Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

multilevel marketing

Is currently in the "Oil of" section, and was also then immediately in the "Melaleuca" section -- I propose [1] avoids the parallel emphasis on MLM, and retains the reference to "multi-level" in the second section, despite a possibility that by using the term too often we are giving undue emphasis thereto. The reason for the edit is to make the article more readable, and not to emphasize or de-emphasize anything much at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Where to start. Let's try WP:OR -- your edit, particularly in using the word "initially", was not in conformity with the sources, especially insofar as use of that word implies that the company is no longer a MLM company. But the real problem is of course that this issue was settled via an RfC, so as indicated via edit summary you'd need to gain consensus for it instead of trying to force it through. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we have sources that it is currently a MLM? AFAICT, the RfC was to mention the term, not to iterate it any specific number of times. And how many times on one BLP should MLM be mentioned? Three? four? Twenty? I would note that I did not remove the term, just moved it to a separate sentence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC on use in lead [2] No consensus for inclusion in lead.

I fear you err in your claims as to how must stress any RfC says we should give the term. And I would note that no RfC can override Wikipedia policies, which you appear to think is right (that is, iterating a claim which has already been made in the article). C Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, I don't understand why Melaleuca is introduced as a "multi-level marketing company." Even most sources that refer to it as using MLM don't use that wording to introduce it. I am open to different ways of describing the company, especially since there is no consensus about the phrase MLM. A scan of news stories about the company shows very few recent stories using the phrase. Andrew³²⁷ 00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. In fact this article (reference #51 on VanderSloot article) has a section about how Melaleuca does not use a multi-level marketing model.HtownCat (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, what's mainly going on in that article is that vdS is asserting that Melaleuca doesn't use a MLM model. One can understand why he might want to convey that message. It is of course contradicted by sources that are in a rather more neutral position. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the article in question cites more than just VanderSloot's opinion. Namely "Jeff Sayer, Idaho Department of Commerce Director" and "Dale Dixon, President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau serving the Snake River Region." On a related note, several of the articles that support the MLM claim come from biased political sources. Andrew³²⁷ 11:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Forbes calls it a "pyramid selling organization". Rolling Stone says "multilevel marketing". Neither is a "biased political source" -- and both are rather more independent from vdS than the CEO of the local BBB. If you'd prefer "pyramid selling organisation" instead of MLM (e.g. on the basis that Forbes is a better source), I'm open to discussing that. Given that there was an RfC that established use of MLM, though, I think we'd need an RfC to make that change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe Nomo is referring to a decision made by administrator User:Lord Roem more than a year ago in which he stated that MLM should not be used in the lede but that it might be used later on in the article. He amplified his decision here. He also said he agreed with User:TParis, who made the observation that "Putting this term in the lead would be damaging because it would give too much weight to this person's life. Putting it in an appropriate section in the article, however, would not if sourced to several reliable sources and balanced with neutral language and counter viewpoints (if available)." With this fairly new article discovered by User:HtownCat, we now have another good source, and I believe it should be used in this article in an appropriate manner. It appears that Frank VanderSloot is now addressing this matter head-on. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Until we have a more thorough discussion within this article about any multi-level marketing connection, this term should be excluded, per a dictum by User:Lord Roem on 12 February 2013: 'The RfC asked whether the term "multi-level marketing" should be used. Because there was no consensus, that term must be excluded.' So I will now revert another attempt by User:Rhode Island Red to include this debated terminology, and I hope it will not be put back without more context as suggested above. I will leave it to somebody else to suggest just how and where this additional information should be put into the article, if at all. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's wikt:dictum, under any of the definitions, it has no relevance to Wikipedia. That being said, we now have a reliable source that Melaleuca is an MLM, and only current comments by vdS and past comments by authoritative sources as quoted by vdS that it isn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am willing to take a look at any new reliable source that says Melaleuca is an MLM, so I did a self-revert. But there is definitely a dispute, new source or not, so shouldn't we simply omit the appellation as an unvarnished fact, or use some other descriptor, as Andrewman suggested above? That would quickly put an end to this whole dispute, it seems to me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The dispute on this issue was settled by an RfC, as you well know. Some of the same people who objected previously might well want to revisit it, but that doesn't mean there's a current dispute -- and to claim otherwise (i.e., to reignite a previously settled dispute) probably amounts to disruption. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A talk page civil discussion of the best way to write a BLP is certainly not disruptive. My watchlist always has several such discussions (sadly one of the most active right now is Justin Bieber) and even things that have been previously discussed should be revisited over time. Andrew³²⁷ 20:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It can be revisited if there is a good reason to revisit it, e.g. a significant new source. But the fact that some editors have always been unhappy with the result of the RfC doesn't mean there is a "dispute", as George tried to claim. My previous post made that specific point (as against saying that something cannot be revisited). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I posted the article above because I think it might be a significant new source. If you look towards the middle of the article, under "The Melaleuca Model," you'll see statements from the Idaho Department of Commerce Director and the regional BBB president. I think it's worth discussing the MLM term again.HtownCat (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The definition from the article,

The model of an MLM is just what it says: multiple levels of distribution, with distributors passing the product from one level to the next.

is completely wrong, and is not supported by any other reliable sources. See our article on multi-level marketing. It is possible that the source could be used to support that Melaleuca is not an MLM company under that definition (which has never been used before or since). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The majority of sources that say the company uses MLM do not provide any real background into what it means, let alone justification. Besides, this is a complicated question that goes beyond one source and warrants a closer look. Andrew³²⁷ 04:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Good article

To improve the article (always the goal) keep in mind what is good about the article. What I like is the portrait-photo at the top. Very good, and a very good and complete article here. Thanks, Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Philanthropy section

The revision made on 05:43, 9 May 2014 removed the following:

At the school's inauguration ceremony in August 2013, Frank and Belinda VanderSloot were presented with a Heritage Achievement Award of the Bonneville County Heritage Association.

I feel this should not have been removed as the award says something about Frank VanderSloot's character and is probably deserving of a few words. Maybe this sentence could be moved from the philanthropy to the awards section as it would certainly fit well there. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Because there were no objections to this suggestion, I am going add this phrase back to the page under the awards section. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this until now. I don't think this award is at all significant enough to mention. There is no Bonneville County Heritage Association article, because it has not been established as notable, and looking around, it doesn't look like it will be any time soon. The award doesn't really say anything about his character, because there is zero information about the award is included in the article, and there are not enough sources about the award to create an article of its own. Why did he win the award? Who can qualify for the award? Who else has won the award? Not answered by the source, nor the article. Mentioning an award without any indication of its significance is undue puffery, and is not informative about him at all. From what little is provided by the source, it is a tiny award given as part of a slightly more significant event which is already covered. This kind of thing needs better sources, or at least more context before it should be included. I am removing it again for these reasons. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Grayfell. I agree with your assessment and will wait on adding the award until I have better sources and more context. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

MLM question

There was interest in this (see here) and I want to keep the discussion going. The last RFC used many politically-charged sources and several articles based primarily on the 2012 US Presidential elections. Taking a broader view, however, two things become clear: most neutral large-circulation sources do not describe the company as using MLM and even sources that use the phrase don't describe it as "...Melaleuca, Inc., a multi-level marketing company..." This includes articles that aren't kind to the BLP subject. USA Today says "Melaleuca, an Idaho wellness company," the New York Times says "Melaleuca, an Idaho-based company that manufactures skin and nutritional products," the Wall Street Journal says "Idaho Falls-based Melaleuca Inc., a vitamin and personal-care products company," Reuters says "the nutritional and cosmetics company Melaleuca," the AP says "direct marketing company Melaleuca," etc. That's not even mentioning the new article that HTownCat brought up in the linked thread, which discusses the MLM question in the most detail of any source. Andrew³²⁷ 14:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think it's that simple. Sure, some sources don't mention an aspect of their business model, but that's not a valid indicator that they're not at least connected to that model. This source and this one ("While the company sells its products through what appears to be a multi-level structure, Vandersloot said...") point out that Melaleuca is aggressive in denying that it is an MLM. I'm sure you've also seen a number of sources that call them an MLM and then issue a correction or retraction, this being a recent example. I've made it clear in the past that I consider the company an MLM, but setting that aside, I still think there is a clear indicator, with substantial sources, that this is not an aspect of the company that should be ignored in the article. Additionally, while I'm all for taking a broader view, I would point out that being politically "charged" doesn't invalidate a source. Wikipedia shouldn't be ignoring things just because they are divisive, and added scrutiny during an election, assuming it's reliable, is not something we should hesitate in taking advantage of. Grayfell (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a simple issue. But contrast the nuance of your 188-word post with what the article currently says on the issue: "...Melaleuca, Inc., a multi-level marketing company..." No nuance at all. And while politically charged commentary can be a reliable source, it's important to balance it with sources like the AP, WSJ, NYT, etc. I made a point of picking examples that were not overly flattering of VanderSloot or the company. Andrew³²⁷ 08:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad someone reopened this discussion. Removing the phrase "multi-level marketing and simply calling Melaleuca "a company that sells ..." and then continuing on with the rest of the paragraph gives the reader a clear description of the company. I think WP:Consensus would support this.HtownCat (talk)

Calling it an MLM with no further explanation may be over-simplifying. My concern is that leaving it out is also oversimplifying. I'm not really concerned with how flatting or unflattering the sources are, I'm concerned with how they address the issue of MLM. I think there are enough articles that mention the point that it's going to create confusion if we leave it out completely, especially since everyone agrees that the company was MLM before Vandersloot came along.

Most sources, including Wikipedia's own article, define MLM in a way that applies to Melaleuca. Vandersloot uses a different, much narrower one.[3] I can see that this is verging into WP:OR territory, since there aren't that many sources that make the connection explicit. I'm not sure what the solution is, but simply removing the line seems misleading. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not persuaded that the proposed change is desirable or necessary. I don't think we need to worry about what sources don't do; it remains the case that there are sufficient sources that define the company as MLM. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see people so friendly these days. Regarding the comment above, though, that "Most sources, including Wikipedia's own article, define MLM in a way that applies to Melaleuca," well, we can't use Wikipedia as a source for articles in Wikipedia. Also, "most" sources? GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

One more thought: I checked the Bing.com dictionary, and this is its definition of multilevel marketing

mul·ti·lev·el mar·ket·ing: pyramid selling system: a method of selling products in which distributors sell to subsidiary distributors, who sell to further distributors, each earning a commission on the direct or indirect sales

This is the way Bing.com describes MLM, and I don't think it applies to Melaleuca at all. When WP:Reliable sources can't even agree on the definition of multi-level marketing, why should WP describe the company with this term? You can see Bing's definition here.GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I attended their annual conference where they emphasized a trademarked phrase: "Direct Consumer Manufacturing". -- I see that this article has been correctly edited away from putting Melaleuca.com in the MLM camp. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I would add that the company gets to define themselves as to what they are and what they are not. The editor who corrected this article stated: "Melaleuca is not a multi-level marketing company, they do not meet hte criteria to be called such in any of the 50 states. There are no distributors and no levels of distribution in the company. You buy directly from Melaleuca" which is correct. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That last is absolutely, positively wrong. The company does not get to define [itself]. With few exceptions, we report what others say about the company. (I'm not going to attempt to trace the IP who edited, but I suspect it's registered to Melaleuca.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's more than what people or news outlets say 'about' Melaleuca; it is also a matter of what the company has demonstrated in court and with the congressmen in Idaho. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. Actual court judgements (not what someone has "demonstrated in court") are primary sources which should not be used for controversial statements about living people. (That's controversial, not negative.) (As VanderSloot is a living person, and he says it's not MLM, that makes the controversial statement that it is (or is not) MLM about a living person.) If a reliable source comments on the court judgement, or even arguments, we could use that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't refer to the company as using MLM, especially reputable large circulation sources. Andrew³²⁷ 19:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That is mostly irrelevant. Those "reliable" sources which say it is not an MLM are quoting principals, rather than speaking in an editorial voice. Most sources apparently do not comment on whether it's an MLM. Thinking about it, my previous comment was wrong. Stating it is an MLM is not a comment about Vandersloot, so is not a BLP violation unless we also quote Vandersloot saying it isn't. Still, the most notable thing about Melaleuca seems to be its business model, which is MLM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edits from new source

Happy New Year, Frank VS editors! A new article was published last month in Idaho Falls Magazine that provides additional information concerning Melaleuca's business model. The magazine interviewed several new sources that addressed the question of whether Melaleuca is a MLM company. Based on this new info, I propose making a new second paragraph in the Melaleuca, Inc. section. See below:

Idaho Falls Magazine in December 2014 surveyed Dale Dixon, president and chief executive officer of the region’s Better Business Bureau; Jeff Sayer, director of the Idaho Department of Commerce; economics professor Will Jenson; Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter; U.S. Representative Mike Simpson; and U.S. Senator Jim Risch, all of whom, according to the magazine, "essentially arrived at the same conclusion surrounding the MLM question: Melaleuca does not meet the MLM definition, and it should not be called a multi-level marketing company." HtownCat (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to name all of these people and provide their affiliations. We're not including names and affiliations of the ones who do describe it as MLM. With the possible exception of the econ professor, there's also no reason to think that they have any basis for their judgment on the matter -- politicians and business boosters would say that, wouldn't they. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year to one and all as well. As I pointed out above, most reliable sources don't say the company uses multi-level marketing but this BLP makes no mention that it's a contested topic. At best the current Wikipedia article text is an oversimplification and at worst it's a misrepresentation. The fact that three high-level elected officials in the country all offered their opinion is noteworthy. Personally I'd rather see MLM not being said in Wikipedia's voice since it appears to be a minority opinion, but while that's hashed out I don't see anything wrong with adding the content HTownCat suggests. Andrew³²⁷ 19:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year! The Idaho Falls Magazine article defines MLM, but then fails to clearly explain why Melaleuca isn't one. It just repeats the same lines about 'investment' which has nothing to do with MLM, and the unusual notion that point of sale is the defining characteristic of an MLM. To highlight how silly this is, think about BurnLounge, which used MLM to sell digital music downloads. Nobody involved was expected to directly upload song-files to their downline, or to set up their own payment systems. Allowing the company to keep track of inventory and payment is common among all MLMs, including Melaleuca, and confusing the issue by implying that there is a meaningful difference is deceptive. Melaleuca's definition of MLM is not widely accepted by economists or reputable independent business analysts. Since this definition doesn't match the mainstream definition, or Wikipedia's own definition (per multi-level marketing), this contradiction needs to be addressed before changing the article.

That article is also very... oddly written, almost like an amateur press release: "The role of the marketing executive is to refer customers to Melaleuca, help them set up shopping accounts and then train others to do so." This is a business model? Why would anyone need to be trained in this? The description of consumer packaged goods sales is absurd, as well. This seems more like an attempt to head-off more comparisons to Herbalife than anything else. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Idaho Falls Magazine references three definitions of MLM including the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, CNN Money, and Investopedia and says “Melaleuca’s model does not fit any of these descriptions about multi-level marketing.” Also, the article quotes U.S. Senator Jim Risch, who says: “Melaleuca’s business operations have been reviewed by State Officials, the Better Business Bureau and legal experts on marketing practices and uniformly all declare that Melaleuca is not a multilevel marketing company.” Looking at the sources that are available, including this most recent article, I don’t see a consensus on Melaleuca as an MLM. HtownCat (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is everything about Melaleuca (company) here in the Wikipedia page for the CEO? Why is there not a separate WP page for a company that is so important? Why all the emphasis on the business model of Melaleuca here in a person's WP page? Frank VanderSloot is a great person and larger than the company Melaleuca! -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hear,here. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Though I agree Melaleuca deserves its own wiki page, I don't believe the emphasis of the business model deters from the personal page of VanderSloot. I looked at other company founders and found that they all had significant information about the companies they have founded.(See Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs). The exception to this was the page for Frederick W. Smith who was the founder of FedEx and Jeff Bezos of Amazon. -- 05:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Jurisdicta (talk)

Donation to baseball stadium project

Yesterday I added the following paragraph about Vandersloot’s donation to a stadium renovation project in Idaho, citing Minor League Baseball as a source:

In 2006, VanderSloot and Melaleuca donated $600,000 to help fund the renovation of a Minor League Baseball stadium in Idaho Falls. [4] The donation was made to ensure that the Idaho Falls Chukars, which threatened to leave the area unless a new stadium was built, remained in the community. The stadium was named Melaleuca Field as a result. [5]

Grayfell reverted the edit, asking for “more neutral, independent sources, please.” Can do. I think Minor League Baseball is a reliable source, but in an effort to gain consensus, here is an additional neutral, independent source: Stadiums USA, “Melaleuca Field Stadium Overview”.

Can we make this change?Pistongrinder (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The milb source specifically says "This story was not subject to the approval of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues or its clubs." It's pretty clear this is provided by the stadium itself. I don't think the listing in StadiumsUSA is independent of the stadium either, since it's also written like a press release. These sources do not justify this level of length and detail. Grayfell (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Any baseball fan knows the footnote you referenced is an MiLB sitewide legal disclaimer. It appears on every news article across every team’s page, and it even appears on articles released by MiLB.com. You can’t just assume that the stadium provided the content, when it is found on an official MiLB site.

As for Stadium USA, it’s “the largest database of sports venues in the nation.” You also can’t just assume that it is subject to the whims of every single team, venue, or their supporters. Compare the Melaleuca Field entry with the entry about Baylor Football’s McLane Stadium, which is currently on the home page: McLane Stadium. You’ll find it reads very similar, as do several other stadium profiles on the site.

Considering the points above, this is a pair of reliable, neutral, and independent sources that say the same thing about the topic.Pistongrinder (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Being a large database similar information about sports venues only underscores that this is routine coverage of a minor detail. Popularity is not a valid indicator of reliability, and that milb disclaims everything they publish suggests that it's not a terribly reliable source. It's an outlet for business info and press releases. These are neither journalist nor academic sources, and need to be weighed with caution. A link to Melaleuca Field could be appropriate, but it would need to be presented without the promotional trivia. The amount of Vandersloot's donations are not noteworthy without independent coverage, and the Stadiums USA mention is pretty trivial, promotional, and doesn't appear to come from a source with the reputation for accuracy and fact checking required by WP:RS. This is highlighted by the blurring of the lines between Vandersloot's personal donation, and Melaleuca's donation. Sponsorship and naming deals are common at all levels of sports and I've rarely seen that rise to significance beyond a brief mention. Look at Safeco Field and Safeco, or Coors Field and Coors Brewing Company. Sports seems to confuse profit and non-profit sometimes, but that doesn't negate that this is a mundane business deal, and Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A quick search on Wikipedia will show that MiLB.com is cited over 1,200 times and StadiumUSA.com is cited 5 times. That’s a lot of articles, and clearly many editors agree these sites meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable, independent sources.Pistongrinder (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the MiLB disclaimers negate those articles as reliable sources, and it's therefore irrelevant that MiLB is cited elsewhere in WP. I also agree with Grayfell's argument about StadiumsUSA. It is not a site with a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, oversight, etc., as required per WP:RS and it does read like a gushing press release. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I trust the 1,200 edits across several hundred Wikipedia articles, and the consensus they represent, over a couple of opinions. Regardless, here’s a third reliable source that backs up my original edit: Idaho Statesman. It says, “VanderSloot’s contributions to his community include paying for a July 4 fireworks show in Idaho Falls that’s drawn as many as 200,000 spectators. The company says it’s the second-largest in the U.S. He has put up $1.5 million to jump-start a regional water treatment plant, paid $600,000 at the 11th hour to rebuild the minor league baseball stadium, and helped raise $300,000 in August for the Idaho Meth Project with a concert at the ballpark, Melaleuca Field." This particular news story has already been cited 15 times on this Wikipedia article.Pistongrinder (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The 1,200 edits you refer to do not represent a consensus of any kind relevant to this particular case, nor do they trump our discussion. The Statesman article you cited, which has less than a sentence about the ballpark, conflicts with what the ballpark's official website claims as the source of the donation. The latter says the money came from Melaleuca, not from vanderslot himself.[6] Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Context always matters for sources, see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Again, a single line mentioning the existence of the field may be appropriate, maybe in the 'see also' section, but sources from milb are WP:PRIMARY regarding milb players and facilities, and should be weighed carefully. Browsing through Special:LinkSearch for those links, they appear to be used for filling in routine stats and similar on teams and players, which is generally the limit of what primary sources should be used for. Similarly, the StadiumsUSA.com links are mostly for uncontroversial seating capacity info in articles about stadiums, and they would probably not survive further scrutiny, especially not for a WP:BLP. Regardless, usage elsewhere in a different context doesn't establish a precedent on this article. Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The site you provided above [7] is not a reliable source. It is not the “ballpark’s official website” as you have stated. MiLB.com is the official website for the Idaho Falls Chukars, who play at Melaleuca Field.

I suggest we move forward with my original edit using the [8] Idaho Statesman and this MiLB page as sources.Pistongrinder (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Except there is still the issue of the disclaimer on the MiLB site, which renders it a bad source, so no dice. I'm not saying that the ballpark's website is reliable or any better than MiLB. I'm merely pointing out that it presents information that conflicts with what was written on MiLB about the source of the donation. That's a problem. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

My original edit stated, “VanderSloot and Melaleuca donated $600,000.” By listing both names, it aligns with all the sources we’ve discussed. Hopefully, this can help us come to a consensus.

That's not alignment; it's blending two conflicting sources to create an improper WP:SYNTH. The source I posted says that it was Melalecua, not vaderslot that provided the funds. It would make sense that the funds came from Melaleuca and not vanderloot, since the park was renamed Melaleuca Field and not Vandersloot Field. It seems like nothing more than a routine corporate sponsorship/naming rights deal, yet the dramatized text you proposed spins this mundane story as an act of largess/philanthropy. The story at best, would read essentially -- "company buys stadium naming rights".Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, Melaleucafield.com is not a reliable source. Look at the copyright on the bottom of the page: The website is owned by Melaleuca, and is therefore a firsthand source, and not at all independent. I’m actually surprised you added it as a source on Melaleuca Field.

The 5 independent sources I’ve provided—Idaho Statesman, KIDK Eyewitness News, MiLB.com, StadiumsUSA.com, and the stadium's owner, Elmore Sports Group—uniformly state it was VanderSloot, and not Melaleuca, who made the donation. None of these sources refer to Frank's donation as a “naming rights” deal.

The most reliable source, the Idaho Statesman, specifically points out, "VanderSloot’s contributions to his community include paying...$600,000 at the 11th hour to rebuild the minor league baseball stadium."Pistongrinder (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

MiLB.com and Elmore Sports Group are not independent of the stadium. StadiumsUSA.com is not reliable, and is promotionally written enough that it also should not be treated as independent. Melaleucafield.com is a primary source which can be used to supply details, but is not useful for establishing significance. The two news sources are brief mentions of the stadium which fail to provide context or establish lasting significance. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I found a link to a video of an Idaho TV station, KIDK Eyewitness News, reporting on this story. The reporter states, “When the old McDermott baseball field in Idaho Falls was literally days away from being shut down, Frank VanderSloot stepped forward with $600,000 and saved the park. It’s now called Melaleuca Field.” The video is archived on Melaleuca’s Youtube channel.Pistongrinder (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I also discovered the official site of Melaleuca Field's owner, Elmore Sports Group, which has the same information as MiLB.com. It says, "Melaleuca CEO Frank VanderSloot donated $600,000-more than enough to ensure a new ballpark would be built." Here's the link: [9]Pistongrinder (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, mentioning the existence of the field is one thing, but this level of detail is undue. Adding additional flimsy press releases and passing mentions isn't a good way to fix that. The video link is a few seconds of passing mention of the field giving context for a larger, puffy bio. The Elmore Sports Group press release is not reliable at all, doesn't give meaningful context, and fails to distinguish between Vandersloots donation and Melaleuca's donation. Grayfell (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with your views on this edit. But in the interest of consensus, I propose shortening my original edit to one sentence so it simply reads: "In 2006, VanderSloot helped prevent Minor League Baseball's Idaho Falls Chukars from leaving town by donating $600,000 to the renovation of their ballpark, now called Melaleuca Field." (citing Idaho Statesman and KIDK Eyewitness News)Pistongrinder (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's missing the central point of the debate here no? i.e., it is not clear whether the donation came from Melaleuca or Vanderslot. The field is not called Vandersloot field, so it would make more sense that the funding originated from Melaleuca. Also, spinning the story with that corny philanthropic angle seems highly inappropriate, since what this really amounted to is a standard promotional/naming rights deal. That's how these things work in the real world. The most you could say here with any degree of confidence is something like:

In 2004 a campaign was undertaken by the Idaho Falls Chukars, a Minor League Baseball team, to renovate the ballpark McDermott Field in Idaho Falls, IA. The city of Idaho Falls provided $2 million for the project and the Chukars started a "Step Up To The Plate" fundraising campaign to come up with the remaining $1.35 million. Melaleuca provided $600,000 to complete the construction and the stadium was renamed Melaleuca Field on June 22, 2007. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion. Just to clarify, what sources would you cite for your proposed edit?Pistongrinder (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not proposing an edit. I think the detail is trivial and, because it pertains to Melaleuca, not relevant to VS's bio. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It pertains to Melaleuca AND VanderSloot, and therefore is relevant to VanderSloot’s bio. Here’s another news source that corroborates all the other sources I’ve proposed by saying VanderSloot made the donation.Pistongrinder (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Now you're misrepresenting a Melaleuca press release as a "news source" -- not cool. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It’s an archive of a TV news story by an independent source (KIDK Eyewitness news) that says VanderSloot made the donation. In fact, every source we've discussed says the donation came from VanderSloot. Did you notice that on MelaleucaField.com—a source that you have already accepted—it says "he" (aka, VanderSloot) made the donation?

You said “the central point of the debate here” is that “it is not clear whether the donation came from Melaleuca or Vanderslot.” How can it not be clear when every source we’ve discussed says the money came from VanderSloot?Pistongrinder (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No, clearly not every source says that the money came from Vandersloot. I made that point explicitly already based on the detailed history described on the Field's website, which identifies Melaleuca, not VS, as the source of the funds.[10][11] Were you not listening? Of all the sources presented to date, this one provides the most depth about the history of the ballpark's renovation. The others contain passing mention only; that superficial and obsequious KIDK segment is a prime example, and you couldn't link it in the article anyway because of copyright. Also, recall that there was a reliability issue with one of the source you brought up (MILB) that was deemed unreliable based on its disclaimer, remember? And again, the ultimate reality check here is that the ballpark was named Meleleuca Field, not Vandersloot Field. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I think you’re mistaken. I’ve gone back and looked at MelaleucaField.com, which you say “provides the most depth about the history of the ballpark's renovation,” and I can’t find any instance where it says Melaleuca made the donation. This page [12] and this page [13] both say VanderSloot made the donation.Pistongrinder (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's quite possible that this has changed in the four months since the previous comment. Why the delay? That it's named Melaleuca Field seems like a dead giveaway that this is closely related to the company and promotional concerns. Is there any other connection between Idaho Falls and an obscure Australian shrub? Regardless, a single sentence, without promotionally phrasing it as Vandersloot having "stepped in at the last minute" or whatever, would be sufficient. It's just a minor local tidbit, and it warrants no more attention than that based on sources provided. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Suing to stop the presses?

This entry seems to have a lot of content about VanderSloot's business interests, but not so much about his attacks on the press for discussing his long history of homophobia and campaigning against marriage rights. See for instance Mother Jones, Salon, and many others if one performs a quick search. Source materials include this ad, and print articles such as this from The Spokesman-Review of August 5, 1999 (thank you Google for this archive).

While these items are briefly mentioned in the entry, they are given very little space compared to other - less controversial - items. There is also no linking between the last paragraphs of sections 3.5 and 3.6, which to my eyes appear to show that VanderSloot was deliberately seeking to use the law and his money/power to get 'revenge'. That is, it appears that he outed Zuckerman and then sued the guy for mentioning it - for (as the Mother Jones link points out in relation to its own lawsuit) "exactly $1 under the amount at which the lawsuit could have been removed to federal court"! (Instead it was to be heard in a region where he was the primary employer, in front of a jury - no wonder the reporter didn't fight.)

I realise that entries regarding living persons 'must be carefully written', but suggest that these controversial issues should be given greater prominence than - for instance - his statements in support of strong corporate ethics or some role he held in 1993. In fact, there really should be a 'controversies' section that covers these issues and the concerns about his Melaleuca business.

Can someone who has a better idea of the subject add to this suggestion (or dismiss it on reasonable grounds)? Please feel free to correct my words if they are in any way against the 'living persons' policy, although I have sought to be conservative in what I have said.104.250.184.30 (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)