policies/GLs that outline (a) the expectations of WP editors with respect to scrutinizing SPAs and suspected socks (e.g., not citing them as representing a consensus to support your POV) and (b) when suspicion about SPA status is warranted. As I already explained above, on the surface these SPA accounts fit the general WP criteria of suspected socks, but in addition all 3 accounts were opened in May-June 2007 (with a small handful of random edits on pages unrelated to Vandersloot) and then were essentially dormant for years prior to whitewashing content from the article and POV pushing/soapboxing on the MLM discussion on the Vandersloot Talk page in mid-2012.[29][30][31] I reiterate, it was plainly evident that these were SPAs; it is likely that they are socks as well. In either case, you were remiss in citing them in support of your attempt to scrub "MLM" from the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC) You did not say "suspected" or "likely" - you outright called them "socks" and that is contrary to WP:AGF. So for once and for all -- either file an SPI or drop your claim. And again since I did not say to "scrub MLM from the article" you are making ad hominem arguments which are not intended to improve the article. What you are doing is making personal attacks on each of the people you call "socks" without being man enough to file a complaint. That is unworthy behaviour. Collect (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC) First, as I already pointed out, it is clear you already know that my position is that these are suspected socks rather than confirmed socks. I made this clear when I originally brought your attention to the matter last summer (after you cited them as evidence of a consensus that didn’t exist to justify your attempts at purging “MLM” from the article).[32] I stated at that time that these accounts were “looking an awful lot like sock puppets”. I have since made my position even more clear by saying explicitly several times that these are suspected socks. The characteristics of those 3 accounts strongly suggest that they are socks. If you would like to comprehensively address your past user conduct issues in railroading through tendentious edits on the basis of SPA accounts that fit the profile of sock puppets, then I’m game. Since you are unrepentant and still trying to railroad through the same changes, admin scrutiny and intervention would probably be a good idea. In which venue would you like me to report you? While we’re on the subject of admin intervention for user conduct, can you not recognize your own hypocrisy in complaining about alleged “personal attacks”, which in reality consisted nothing more than expressing concern that 3 SPAs might be sock puppets, and then in the same breath making a clear personal attack against my manhood. You are leaping into an abyss of user conduct issues here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC) You did not qualify your use of "sock" and further you did not show that everyone who disagrees with you is an SPA either. And "being man enough" is a metaphor and says nothing whatsoever about your actual "manhood" so you can drop that as an arguemnt here entirely. I rather think most people do not interpret metaphors as literally as you seem to do. And you did far more than "express a concern that ... may be sock puppets you specifically said I supported them. you cited SPAs and sock puppets as evidence of a consensus supporting the purge of "MLM". it is likely that they are socks as well SPA accounts that fit the profile of sock puppets Are your exact words above -- I would point out that I have now been online for three decades, and under contract identified a number of "socks" and you are stretching to think that one essay makes you qualified to call any other editor a "sock" and not follow through at SPI about it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Refusing to get the point on several fronts I see. I'm disappointed that you think it's OK to make a personal attack as long as it is couched in a metaphor. Just remember that if I ever slip up and inadvertently say that you are behaving like a WP:DICK. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts on consensus. While WP:CON tips its hat towards users like RIR with 'the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view', it also says 'Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately'; and 'In 2012, a group of researchers studying Wikipedia disputes reported: "Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance [as here] of one group."

I've followed the (numerous) arguments here for some time (noting, in passing, the use of the dramaboards against the participant whose comments, for the most part, IMO, exhibit the most incisive understanding of the various issues), and I've checked the sources. I'm persuaded: it's as plain as a pikestaff that Melaleuca is verifiably an MLM and that the mention belongs in the lead, even though its exclusion, given GeorgeLouis's comments on consensus, is unavoidable, at least unless/until outside editors take an interest in the article. (Village pump, anybody?)

Oh, and "The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view." Hope this helps. Writegeist (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, as far as consensus is concerned, George has misrepresented Arthur Rubin, and Arzel has not in fact expressed a view. George's analysis of consensus is rather off target, and I suggest that he is not well placed to make that sort of judgement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a better way of doing this? I'm of the opinion that it should be removed from the lead because it is not a major part of the article, and a fuller description of the company is more appropriate in the company's section, not the lead. I am certain I will be hounded once again for suggesting things here, but can we have a structured vote on this, allowing all to insert their opinions alongside their votes, at least to try and move towards a consensus? Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A better way would be to not push a non-neutral POV. A vote, in this situation especially, would not be a valid means of establishing consensus. Compelling arguments are what matters and none have been raised to justify the whitewashing of MLM from the article. Repeatedly using the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT approach is pointless. WP:LEAD clearly justifies the mention of MLM; it's a key feature of the company that has been described by roughly 2 dozen sources and officially acknowledged by Vanderslot himself. The MLM aspect in the body text has been diluted and pushed down by the addition of extraneous details about the company, provided by the same editors that have been leading the whitewash campaign. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As always, I understand you have a strong opinion on this :) , but that's not what I asked. I asked if we can determine an actual consensus on the particular point of including it in the lead, not whether or not you felt it mattered. As this has stirred up some conversation, what are the best steps to finding a consensus--where you can voice as strong an opinion as you wish about keeping it in the lead. If you see it as so obvious, then I'm sure you trust the consensus will go your way, and the issue can be put to bed either way. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious; that VanderSloot is the founder of Melaleuca; that Melaleuca is an MLM, and that it's the most signficant fact about Melaleuca. If Melaleuca is in the lead, so should the fact that it's an MLM. But I'm not good at judging consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hammer. Nail. Head. Writegeist (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a step back for a moment. Corporate business models don't belong in leads. It is uncommon for reliable secondary sources about either VanderSloot or Melaleuca to refer to the company as an MLM in the lead, as I established in my 50+ citation post above. As a matter of fact, barely any of the 20 articles cited as supporting the MLM claim actually refer to Melaleuca as an MLM in their lead paragraphs. There is very little precedent on or off Wiki for the lead to be written as it is now. I would like to see more fresh eyes on this article, and as an admin with over 50,000 edits, Barek represents an ideal source. I like the lead that Barek proposed and believe that it should be implemented.

There is another issue that I would like to address. One claim that has been repeatedly made is that VanderSloot has said that the company is an MLM, which is not true. At one point, he signed a voluntary agreement that said that the Idaho Attorney General had that opinion. Recently, VanderSloot asked the same AG's office for an opinion on Melaleuca and they responded with a generally favorable letter. VanderSloot has explicitly denied that Melaleuca is an MLM several times, notably in a published letter to Forbes: "We were surprised at the suggestion that Melaleuca is a "pyramid-selling organization" along the lines of Herbalife and Amway in "If You Believe" (Oct. 11, p. 89). That's as misleading as suggesting that a cow is similar to a cat just be-cause both are four-legged mammals. Whatever the similarities between cats and cows, they do not make cats bovine nor cows feline. It's the many differences in our business model and culture that set Melaleuca apart from any multilevel marketing company. Painting Melaleuca as a pyramid-selling organization suggests that you don't understand the vital differences between these two divergent business models." Vandersloot, Frank L. 2004. "Uncowed." Forbes 174, no. 10: 28. (accessed January 24, 2013).

Editors may be confusing Melaleuca Inc. with Oil of Melaleuca, about which VanderSloot has been quite negative. To wit: "It was a multi-level company selling starter kits for $57 a pop, but if you bought $5,000 worth, you could rise to the top of the pyramid" (Melaleuca CEO: Dark days proved worthwhile).

Andrew³²⁷ 02:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, let's not step back -- move forward instead.

There was not a single valid point in that post; namely:

1. Using a flawed opening premise that “corporate business models don't belong in leads”, when in fact there is absolutely no policy, precedent, or logical reason for claiming that MLM should be excluded from the lead; quite the contrary in fact according to WP:LEAD (NB: it helps to actually read and absorb WP policies and GLs before arguing about them).
2. Failing to acknowledge the 20+ sources that identify Melaleuca as an MLM, while instead fallaciously citing absence of evidence in other sources as evidence of absence.
3. Arbitrarily dismissing Vandersloots’s official acknowledgement to the Utah AG that Melaleuca Inc. is an MLM -- an acknowledgement that Vandersloot signed voluntarily.
4. The misrepresentation of Vandersloot’s comment about Amway, which in fact was an attempt to distance his company from Amway but did not claim that Melaleuca is not an MLM.
5. Making a vague accusation that editors (who you conveniently failed to identify) are confusing Melaleuca with Vandersloot’s previous company, when in fact there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a speculative accusation; rather, we keep pointing to the 20+ sources that refer specifically to Melaleuca Inc. as an MLM – sources which you are conveniently ignoring.

The fact that Melaleuca is an MLM has been firmly established. Arguing the contrary is pointless backtracking and a waste of resources. The discussion about this aspect of the company has now devolved into quizzical nitpicking about the lead (i.e., the ludicrous suggestion that including 3 words -- multi-level marketing -- somehow makes the lead too top-heavy and violates policy). The level of effort being expended by a couple of pugnacious editors here to whitewash the term MLM entirely from the article (which has been going on since mid-2012) clearly goes well beyond a mere passion for concisely written leads. It is indicative of POV pushing to serve an agenda that is at cross purposes with that of WP. Rhode Island Red (talk)

Comment during the first block

See also Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#RFC, below.

When consensus has not been achieved in biographies of living people, "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The proposal being considered was to strip MLM from the lead. Clearly there is no consensus for that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment after the expiration of the first block

There having been no consensus on this matter, the contentious phrasing has been eliminated and the description of the Melaleuca company reverted to the version of 17:46 27 July 2012, where it had remained unchanged before the wording about multi-level marketing was reinserted at 20:22 8 September 2012. The other parts of the lede remain unchanged. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment during the second block

(1) There is a clear and overwhelming consensus that the company is an MLM. (2) There is a clear consensus of uninvolved editors that does not support your proposal to strip MLM from the lead. If you refuse to accept the input from this RfC, as your resumption of edit warring today indicates,[33][34] then this will probably have to go to formal/binding arbitration. Please indicate if this is how you wish to proceed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I intend on closing this RfC when discussion levels off / the RfC 30-day period concludes. I've been following the dispute, so I feel I understand the issues at play. Until then, please leave the edit warring warnings to me or other admins. Let's not be combative. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@ RIR: Indeed. Given what has gone before, this latest development—reverting the lead during the RfC about it—is cause for concern, and I am surprised LR has turned a blind eye. (But not all that surprised, given that his earlier incivility warning to RIR did not extend to even-handedly warning the user who had so blatantly baited him into the response.) Additionally, IMO, even disregarding the context of the ongoing RfC, the revert has no basis in consensus, is redolent of WP:OWN, and strains AGF to breaking point.) Would the user be willing to undo his revert pending closure of the RfC? Writegeist (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Adding: on reflection, I choose to view both LR's omissions as the simple oversights of a novice admin. Writegeist (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I offered George some advice [35] prior to his implementation of that edit (having discerned his intentions here), but he chose to ignore that advice. Worrying indeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment wasn’t intended as a warning (I will leave it to m'Lord to respond to the breach of protocol represented by George’s reversion today). It was a recapitulation of today’s events and an expression of concern that the RfC is being ignored and will be ignored regardless of the outcome, in which case a more formal resolution process might be necessary. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Avoid details in the lede

This is a new section because I'd like to specifically address the proposed version by User:Barek. He has suggested removing the descriptions of VanderSloot's various business operations from the lede, specifically suggesting that it read as follows:

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.

His suggestion does not bother with the question as to whether Melaleuca is or is not a multi-level marketing business. Editors of the article are divided on this point, but it would seem that everybody could agree on the statement that Barek proposed just above. That agreement would be the epitome of WP:Consensus. Barek's suggestion has the advantage of simplicity and thoroughness (all of VDS's business enterprises are mentioned, but exposition is left for the body of the article). What's more, it avoids the contentiousness that has been suffusing this article for quite some time. I note 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.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

In short, it seems that consensus is not needed to remove contentious material. I guess anybody could do it, but it might be better if an administrator were to take it upon himself or herself to do so. If Barek does not want to, perhaps another seasoned editor could be recruited. Thus I am listing this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If Melaleuca is mentioned in the lead, it should be mentioned that it is an MLM in the lead. If not, then obviously not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I see some lies above, not necessarily due to Wikipedia editors. There is absolutely no dispute that Melaleuca is an MLM.

The "trimmed down" lead has no encyclopedic information. It would be better to report in the lead that "... founder and chief executive officer of an MLM company" than "... founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Again we have a thread devoted to a faulty premise. WP:LEAD does not say to "avoid detail". Quite the opposite in fact; it says that "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview", and it's not as though anyone has proposed expanding mention of MLM in the lead beyond the inclusion of the mere 3 words (or two and half words depending on how you count hyphens) -- "multi-level marketing". The lead stands at about 2 1/2 paragraphs right now and the GLs say that it should not exceed 4 paragraphs, so it's not top-heavy at all. The idea that whitewashing MLM from the lead would improve the lead by making it more concise is absurd, and mere brevity is clearly not the underlying intent of the editors (George Louis, Collect, and Andrewman 327) who, since mid-2012, have been campaigning relentlessly (and in defiance of evidence) for purging the term from the article entirely. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I haven't been trying to remove the term since mid-2012. Andrew³²⁷ 17:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hooha- you seem to make false statements about my position once more. I have never sought to "whitewash" this BLP, nor to remove material from the body of the BLP. Thus your claim is errant and wrong, and, IMO, egregiously false. As to my position on article length - in general shorter is better. Bloated articles serve no one at all. See Joseph Widney now at about 62K in size vs. [36] the same article before I reduced its size (over 140K). Collect (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's flat out nonsense! You've deleted MLM from the article on more than one occasion. How can we possibly excuse such a patently false claim? Your personal position on bloated articles is irrelevant because WP has its own policies and GLs that apply. I've already pointed out that the lead is quite a bit under the 4 paragraph limit recommended in WP:LEAD, which also specifies that the lead should be a stand alone summary of the content in the body text of the article. I'll say it again -- your argument is tendentious in the extreme and is not supported by policies or GLs; it is however entirely consistent with your longstanding efforts to censor the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Arthur Rubin's edit just now ([37]) is a nice one and much to be preferred. Saying that he is the founder of "Melaleuca" does not enlighten anyone who does not already know what Melaleuca is. Likewise with the other two businesses. Much better to use a brief phrase that indicates the nature of the business. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, almost nobody in the literature has ever referred to the company in that way, even in articles that go on to call Melaleuca an MLM. It's a large company that manufactures household goods and dietary supplements. It would be like saying Henry Ford founded a franchise-dealership company .Andrew³²⁷ 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Almost nobody" meaning the 20+ sources you are conveniently ignoring. Tsk tsk. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion is ongoing at the BLP noticeboard]. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that, and it's silly because the editors commenting there are the same ones that are commenting here. Forking the discussion serves no useful purpose -- it's counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually your charge is inapt. BLP concerns are properly listed at the WP:BLP/N noticeboard. Always have been. Always will be. Cheers - it was a BLP/N discussion which led me here in the first place. Collect (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Q: Who has contributed to the discussion at BLPN? A: You, me, and George Louis. Get the point now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You and George kicked up quite a fuss about this article and have forum shopped to no end fishing for support. As a result, you got two new very experienced editors commenting (Arthur Rubin and Writegeist), and because they are unequivocally disagreeing with George's and your position, it's back to the forum shop. Play the hand you were dealt; don't ask for a mulligan every time. It's a needless waste of resources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your desire to attack editors is clear. I wish you had the same desire to tell the gd truth though. You have had plenty of mulligans in your attacks now - it is time you were person enough to stop them. Collect (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not an attack; it's a simple statement of fact. The article has received the additional scrutiny that you and George sought, as a result of the arrival of 2 veteran editors who had no previous involvement, and now that they disagree with your position, you're in effect dismissing the input and continuing to seek the answer you want via forum shopping. That epitomizes WP:DE and refusal to get the point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And still others do not agree with you. And holding civil discourse on appropirate venues is not, and never has been "forumshop[ping" (which you seem quite enamoured of as a term.) 2340 article and article talk edits is not extraordinary on Wikipedia at all ... I am over 16K. Kindly recognize that I have a great number of edits on a great number of articles, and that I do not restrict myself to one topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Jumping in to the fray -(1)Despite their claims to the contrary, Melaleuca absolutely uses MLM (2) if you want that in the article you need an RS source to support it (fitzpatrick, taylor et.al. are not RS sources) (3) It's unnecessary to have it in the lede (4) the current lede - "He is the founder and chief executive officer of a multi-level marketing company" - is just plain silly. (4) IMO there's clearly enough sources for there to be an article on Melaleuca, Inc itself. --Icerat (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)