Talk:Cedar Fort, Inc.

Gay controversy section
To those who have expanded the section on the Gay Author Controversy, Wikipedia is not the gossip pages of your local tabloid. Cedar Fort acknowledges the events that occurred, you'll note that we didn't try to whitewash the first draft of this page, however, your edits strike me as fulfilling an agenda, especially considering that you removed an entire, properly cited, side of the controversy, and included inflammatory language to boot. Let's keep this page PG, and let's acknowledge that Cedar Fort has taken other stances in other situations. It's fun to vilify an easy target, but we, as a company, are not your enemies. -Welkin S (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is also not a PR tool where a company employee can include only passing reference to a prominent controversy in an effort to avoid further embarrassment.


 * I removed one sentence, about an unrelated Cedar Fort product, but will agree to include The Reluctant Blogger as long as it's described accurately. That work does not "deal directly" with homosexuality; its author told the Salt Lake Tribune that it includes "a gay character" who is not even the protagonist. Cedar Fort may have taken "other stances in other situations," but that's exactly what they are: other situations, and therefore not really germane to this one. Agreeing to including a gay character in one fictional work is hardly an "entire" other side of a situation that's primarily about how Cedar Fort allegedly treated one of their own authors—a real person, in real life. Regardless, the reference is back in.


 * What inflammatory language did I include that is not an inherent part of the controversy (though I don't even agree that it's inflammatory)? (Note that inflammatory language itself is not acceptable grounds for deletion.) Mr. Mortimer's alleged behavior was one impetus behind the authors' petition---a petition that you initially included. It's reasonable that this article should include the full reason for the authors' concern. Further, you continue to remove some of the specific names of those who signed the petition, for which you have no grounds. Finally, this page remains completely PG with my additions.


 * To recap, I removed:
 * one sentence, which is now restored very close to your original
 * You, an employee of the subject, removed:
 * an inherent component of the controversy
 * specifics about petitioning authors
 * three additional, independent references to the situation—at least two of which are accepted by Wikipedia as reputable sources.
 * Now, with the re-inclusion of The Reluctant Blogger, I've only added information and references—including reference to Bryce Mortimer's direct response to media about the situation, which seems like a much more appropriate "other side" than The Reluctant Blogger. You have only removed information, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy on controversial or biased information and topics. It seems to me that your edits are the ones that truly seek to fulfill an agenda. -Zionide (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not knowing what other sources may be out there, the current coverage of the controversy seems as even-handed as possible considering the events/outcome.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 15:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cedar Fort, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107212806/http://www.azfamily.com/good-morning-arizona/Kids-in-the-kitchen-227522071.html to http://www.azfamily.com/good-morning-arizona/Kids-in-the-kitchen-227522071.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)