Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive 1

Untitled
I just added a link to this article: It raises WP:BLP issues, but I think it's fairly reliable, and as long as we describe it as 'allegations' rather than state it as fact, I think it can go in the article. Robofish (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms
Currently, over 50% of the criticism section are direct quotes from the subject. It should probably be focused on detailing the criticisms as opposed to the subject's responses. Additionally, I am not sure the wording conforms to community guidelines. This page will likely receive additional traffic as the subject is the media attention. However, I am not very sure what should be done. Trabisnikof (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added a summarized version of some of the complaints leveled against him, as including a section that has him responding to accusations without stating what he was accused of is pretty absurd. WhoIsWillo (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I think the criticism should probably be moved to it's own section, as it doesn't really fit the content that surrounds it, and it's the main reason why people will be visiting the page now. WhoIsWillo (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Pyramid Selling, Multilevel Marketing, and Direct Marketing.
There seems to be a little confusing about exactly how Melaleuca works, and I think this is important for the article. Some sources say it is a pyramid selling model, such as the Mother Jones one and the Salon.com article. Pyramid selling links to Pyramid scheme, which is not what these sources are saying. It looks like they are describing multilevel marketing, which is different enough that it's legal. Although that term has very negative connotation, I can't really find any difference between what Melaleuca does and the strict definition of multilevel marketing. Melaleuca itself uses the term direct marketing, which is a very vague article in this context. As far as I can tell, they are not explaining that it's different from multilevel marketing so much as emphasizing that the seller doesn't have to keep the product on-hand, hence direct. Since most secondary sources, even fairly flattering ones such as the Forbes.com article use some variation of multilevel marketing I think we should go with that. This official video makes it very, very clear that they use a multilevel marketing model. Just because they call it something else, it is screamingly obvious that it is a multilevel marketing company. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Response. "Pyramid selling" is indeed a very negative term. Why use a term that libels the reputation of Melaleuca as well as libels the name of Frank VanderSloot when it does not at all describe the business activities of the company?


 * The Forbes article you mention is clearly an article about Frank VanderSloot, not an article on Melaleuca's business model. There is no evidence that the author of the Forbes article spent any time at all researching Melaleuca's business model. It is doubtful that she would consider herself an expert on that issue. An argument was made in Forbes the month following the month that the article appeared that pointed out that calling Melaleuca a "pyramid selling organization" was inappropriate. (Forbes Counter) While Forbes may be a reliable source for some things, its calling Melaleuca a pyramid selling organization was criticized immediately. Using an article that was immediately disputed by those who know more about the issue than the author seems to be unfair and significantly biased.


 * PYRAMID SELLING AND PYRAMID SCHEMES
 * The concepts of "pyramid scheme" (illegal) and "pyramid selling" (questionable but perhaps legal) both typically have to do with requiring some type of investment with the hope of getting several others to make the same or similar investment, thereby receiving back far more than the original investment. These types of schemes are risky, and they often damage people's lives. The risk is that after someone makes their investment, they may not be able to entice someone else to make a similar investment. They stand to lose everything that they invested. Pyramid selling, by its very nature, needs some kind of investment by its participants to build the pyramid. In Melaleuca's model there is no investment of any kind, nor is any inventory purchased. Melaleuca's model could never be deemed "pyramid selling" because it lacks any investment or outlay of cash.


 * Many MLM companies do indeed use a very similar model, requiring participants to purchase product inventory and entice others to purchase inventory. They try to legitimize their model by requiring the resale of the inventory to others. This methodology has been upheld to be legal and is called “multilevel marketing” (MLM). Melaleuca's model is the antithesis of both “MLM” and "pyramid selling" because there is no investment by participants and no reselling of product. There are, in fact, no multiple levels of distribution whatsoever (Melaleuca video). The company sells directly to the customer. Because of that, it cannot be accurately called either "MLM" or "pyramid selling". That's why it is called "consumer direct marketing". Melaleuca’s model could correctly be described as "referring selling", but it does not engage in multilevel selling or pyramid selling.


 * According to the Free Dictionary by Farflex, pyramid selling is “a practice adopted by some manufacturers of advertising for distributors and selling them batches of goods. The first distributors then advertise for more distributors who are sold subdivisions of the original batches at an increased price. This process continues until the final distributors are left with a stock that is unsaleable except at a loss.”


 * The Cambridge Dictionary Online defines pyramid selling as: “in business, when someone buys the right to sell a company's goods, and then sells the goods to other people. These people then sell the goods to other people.”


 * Melaleuca’s business model clearly does not fit either definition.


 * Not only is Melaleuca’s business model not pyramid selling or MLM, Melaleuca’s business model is specifically designed to prevent pyramid selling and multi-level marketing. What Makes Melaleuca Different.


 * DIRECT SELLING & MLM VS. DIRECT MARKETING
 * There's a great difference between "direct selling" and "direct marketing." Both types of selling are represented by different national associations.


 * Direct selling is defined by the Direct Selling Association as: "the sale of a consumer products or services, person-to-person, away from a fixed retail location, marketed through independent sales representatives who are sometimes also referred to as consultants, distributors or other titles."


 * Since no "person-to-person" sales occur in Melaleuca's model, Melaleuca's methodology could never accurately be described as "direct selling."


 * Multilevel Marketing (MLM) is defined by the Direct Selling Association as "a type of compensation plan found in direct selling ."


 * Since MLM is by definition is only done by direct selling companies, and Melaleuca is not a direct selling company it cannot be an MLM.


 * Direct marketing "is the business of selling goods or services directly to the public e.g. by direct mail, telephone, Internet sales, catalog sales, rather than through retail outlets." According to the Direct Selling Association, those activities (internet sales, telephone sales, etc) are specifically not Direct Selling. Virtually none of Melaleuca's sales occur "person-to-person." Virtually all of Melaleuca's sales occur through a physical catalogue or online catalogue. Sales occur on the internet or via the telephone directly with the company.


 * According to Wikipedia, direct marketing "is a channel-agnostic form of advertising that allows businesses and nonprofits to communicate directly to the customer, with advertising techniques such as mobile messaging, e-mail, interactive consumer websites, online display ads, flyers, catalog distribution, promotional letters, and outdoor advertising." This describes Melaleuca's business as all of Melaleuca's sales occur through either physical catalog or online catalog and occur over the telephone or through the Internet, and all of Melaleuca's messaging to its customers occurs through, their published catalog or through mobile messages, e-mail, interactive consumer websites, online display ads, flyers, etc.


 * Melaleuca is clearly a direct marketing company but not a direct selling company.


 * Multilevel marketing has legal definitions as defined by several state statutes. All of the legal definitions from the various states refer to different levels of distribution. Louisiana: LAC 16:111.503 (2010); Maryland: Md. Business Regulation Code Ann. S 14-301 (2010); Massachusetts: ALM GL ch.93, S 69(a) (2010); Montana: M.C.A. S 30-10-324(3)(c) (2010) Melaleuca does not have any multiple levels of distribution. In Melaleuca's model, product moves directly from the company to the customer. Therefore, Melaleuca's model does not fit any existing state definitions of Multilevel Marketing.


 * Describing Melaleuca's business model as "pyramid selling" is highly problematic in that it would not only be inaccurate, it is perhaps libelous because of the extreme negative connotation of that term. Using the term "MLM" to describe Melaleuca's model may not be libelous, but is clearly grossly inaccurate. RoadPeace (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2012


 * Thank you for that detailed response. I've got a few points I'd like to bring up:


 * You're right about the term 'pyramid selling'. Although I don't believe it is libelous, it is polarizing and misleading. It was taken from the Forbes article, mainly as a compromise with someone who disagreed with the term multilevel marketing, since it was directly cited as such.


 * First of all, I am very weary of Youtube videos being used as citations here. It's bad form for Wikipedia, but I'm especially cautious for this topic. You may have noticed that there are a LOT of videos about Melaleuca on Youtube, many of them are very promotional in nature, and cannot be used as a non-biased source, and most of the rest of them are blatant attacks against melaleuca (usually as a back-handed promotion for some other home-based marketing model). If we can find a video from a legitimate news organization, I would be okay, but otherwise, I don't think those are going to fly. What we need, what what we always need it seems, are reliable, neutral sources. We don't have any about Melaleuca's business model, as most sources I can find are either very vaguely in praise of VanderSloot as a businessman, or journalistic comments about his conservative political activities.


 * What do you mean 'no "person-to-person" sales occur'? How are sales made then? My understanding is that people introduce the product line to others, who then order and receive the product from the factory-warehouse. It is still person to person, isn't it? The people involved are independent representative selling away from fixed retail organizations, aren't they? Also, you have linked to the wrong site. The Direct Sellers Association is at www.dsa.org, and Melaleuca is a member of that organization . Here is their profile page. The important thing to note here is that I see no evidence that Melaleuca cannot be both direct selling and direct marketing. The two concept are not mutually exclusive, and it appears that Melaleuca is both.


 * As for MLM, you have described many of the reasons why MLM has a bad wrap, but those are not things that define MLM. There are many disreputable MLM companies, but that doesn't mean that all MLMs are disreputable. As I said initially, Nobody here is saying that Melaleuca is disreputable. They have made it very clear that they do not want to be considered an MLM, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean that they aren't, technically, an MLM. The definition of Multilevel marketing, from the first sentence of the Wikipedia article:


 * "'Multi-level marketing (MLM) is a marketing strategy in which the sales force is compensated not only for sales they personally generate, but also for the sales of others they recruit, creating a downline of distributors and a hierarchy of multiple levels of compensation.'"


 * They may very well be the 'good guys' in the MLM world, but they distribute percentage based commission to independent sales-people, as well as the people who initially recruit those sales-people. That makes them a multilevel marketing company, end of story.Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is another issue with the usage of the term "multilevel marketing" related to the Forbes article. The Forbes article never describes Melaleuca's business model as "multilevel marketing." The only quote even reminiscent of such a description states, "And, in a departure from many multilevel marketing schemes, VanderSloot is insistent about not burdening new recruits with huge startup costs or a garageful of inventory." The author is identifying characteristics that distinguish Melaleuca from multilevel marketing rather than indicate its inclusion. Essentially, the citation to the Forbes article is a misquotation. (Caloi Rider (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC))


 * That's a good point. The Forbes article actually says 'pyramid selling', which as RoadPeace mentions above, is misleading because of its similarity to 'pyramid scheme'. The article on MLM does list pyramid selling as another name for multilevel marketing, though, and that was the term I used at one point. Since pyramid selling is a redirect to pyramid scheme, I thought it would be clearer and less confrontational to change it to multilevel marketing and avoid any euphemistic redirects.


 * The problem is that there are few neutral terms for it, maybe because any neutral way to describe it becomes adopted by less-scrupulous companies in order to disguise and glamorize what they do, thus debasing the new term. I'm not really entirely comfortable with using the term 'multilevel marketing', but I don't think it would be appropriate to use doublespeak that obscures what Melaleuca does, either. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a good reason to be uncomfortable with calling Melaleuca's model "MLM" or "multilevel marketing. "Melaleuca simply does not use a multilevel marketing model. You would have to be pretty unfamiliar with MLM or with Melaleuca's model to suggest that it does.


 * To understand the term, "multilevel marketing" it may be helpful to refer to the history of that term. In the early 60s several firms sprang up that used this model. Companies like Holiday Magic and Amway sold products to distributors who resold the product to others. In the Amway model, a distributor would have to do a certain volume in order to qualify for the level of "direct distributor" which allowed them to purchase directly from the company. "Direct distributors" would purchase large quantities of product and stock that product in their garage and make it available to other distributors in their downline. Those distributors would take possession of product and move it to their own garage and make it available to distributors in their downlines. In that model, product moved from distributor to distributor. Multilevel marketing came to mean multiple levels of distribution. In today's world, in MLM companies, product often moves several levels but at least two levels, i.e. first level = from company to distributor, second-level= from distributor customer. The risk inherent here is that distributor must invest in and maintain an inventory. If the distributor cannot resell the product, they are stuck with losing money on their original investment. Most MLM companies focus on moving product to their distributors. Often, very little of that product ever gets to end consumers. Many people investing in inventories get hurt because they lose money on their investment in inventory. The direct selling Association has beefed up its code of ethics to require companies to purchase back these inventories, when distributors decide to throw in the towel and stop trying to sell the product. But many MLM's try to avoid the buyback provisions required by the DSA, therefore leaving distributors out to dry and giving MLM a bad name.


 * It is important to note that with Melaleuca there is no person-to-person sales. The company creates and handles all sales transactions. Marketing executives simply refer customers to the company. A record is kept of who referred the customer and the person making the referral gets a small commission whenever the customer buys. That is a far cry from the MLM model. A huge difference is there is no inventory kept by the marketing executive, no investment, no way to get hurt, no reselling of product, and no appearance of any MLM type activities whatsoever.


 * Repeating the definition of Multilevel marketing in Wikipedia you refer to:
 * "Multilevel (MLM) is a marketing strategy in which the sales force is compensated not only for sale they personally generate but also for the sales of others they ::recruit, creating a downline of distributors and a hierarchy of multiple levels of compensation."


 * The operative word here is "distributors". To be a distributor one must distribute something. That word, alone, disqualifies Melaleuca from being multilevel marketing. Melaleuca marketing executives do not distribute anything. Therefore, they are not distributors. There is also no downline of distributors. The use of the word distributor is no accident here. All legal definitions from the various states that define MLM or multilevel marketing define it as having multiple levels of "distribution". With there are no multiple levels of distribution and no downlines. Hence Melaleuca does not practice multilevel marketing.


 * Summary:
 * Melaleuca does not fit the Direct Selling Association definition of Multilevel Marketing.
 * Melaleuca’s business model does not fit any existing state or federal definition MLM.
 * Melaleuca does not fit Wikipedia’s definition of MLM
 * Melaleuca does not fit any traditional or even non-traditional definition of MLM


 * Therefore, only an extremely biased person would try to cram Melaleuca into the MLM box when it just simply does not fit. One would have to have some significant bias to continue to insist on doing that.


 * Melaleuca has aptly defined itself as operating a Consumer direct marketing model. It compensates people on referrals they make to the company. There is no valid argument that suggests that Melaleuca does not practice consumer direct marketing. And there is ample evidence that Melaleuca uses the referral marketing model to refer customers to the business. It's been doing that for 26 years. RoadPeace (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2012


 * I disagree with a major point of your contention. What you described would be accurately called 'multilevel distribution'. While MLM and 'MLD' (if you will) have been historically linked, they are not the same thing. Again, from Multilevel marketing:
 * "'Network Marketing' and 'Multi-level Marketing' have been described by author Dominique Xardel as being synonymous, and as methods of direct selling.[1] According to Xardel, 'direct selling' and 'network marketing' refer to the distribution system, while the term 'multi-level marketing' describes the compensation plan.[1] Other terms that are sometimes used to describe multi-level marketing include 'word-of-mouth marketing', 'interactive distribution', and 'relationship marketing'. Critics have argued that the use of different terms and 'buzzwords' is an effort to distinguish multi-level marketing from illegal Ponzi schemes, chain letters, and consumer fraud scams.[14] Some sources classify multi-level marketing as a form of direct selling rather than being direct selling.[13][15][16]"
 * I don't know who the 'Direct Selling Association' is, as there website you linked to appears down at the moment. The Direct Selling Association of America (of which Melaleuca is a member) has numerous MLMs as members, including Amway. If Amway is a direct seller, and also an MLM, why can't Melaleuca be the same? In fact, according to this pdf, more than 90% of direct sellers are MLMs. We are in agreement that they are direct marketers. I think their membership in the DSA shows that they are also direct sellers. So what definition of MLM are you referring to?
 * From the dsa.org FAQ:
 * "'Q. What is the difference between direct selling and multilevel marketing?"
 * "A. Direct selling refers to a distribution method, whereas multilevel marketing refers more specifically to a type of compensation plan found in direct selling. A direct selling company that offers a multilevel compensation plan pays its representatives/distributors based not only on one's own product sales, but on the product sales of one's 'downline' (the people a representative/distributor has brought into the business, and, in turn, the people they have brought into the business).'"
 * Melaleuca's own trade organization includes both representatives AND distributors as being viable for inclusion in MLM compensation. The Montana Securities Department likewise does not make a distinction between distributor and representative for determining MLM status. I have not looked into any other government positions yet.
 * Since I do not concede the first three points on your list, I find the last one to be flawed as well. Melaleuca fits most traditional definitions of an MLM. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Response: You clearly do not have knowledge of which you are writing. It is called the Direct Selling Association, (not the Direct Selling Association of America.) Melaleuca Inc. is a member of several trade associations. Just because it is a member of the Direct Selling Association does not mean it is a "direct seller." In fact the associations definition for "direct selling" states that a direct seller, by definition, is involved in person-to-person sales. As pointed out above, Melaleuca's model does not include person-to-person sales. It's clear that you do not understand that. The fact that you do not understand it or do not concede it does not make it any less true. Just because Melaleuca has some things in common with direct selling, and, in general, must operate under the same laws and guidelines as direct sellers, and therefore finds it to its own advantage to be a member of the direct selling Association, does not mean it is a direct seller.


 * The Montana definition that you refer to above states: "Multilevel marketing firms sell goods or services through independent agents." Again, Melaleuca does not sell goods or services through independent agents. The company handles all of the sales transactions directly with the customer. The independent agents do not sell any goods or services whatsoever. They only refer customers and register those customers with the company. They do not make sales. How many times do I have to repeat this and how many different ways do I have to say it before you understand? Melaleuca does not meet the definition of a direct selling company. Neither does it meet any definition of multilevel marketing.


 * Wikipedia rules are that Wikipedia editors must come from a neutral point of view. Your repeated insistence on defining Melaleuca in a negative light makes it clear that you are not operating from a neutral point of view . You have admitted that MLM has a negative connotation. “Consumer direct marketing" and "referral marketing" are much more accurate than the terms you are suggesting. Besides being far more accurate, these terms are neither positive nor negative. What is your personal stake in this? Why do you insist on using terms that do not at all define Melaleuca's model and which, by your own definition are negative terms and therefore do not come from a neutral point of view? RoadPeace (talk) 9:26, 25 May 2012


 * To answer your question, I have no personal stake in this. None. Do you? I called it the Direct Selling Association of America because there are several different organization by that name based out of different countries, and my understanding is that some of the other ones are pretty sketchy. I thought it worthwhile to make it clear which one I was referring to. That's all I meant by that. As for the positive or negative connotations of MLM as a term, my point has always been that those connotations are not intrinsic to the term itself. Although the term has a lot of baggage, there is nothing illegal or inherently unethical about MLM, so if Melaleuca is MLM, we should call it that. Let me make it clear that it is not my intention, by calling Melaleuca an MLM, to cast it in a negative light. I am simply trying to describe it as what it is. So far, you're arguments against that definition haven't persuaded me that it isn't, and your repeated use of heavily promotional WP:PRIMARY sources also fail to persuade me. Simply because everything is distributed from a central location doesn't, as I understand it, mean that the sales aren't considered 'person to person'. It's your contention that I am mistaken about that. I think it's clear we need a few additional sets of eyes on this page, so I am posting a notice on the BLP Noticeboard. Hopefully we can get a few more experienced editors to help us out. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to that notice, Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, for convenience. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Arriving here from BLPN -- I agree with Grayfell's approach to this issue, and in general with the idea that we shouldn't be over-using primary sources here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Forbes article makes it clear that the Melaleuca model is a departure from Multi-Level Marketing Schemes therefore it is not a multi-level marketing scheme but rather “a departure from”. It is clearly not accurate or fair to label Melaleuca an MLM when Forbes states it is a departure from that model.  The term direct marketing better describes the model in that Melaleuca customers buy directly from a catalog which is definitely direct marketing.


 * Melaleuca’s model fits all conventional definitions of Direct Marketing (Webster). Melaleuca does not meet any conventional definitions of multi-level marketing (there are no multiple levels of anything!).  It doesn’t serve a NPV to label Melaleuca something that it is not.


 * Using the term MLM to define Melaleuca whose membership avidly despises the MLM model is contentious. This is extremely contentious and damages the company and Frank Vandersloot’s reputation unfairly and wrongly. WP:BLP rules state “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.” --Not LTD (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have misread the source. It does not say "in a departure from multilevel marketing schemes", it says " in a departure from many multilevel marketing schemes ".  In other words, this article offers the view that Melaleuca is a MLM model with a difference on a single aspect.  Also note that in the other source Vandersloot himself says that Melaleuca is a MLM firm.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been watching the debate on this talk page with some amusement. Suggesting that Frank VanderSloot was talking about Melaleuca, Inc when he mentioned that he was operating an MLM company documents the writer is either extremely biased or totally uninformed as to the history of Frank VanderSloot and Melaleuca. Anyone who knows the history of the company at all knows the following: In December of 1984, Frank VanderSloot was recruited by Roger Ball to join the newly-formed Oil of Melaleuca, Inc as its CEO. (That was an entirely different company than Melaleuca, Inc.) Oil of Melaleuca, Inc was a multi-level Marketing company. The company had already been operating for 3 months when Frank Became CEO in March of 1985. It was Frank’s first and only experience with MLM. The company only lasted 7 months. It had marginal success in its first few months, but then failed, partly because of its MLM model. People were purchasing inventories of starter kits, but very little product was being resold to end consumers. In August 1985, Oil of Melaleuca closed its doors. In the 5 months of operating Oil of Melaleuca, Frank VanderSloot learned a great deal about MLM. He became very critical of the fact that MLM models are usually designed to sell inventories to unsuspecting get-rich-quick wannabes rather than selling product to end-users. MLM usually requires an investment of some type and only pays off if the participant gets others to make a similar investment. The result is that the first guy in wins and the last guy in loses. Frank thought that he could design a program that still offered a business opportunity to those who referred customers, but would avoid the MLM aspects altogether. He thought that a system where the company would carry the inventory and handle all sales transactions to consumers would create a viable company where every sale was to an end user rather than end up in someone’s garage. It was a model that was more similar to the corporate world he had come from. He launched a new company in September of 1985. He tried to approach the MLM distributors who had joined Oil of Melaleuca. They felt that selling tiny amounts to customers rather than large orders to distributors would not be a viable fast track to the wealth they were seeking. They left to join various MLM opportunities then in operation. But a few of the customers of Oil of Melaleuca did stay and some eventually referred other customers. Since Melaleuca’s customer referral model was so different from MLM, and since it resembled direct marketing rather than direct sales, the new model became known as “Consumer Direct Marketing.” Besides selling directly to customers, Melaleuca implemented several other principles that would never be found in any MLM company. For example, MLM companies traditionally reward large purchases and large investments with extra bonuses and larger discounts. This factor is what gives MLM its bad name in that it induces greater investments in inventory and creates greater risk and often financial disaster for the distributers who participate. Yet it is the concept that MLM’s thrive on.


 * Melaleuca does the opposite. Not only does Melaleuca not give extra incentives to larger purchases, it does not give any commissions on sales of over $150 per month, thereby eliminating any temptation for anyone to make an investment in inventory. Such a tactic would destroy any MLM company! This is just one difference. The list of opposites between Melaleuca’s model and MLM companies is endless. Frank VanderSloot has spent the last 26 years criticizing the MLM model in that it often destroys lives and often does not produce sales to end consumers. He has criticized the MLM model to the both the US Direct Selling Association and the World Federation of Direct Sellers. He is so critical of MLM, he has offered a $ 10,000 dollar reward for anyone who can identify a single successful MLM company in the United States that has started in the last 30 years. He has publicly stated there are none. In that Melaleuca started only 26 years ago, if Melaleuca were MLM, he would be saying that Melaleuca is not successful-hardly a supportable position, given that Melaleuca hit $1 Billion dollars in sales last year.


 * The point is Melaleuca is not MLM and has almost nothing in common with MLM companies other than it offers a business opportunity. It offers that opportunity in a way that can be considered the opposite of MLM. Besides being totally different, there are simply no multiple levels of anything.


 * Melaleuca is successful partly because it is not MLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginenow (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, we see someone using certain characteristics common to most MLMs as a generalized reason why Melaleuca somehow can't possible be a MLM. Find me a definition of MLM (from a reputable source, and NOT from a Meleleuca website!) that matches this line of thought, and bring it here. The idea that all of these finicky subtleties about how much is or isn't delivered at a time, or how strongly VanderSloot rejects the label, or the fact that they order from a catalog or website instead of from someone's garage, all miss the most important point. Multilevel marketing is about paying people who make sales a commission, and also paying the people who recruited those people a commission. By that reasoning, Melaleuca is a MLM company. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Grayfell has asked for a definition of MLM “from a reputable source and NOT from a Melaleuca website” consistent with the notion that one of the distinguishing characteristics of an MLM is the existence of multiple levels of distributors making person-to-person sales of the product.


 * Fortunately, the federal government has provided a definition of MLM that is entirely consistent with this problem and the approach I have advocated on this board. The FTC is the federal agency charged with the responsibility of regulating MLM companies as well as other business opportunities.  Accordingly, one would expect that this federal agency’s publications would be considered as being the most reliable source on this topic.  The FTC uses the following definition:


 * “Multi-level marketing is one form of direct selling, and refers to a business model in which a company distributes products through a network of distributors who earn income from their own retail sales of the product and from retail sales made by the distributors’ direct and indirect recruits. Because they earn a commission from the sales their recruits make, each member in the MLM network has an incentive to continue recruiting additional sales representatives into their ‘down lines.”


 * FTC Federal Regulations


 * At Melaleuca there are no “distributors,” there are no “down lines,” and marketing executives are not expected to make “sales” of any products. Consumers purchase and receive their products directly from Melaleuca.  Under the definition promulgated by the federal government, Melaleuca cannot be an MLM because it does not “distribute[] products through a network of distributors” that earn income “from their own retail sales” or from “retails sales made by the distributors’ direct and indirect recruits.


 * At bottom, I am confused by Grayfell’s insistence on using the term MLM to describe Melaleuca. There are numerous ways to accurately describe the company (consumer direct marketing, direct marketing, etc.).  None of those descriptors carry the negative connotation of an MLM (including the insidious practice of placing significant risk on participants by loading them with inventory for further distribution and sale) .  Given these issues, and the fact that the definition promulgated by the federal government supports the conclusion that Melaleuca is not an MLM, why not leave that descriptor off of this page?  I do not know of any other issue that has been left on a WP:BLP as a statement of undisputed fact despite the living person’s repeated contentions to the contrary and numerous sources that would support the living person’s position. --Roadpeace (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you saying? If members (the term is not the important part) of Melaleuca Inc don't sell, in a broad sense of the term, then what do they do to earn money? They are marketing Melaleuca's products, aren't they? 'Consumer Direct Marketing', right? Just because VanderSloot's warehouses keep all the stuff, is it not the responsibility of the members to encourage sales? Don't members get money in proportion to the amount of sales that are generated through their actions? If not through 'sales' then how? If I joined Melaleuca and recruited a bunch of people who never purchased anything or gave any money to Melaleuca, would I still be rewarded? You seem to feel that the physical chain of custody of the products is important, and I don't believe that it is. We don't consider the postal service to be a distributor. It's about how sales are generated, and how money is dispersed. You say 'numerous sources', but I still haven't seen one that meets reliability guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

convenience break
Roadpiece, this is getting disruptive. In my view, it is sufficient for this article that Vandersloot himself says that Melaleuca is a MLM firm. If you want to have a discussion of MLM in general, I suggest taking your concerns to that article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are confusing two different companies. In the article you refer to, VanderSloot calls Oil of Melaleuca, Inc. a multilevel marketing company.  Oil of Melaleuca, Inc. was a totally different company than Melaleuca, Inc.  Oil of Melaleuca, Inc. was started by the Ball Brothers in 1984.  That company was closed down after only 9 months of operation.  Melaleuca, Inc. was founded in September, 1985 with VanderSloot as CEO.  In creating <em style="background-color: lime;">Melaleuca, Inc., VanderSloot threw away the MLM model.  The <em style="background-color: limegreen;">Inc. Magazine article you cite correctly refers to <em style="background-color: limegreen;">Melaleuca, Inc. as a <em style="background-color: limegreen;">direct marketing company .  It correctly states that <em style="background-color: yellow;">Oil of Melaleuca, Inc. was MLM, but, clearly does not suggest that <em style="background-color: limegreen;">Melaleuca, Inc. was MLM.  In fact, it states the opposite.--Roadpeace (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mormon pedophiles
Claims linking any living person to support for "Mormon pedophiles/ Boy Scouts of America" is, IMO, a contentious claim requiring exceedingly strong sources - whcih are not provided. I suggest that this claim is a gros and egregious violation of WP:BLP and the edit warriors placing it in this article are violating WP:BLP in a gross and egregious manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re edit-warriors -- at this point you're the only one who has repeated any edits re this topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see him supporting anyone, I see him as being quoted as "purchased multiple full-page advertisement in the investigating local paper discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story." Is this not true? It's incredibly well sourced. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You did not see the claim:
 * VanderSloot has also been criticized for his response to a series that exposed Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America ?
 * I rather thought the linkage of VanderSloot to "Mormon pedophiles" was quite clear there indeed -- but you missed it? YMMV. Collect (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the BLP post has gotten stale I'm copying my thoughts here in case they are of value:
 * To me it appears that we have two weak sources. A local newspaper (circulation 26,000) that is in direct dispute with the BLP subject and a psuedo-editorial by Salon (a web site that describes itself as "combining award-winning commentary and reporting"). These are not sufficient sources for contentious BLP information. In addition the current text as cited above is selective in its content and creates bias. However... I would support a neutral summary of the non-contentious information from the two sources being discussed, which I would word as follows:
 * In 2005, Vanderloot challenged local news coverage of an event involving pedophiles and the Boy Scouts of American by placing 6 full page ads in the Post Register. In February 2012, Vaderloot was criticized by Glenn Greenwald of Salon, for his "chronic bullying" tactics and "frivolous lawsuits against his political critics".--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to support any claim of "frivolous lawsuits" we would need a source actually showing that such lawsuits were made and deemed frivolous by a court ("frivolous lawsuit" is a legal phrase with a precise meaning - we ought not perpetuate an incorrect usage of the term without strong sourcing for such a legally contentious claim.)
 * VanderSloot placed paid advertisements criticising articles linking child abuse with the Boy Scouts is what likely is sourceable.

No "frivolous lawsuit" charges even as opinion sans actual reliable sourcing that such lawsuits were filed and deemed "frivolous." Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct. I believe WP:BLP specifies that lawsuits should be conclusive before being reported in a BLP and good sources are needed. And your proposed wording of the child abuse and Boy Scout thing is also better than what I suggested.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

stick to what the sources state
The 'Mormon pedophiles" stuff was not even supported by the article cited - which said the articles were about the national BSA and the Grand Teton Council and a single pedophile - and were not about "mormon pedophiles" - the wording now conforms precisely with the sources used. Cheers. Collect (talk)
 * The previous version was fine, perfectly in conformity with the source (as indeed was the one before today's edits). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, did you review the source material carefully? It never mentions multiple pedophiles? This would be a serious breach by Nomoskedasticity - misrepresenting sources like that. Can you confirm the source never states that the paper secured evidence about more than one recent pedophile? Hipocrite (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Nieman paper stressed the single specific person in the articles. The Nieman article did not say it was the 'Mormon comunity leaders"  who were at fault - it specified the Boy Scout Council involved.  The article did not specify the other pedophiles, nor, as far as I can tell, did it specify that all the pedophiles were Mormon.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference to the Post-Register series of articles, so that readers here can see directly for themselves what sort of people VanderSloot was defending. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nieman article:
 * We later learned that the national Boy Scouts of America and its local Grand Teton Council had hired two of Idaho's best-connected law firms to seal the files and hide what came to be known as the Brad Stowell case.
 *  By now the paper had secured evidence of four recent pedophiles in the local scout council, about as many documented cases as the 500,000-member Catholic diocese of Boston when that scandal erupted in The Boston Globe

Note that the paper did not call them "mormon pedophiles" nor is it clear that all of them were or are Mormons. Making that link is SYNTH at that point. Nor does the newspaper editor satate that the cover-up was by "community leaders." Cheers - I think my revision is correct. Collect (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How about the current revision? I think that avoids the irrelevant issues, sticks to the sources and eliminates the POV issues. Are we good to pull the template down? — Bdb484 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think another term instead of "outed" as those who knew included the newspaper editor, his family, and his "friends" which likely made it fairly widely known would be reasonable. Miller, in fact, did not make that accusation about VanderSloot. Still an order of magnitude better than the edit that had Wikipedia say:
 * exposing negligence by Mormon community leaders who had allowed known pedophiles to work with boy scouts in troops sponsored by the Mormon Church 
 * Which missed an opportunity to say " Mormon boy scouts" and "Mormon pedophiles" which would have gotten the intention to link "Mormon" to this very solid indeed.<g> Collect (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The direct quote from Miller is "Peter Zuckerman, was not 'out' to anyone but family, a few colleagues at the paper (including me), and his close friends." I'd say Miller does make the outing accusation against VanderSloot, even if he did not use the phrase "VanderSloot outed Zuckerman." The narrative makes clear that the group of people who knew Zuckerman's orientation was initially limited to family, close friends and select colleagues, and that VanderSloot expanded that circle by about 25,000 people. That's an outing. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any particularly reason you removed this source? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Anent the PR articles - they do not assert that the pedophiles were all "Mormons" - in fact, they do not associate of the unnamed pedophiles with any church. So much for the edits which stressed "Mormon pedophiles." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I struck that citation because I didn't see how it provided a source to any of the content in the article. Let me know if I'm missing something, though, because I certainly haven't read through the entire series. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I copy edited per the source being used. Its to bad editors are taking this personally and not acting NPOV. Its best to leave feelings about subjects of bios at the door, no matter how strongly you feel. --Mollskman (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is still biased. As written now it says in the section "LGBT issues" that "VanderSloot, in a newspaper advertisement, devoted several paragraphs to establishing that the reporter who had written articles about pedophiles being permitted to work with Boy Scouts in the Grand Teton Council was gay."  It leaves out the part that says "We think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman's motives." It's not enought to "stick to what the sources state". In order to remain neutral, the material included must not have "undue" weight.  Just because the material is in a section about "LGBT issues" doesn't mean it can be selective and biased in ways that unduely emphasize VS's anti-gay position.  My point is not that VS is a supporter of LGBT issues. He clearly isn't.  My point is that the article used in the source doesn't make clear at all what VS's stance is on homosexuality.  The article isn't even about LGBT issues. It's about the Church, the Boy Scouts, abusive local power and integrity in journalism.  Although the article does say VS pointed out that the author was gay, the way the current WP bio is written implies that VS defended pedophiles because the journalist was gay.  So why did VS devote two paragraphs about the sexual orientation of the journalist?  I don't know. The article doesn't make this clear.  A neutral POV would require a different source for a statement on VS's stance on LGBT issues. Coastside (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would just add that having read every article on the subject I could find, there is no clear consensus on what VanderSloot's reason for discussing the journalist's sexual orientation was. His stated rational, which you quote, was somewhat at odds to the situation and contested by Zuckerman himself (as well as Greenwald, Maddow, and May-Chang). We need to be respectful of Zuckerman's BLP issues, as well. It would be nice to make this clear in the article if it is actually clear in reality, but it isn't. Maybe leaving it ambiguous and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions is the best way to approach it? I'm not sure. As for being under 'LGBT Issues', I would be happy to see the event given its own section, or the current section renamed something broader. Grayfell (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would probably agree with both the comments above. I just tried to copy edit the section slightly based on the citation given. I now or knew zippo about the subject of this article or the bru haha involved. I came here from the BLP board I believe, my memory sucks. Any time taking heads, Maddow or O'Reily, for example, get involved, be sure editors with POV will show up and edit accordingly. Coatside, maybe do a rewrite here based on your comment and then see what others think. Thanks and good luck. --Mollskman (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the passage should simply state what happened without trying to interpret it. But here's the thing: that's what the passage as currently written does.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nomoskedasticity, the problem is that you made your personally feelings known about the subject of this article, so I for one, would greatly discount your input into how this is written in a NPOV and balanced way. Just saying. --Mollskman (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff and a quote that establishes I have done this. As for other elements of your insinuation: I too arrived here from BLPN -- just like you.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this shows your feelings, but that just me. --Mollskman (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no feelings expressed in that post. You're invited to strike your comment above.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't see how that shows your distaste for the subject, then it reinforces my point. --Mollskman (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No distaste is expressed in that post. You're invited to strike your comment above.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Next thing you'll tell us is that you don't dislike the guy and that you even have friends like him, right? --Mollskman (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what you've done, Mollskman: you have commented on the contributor instead of on the content.  This is disruptive: we are now discussing me instead of Frank VanderSloot.  You are invited to strike your comment above.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You asked for something and I supplied it. I think its important that people don't interject their personal opinions about subject matter, especially BLPs, into article talk pages, which is what you did. I will allow you the last word, go ahead. --Mollskman (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not ask for you to make a comment on me (as above at 17:12) -- least of all a mistaken one. Please strike it or I will do it for you (as you have repeatedly refused a request to abide by the Wikipedia policy I have pointed out to you).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Are other editors content to have the discussion here take place in this mode? Shall we generally engage in posts that are designed to delegitimize the participation of individual named editors? My attempts to collapse the discussion immediately above have been reverted; it's not hard to draw the conclusion that it should therefore continue in this fashion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no egregious attacks which need to be hidden in any way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am one of those lurking outsiders that make small edits from time to time. I am not really a Wikipedian.  I do not know anything about VanderSloot.  I have no vested interest in any aspect of this conversation.  When someone well versed in English says something such as 'so that readers here can see directly for themselves what sort of people was defending', they are certainly casting in an unfavorable light, which indicates bias.  A more unbiased phrase would be 'so readers here might have more information about the people involved in the controversy.'  Consider if I wrote the following, 'Before you consider editing an article on Wikipedia, you should understand that you will have to deal with people like <editorXYZ>.'  I feel certain that <editorXYZ> would feel that I had a bias against them.  I could protest that my statement is unbiased because it is factual.  But I do not think that <editorXYZ> would find that argument compelling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.244.8 (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing about WP:NPA, 198.160...: it doesn't say, "It's fine to make personal attacks as long as you think your attack is on target". It simply says don't make personal attacks.  (After all, everyone around here always thinks they're right.)  What I take from Collect's post is that there won't be any problem here as long as one's personal attacks are not egregious.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleting contested info with no consensus . ..
Hello. There seems to be no consensus on whether ML is a multi-level marketing organization, or just what it is, so I am removing that particular descriptor from the article. Moreover, there seems to be no particular controversy "in the outside world" about how ML should be described — the only controversy I have been able to find is taking place on this Talk Page. I think we can all agree that ML is " an Idaho Falls, Idaho,-headquartered company that sells home goods and health-related products," can't we? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of misplaced link
I just removed an orphaned link to an outside site that was placed in the "See also" section. The link itself went to a PACER page that had links to paid case files. Andrewman327 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

bold edits changing the stable version from 27 July
This is to discuss whether consensus has changed - as one editor appears to wish - regarding this BLP. I consider a source named Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them  to possibly be an opinion article and not one on which to place facts in a WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your lone objection does not constitute a consensus. The source in question was not discussed on this page prior to now. Furthermore, there was also a second source that I cited (also never discussed here) which you deleted without explanation, along with the accompanying text. If you are debating the reliability of one particular source, than begin a discussion here about it and see if you have consensus to delete it. In the meantime, you have no basis for edit warring over the text in question that refers to the company as an MLM. Furthermore, you hamfistedly deleted other information (such as the text about the DSA) that was completely unrelated to the MLM "issue" (and the source you are questioning) without offering any reason whatsoever. If you have an issue that you think requires any further discussion, then you can state it here and see if it gains any traction. In the meantime, I'll ask you nicely to stop deleting the text, because if you keep doing it, I;ll have to request that you be blocked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats on making clear your lack of understanding of the Five Pillars. WP:BLP requires strong sourcing for contenious claims - and the opinion pieces you seem to think are wonderful do not meet the criteria required.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, it's not a contentious claim. It's a very straightforward claim and I can swamp you with at least a dozen reliable references that solidly make the point that the company is an MLM, including several from the FTC, so I hope that's not an issue that you would dispute. The "issue" seems to boil down to your objection to one lone reference (out of four) -- that's the only argument you've given yet for removing the text mentioning MLM, which is accompanied by 3 other other reliable sources referring to the company as such; and you offered no justification at all for your sledgehammer removal of the text about the DSA, which is completely unrelated to MLM nomenclature and to the reference you're disputing. I really don't understand your approach here at all, or why you would say that there is consensus for removal of sources that were never discussed here before. WP:BRD doesn't equate to "it's OK to remove reliably sourced material if you don't like it" or "claim consensus where none exists". Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For economic issues, Forbes is a strong secondary source, and they do bluntly call the company a pyramid scheme. That does meet WP:RS criteria. No, Mother Jones isn't in the same league as a strong secondary source; it is non-neutral for political issues (so is Forbes, leaning to the other side), and not as good as an established newspaper or magazine on other issues. But that is clearly a sidebar to the main issue here. However, the Forbes article does have positive things to say about this guy; for an NPOV description, it would be good to pull that also in. Churn and change (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Forbe's is a good source in this case (I disagree that Mother Jones would not be though), but just for the record, Forbes referred to it as a "pyramid selling" company, which is simply a synonym for multi-level marketing; they did not literally call it a "pyramid scheme". The term MLM is innocuous and there are scads of sources that refer to it as such, so this shouldn't even be an issue; nor should one take umbrage to the term MLM as though it's a dirty word or a slap in the face. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You ignored my last sentence. What you are extracting from the Forbes article does not meet WP:NPOV. That article paints a picture of a complex man, one whose BLP would have made interesting reading. All you found in it was the MLM and LGBT stuff. Since I don't plan to edit this article, I won't comment here anymore. I assume the other major contributors will pull in other stuff from that source. Churn and change (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hit and run then. The suggestion that Forbe's does not meet WP:NPOV seems ridiculous, as was the one-sided puffery about the greatness of Vandersloot. The issue at hand was that there is no basis for removal of references to the company as an MLM. See ya. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you're going to bother driving by to influence a content debate, you might consider taking care to not misquote what the sources in question have written. As I pointed out above, Forbe's did not call Melaleuca a "pyramid scheme" (not that it would matter one way or the other); they called it a "pyramid selling company", which is a synonym for multi-level marketing and has an entirely different meaning. Not only did you make this error, but you failed to acknowledge the error in your subsequent reply, yet you still insisted that a reputable source like Forbe's isn't NPOV for the use of the term "MLM" in the bio. Paradoxically, while rejecting Forbe's as a source for the "MLM" designation, you suggest that it should be mined for flattering material to say about Vandersloot? Is this response a joke? Some kind of bad performance art? Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And what exactly did this hit-and-run fluff comment mean: "All you found in it was the MLM and LGBT stuff"? Could you possibly have said anything more shallow and non-constructive? Seriously, I have no patience for the use of BS to influence content debates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rhode Island Red, the issues you have raised were already addressed multiple times MONTHS AGO by numerous editors. You have made no effort to address any of the issues that have been debated, other than to cite two inflammatory and obviously biased and non-neutral sources. Below, find a rebuttal to your recent erroneous arguments:


 * First, the term MLM is not innocuous. Mr. VanderSloot has spent the past 26 years explaining how MLM companies hurt people’s lives while building a company that rejects MLM practices. Your effort to describe the company he founded using a term he has repeatedly lambasted is simply not NPOV.


 * Second, the Forbes article cited here does not provide a reliable basis to declare that Melaleuca is an MLM. You ignore the fact that Mr. VanderSloot himself disputed the accuracy of the Forbes’ article, in Forbes:


 * Moreover, the article does not make a serious effort to describe Melaleuca’s business model and as already discussed MONTHS AGO on this very talk page, it does not state that Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing company. In fact, the article CONTRASTS Melaleuca with multi-level marketing companies—“in a departure from many multilevel marketing schemes, VanderSloot is insistent about not burdening new recruits with huge startup costs or a garageful of inventory.” It is inappropriate to twist a statement contrasting Melaleuca with MLM companies into definitive proof that Melaleuca is an MLM. Also, as all editors agreed on this talk page MONTHS AGO, the term “pyramid selling” is derogatory, non-neutral, and not appropriate.


 * Third, you erroneously infer that because Melaleuca belongs to the Direct Selling Association that it must be an MLM. To the contrary, the DSA represents numerous types of direct selling companies, only some of which are MLMs, such as single-level, party-plan, and consumer direct companies. In fact, the DSA’s website explains how Melaleuca’s business model fits into the direct selling industry: “Melaleuca, Inc., a consumer direct marketing company, is one of the fastest-growing home-based businesses in North America. Founded in 1985 and headquartered in Idaho Falls, Idaho, Melaleuca manufactures nutritional, nutracuetical, personal care, skin care, pharmaceutical and home care products. Melaleuca distributes these superior-quality, natural products direct to the consumer through a full-service catalog shopping system. Melaleuca operates on a single-level (company to customer) distribution model as opposed to a multi-level marketing model.”


 * http://dsa.org/forms/CompanyFormPublicMembers/view?id=7F3000005B2. Membership in the DSA does not mean that Melaleuca is an MLM, and the DSA has specifically pointed out that Melaleucas is not multi-level.


 * Fourth, although you claim to have numerous FTC sources for the fact that Melaleuca is an MLM, you do not cite to a single one. As already discussed on this talk page MONTHS AGO, Melaleuca does not fall within the definition espoused by the FTC in its own rule-making documents. I can only assume that you do not have sources (or that you are making more inaccurate inference from otherwise neutral sources).


 * Fifth, the articles you believe are “neutral” describe VanderSloot as a “Get-Rich-Quick-Profiteer” and a “Right-Wing Billionaire.” The Mother Jones article is obviously a non-neutral source based on its title alone: “Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney.” You cannot seriously believe that these sources are portraying Mr. VanderSloot in an objective and accurate manner.


 * Finally, on the BLP page you infer that simply because you’ve found politically motivated sources that slander Melaleuca by calling it an MLM (without any analysis) that this is the only way to accurately describe the company. The following 20 articles describe Melaleuca with the same (or similar) language that the Wikipedia page has used for the past MONTHS:


 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/21/us-usa-campaign-money-wealthy-idUSBRE85K1DV20120621


 * http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-06-19/nonprofits-campaign-donors-disclosure/55698330/1?csp=34news


 * http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/51252251-79/melaleuca-max-sales-company.html.csp


 * http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-01/super-pacs-individuals-corporations/52924336/1


 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pro-romney-super-pac-raised-179-million/2012/01/31/gIQA6kDzgQ_story.html


 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mormon-voters-wary-of-too-much-public-support-for-romney/2012/02/14/gIQA20lkcR_story_1.html


 * http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/12/21/1924401/billion-dollar-biz-melaleuca-tops.html


 * http://idahostatesman.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=38481147&event=1348291&CategoryID=58517


 * http://idahobusinessreview.com/2009/11/16/melaleuca-issues-checks-to-longterm-employees/


 * http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700031776/Judge-denies-defamation-claims-against-Idaho-firm-Melaleuca.html?pg=all


 * http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700109703/Utah-firm-Max-International-settles-Melaleuca-suit-for-12-million.html


 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577396412560038208.html


 * http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/31/news/la-pn-romney-super-pac-fec-filing-20120131


 * http://www.inc.com/magazine/20041015/hidi-vandersloot.html


 * http://spectator.org/blog/2012/05/30/frank-vandersloot-on-making-pr


 * http://www.postregister.com/story.php?accnum=1043-12202011&today=2011-12-20&keywords=%5C%22Frank+VanderSloot


 * http://www.postregister.com/story.php?accnum=1001-10162011&today=2011-10-16&keywords=%5C%22Frank+VanderSloot


 * http://mormonsinbusiness.org/mormon_businessmen/frank-vandersloot


 * http://www.idahofallsmagazine.com/idaho-falls-news/print.cfm?id=2726


 * The language utilized here is consistent with USA Today, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and numerous local Idaho sources. There is no neutral reason to insert the inflammatory, derogatory, and inaccurate term MLM. --Roadpeace (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I'm compelled to remind you of what you said previously when you were arguing against inclusion of the term MLM:


 * "The Forbes article you mention is clearly an article about Frank VanderSloot, not an article on Melaleuca's business model. There is no evidence that the author of the Forbes article spent any time at all researching Melaleuca's business model."


 * And yet what is it that you just quoted above? Sources that are not about the business model but rather about Vandersloot, and none of them show any evidence that the author "spent any time at all researching Melaleuca's business model". It seems that your hypocrisy filter is set on zero. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

--- "Rhode Island Red, the issues you have raised were already addressed multiple times MONTHS AGO by numerous editors. You have made no effort to address any of the issues that have been debated, other than to cite two inflammatory and obviously biased and non-neutral sources."
 * First of all, it's not me that's raising issues. I have inserted text and supporting sources in the article and it's you that seems to have the issues. I reviewed the Talk page thread on this so-called "issue" and it consisted mostly of weak and poorly supported arguments from 3 SPAs (looking an awful lot like sock puppets) who was insisting that Melaleuca is not an MLM and hectoring another veteran editor that was raising rock solid counterarguments and providing reliable sources that were being arbitrarily dismissed, and then the discussion simply stalled out. One of those SPAs was you. There is nothing there that I feel compelled to address, other than perhaps the user conduct issues and the apparent attempt to use sock puppets/SPAs to influence a content debate and whitewash the article.


 * The goal of the talk page is to speak factually and present solid evidence. Merely because you adamantly claim that these reliable sources are “inflammatory and obviously biased and non-neutral” doesn’t make it so. Last time I checked, Rolling Stone and Mother Jones were considered well-respected sources for investigative journalism.

"First, the term MLM is not innocuous. Mr. VanderSloot has spent the past 26 years explaining how MLM companies hurt people’s lives while building a company that rejects MLM practices. Your effort to describe the company he founded using a term he has repeatedly lambasted is simply not NPOV."
 * The term MLM itself is innocuous; it simply describes a general type of business model. Your argument is akin to saying we shouldn’t use the term “credit default swaps” to describe a company that sells credit default swaps simply because the term may evoke bad memories for some people. Vandersloot can lambaste all he wants but that doesn’t change the fact Melaleuca has been characterized as an MLM by numerous reliable sources.

“Second, the Forbes article cited here does not provide a reliable basis to declare that Melaleuca is an MLM.”
 * It doesn’t need to. It refers to the company as a “pyramid selling” company, which is a synonym for MLM. What makes you think you can arbitrarily set your own bar for what an investigative report/news article has to prove about its reasoning or justification for using any particular set of terms? Besides, there are 4 sources cited currently to support the inclusion of the term MLM; Forbe’s was only one of them.

“You ignore the fact that Mr. VanderSloot himself disputed the accuracy of the Forbes’ article, in Forbes: [3]”
 * Yes, you’re right; I totally ignored it. Vanderloot doesn’t get to dismiss Forbe’s or any other source merely because he sent a gripe letter to the editor disputing their facts. Forbe’s didn’t retract a word.

“You erroneously infer that because Melaleuca belongs to the Direct Selling Association that it must be an MLM.”
 * I did nothing of the kind. Just stick to presenting your arguments and don't try to enlighten other editors about their own underlying thought processes. I won’t bother responding in detail to all the hokum about the DSA, except to point out that it is an industry PR, lobby group, and PAC for multilevel marketing companies. You shoot yourself in the foot when you pin your paper-thin premise on a source as clearly non-NPOV as the DSA.

"Fourth, although you claim to have numerous FTC sources for the fact that Melaleuca is an MLM, you do not cite to a single one. As already discussed on this talk page MONTHS AGO, Melaleuca does not fall within the definition espoused by the FTC in its own rule-making documents. I can only assume that you do not have sources (or that you are making more inaccurate inference from otherwise neutral sources)."
 * You assumed incorrectly. I’ve been waiting for you to concisely recapitulate all of your petty grievances before I get to the issue of additional sources. Now that you’ve done so, additional references have been added. I won’t get sucked into a game of chasing moving targets or engaging in a war of attrition masquerading as a debate. I’d like to keep the amount of additional time squandered on this non-issue to the bare minimum. IMO, such extraordinary efforts to fight against including the term MLM belies the non-NPOV agenda of an WP:ADVOCATE. Your flawed original research about the applicability of the FTC’s definitions of an MLM had no place in the discussion previously, nor does it now.

“Fifth, the articles you believe are “neutral” describe VanderSloot as a “Get-Rich-Quick-Profiteer” and a “Right-Wing Billionaire.” The Mother Jones article is obviously a non-neutral source based on its title alone: “Pyramid-Like Company Ponies Up $1 Million for Mitt Romney.” You cannot seriously believe that these sources are portraying Mr. VanderSloot in an objective and accurate manner.”
 * Why would you deign to tell me what my beliefs are on issues that I’ve never addressed before (i.e. the neutrality specifically of Rolling Stone and Mother Jones)? In fact, these are reputable journalists from reputable publications, so what POV problem is there? Your central premise is flawed -- WP:NPOV doesn’t say that you can arbitrarily dismiss a source as non-neutral simply because it isn’t flattering. I also can't imagine why you would object so strenuously to the phrase "right wing billionaire". Is it the "right wing" part or the "billionaire" part? Personally, if someone challenged me to characterize Vandersloot in 3 words, I don't know if I could do much better than that. Can you (rhetorical question)?

"Finally, on the BLP page you infer that simply because you’ve found politically motivated sources that slander Melaleuca by calling it an MLM (without any analysis) that this is the only way to accurately describe the company."
 * More ridiculous unsubstantiated statements. You have no basis for speculating about my inferences or impugning the motivation of these sources, or for suggesting that referring to Melaleuca as an MLM constitutes slander.

“The following 20 articles describe Melaleuca with the same (or similar) language that the Wikipedia page has used for the past MONTHS”
 * The 20 links you pasted prove nothing about whether or not the company is an MLM. Where is the well-detailed analysis of the business model that you demanded of the Forbe’s source today? Does the hypocrisy escape you? Are you familiar with the statement “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”? It means, in this case, that if a source doesn’t include the word "MLM" it doesn’t mean that Melaleuca is not an MLM; it may simply be an error of omission. Now if you had 20 articles that specifically said that the company is NOT an MLM, then that would be a different story.

“There is no neutral reason to insert the inflammatory, derogatory, and inaccurate term MLM.”
 * It’s a word. It is not pejorative. Lots of companies use it and they don’t freak out about it like you do. Keep things in perspective. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

-- Here is a plethora of sources across the spectrum that all refer to Melaleuca as an MLM. It's staggering that the sham debate about this went on as long as it did.

Federal Trade Commission
 * “Numerous letters came from individuals having negative experiences with various MLMs like Quixtar, 4Life, Mary Kay, Arbonne, Liberty League International, Financial Freedom Society, Herbalife, Xango, Melaleuca, EcoQuest, Pre-Paid Legal, PartyLite, Shaklee, Vartec/Excel, and Vemma. 73 Fed. Reg. at 16,113 n.37.”

Journalists/News Articles
 * DailyFinance (reporter Eamon Murphy): “For Melaleuca is essentially a pyramid scheme -- or, more politely, a "multilevel marketing firm," like Amway or Herbalife (HLF) -- in which so-called independent marketing executives make money by peddling the company's dietary supplements and cleaning products, as well as recruiting more salespeople (the newer recruits being on the lower levels of the pyramid).”
 * Harper’s Magazine (correspondent Jeff Ernsthausen): “This spring, Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones detailed Mitt Romney’s multilevel-marketing connections, which included more than $3 million in contributions to a Romney super PAC by executives at Nu Skin Enterprises and Melaleuca.”
 * Mother Jones (Washington Bureau correspondent Stephanie Mencimer): “And Romney's current finance chair, Frank VanderSloot, is the CEO of Idaho-based Melaleuca, a multilevel-marketing company that sells green cleaning products and nutritional supplements.”
 * “VanderSloot's company also has a controversial background. Like Amway, Herbalife, and other so-called multilevel marketing firms, its business model relies on recruiting distributors, who in turn must recruit more distributors, to sell its products.”


 * Rolling Stone (political reporter Tim Dickinson): “The Pyramid Schemer: Frank VanderSloot – Position: CEO of Melaleuca Inc., a "multilevel marketing" firm based in Idaho that sells off-brand cleaning products and nutritional supplements.”
 * Seattle Weekly (award winning journalist Laura Onstot): “Multilevel marketing—the pyramid-like (but only like!) business model made famous by Amway and Mary Kay—has, inevitably, gone green. Melaleuca, a household-products company based in Idaho (named for the plant from which tea tree oil is derived) is actively recruiting in the Puget Sound area. Brenda Malpedo of Tacoma, a Melaleuca ‘marketing executive,’ placed the Craigslist ad in order to recruit other salespeople to join.”
 * Forbe's Magazine: “Melaleuca is a pyramid selling organization, built along the lines of Herbalife and Amway. Vendors get commissions on the products they sell and also on products sold by vendors they recruit..” (NB: “pyramid selling” is a synonym for multi-level marketing)
 * Los Angeles Business Journal (staff reporter Alexa Hyland): “They decided to leave the company and join a competing multilevel marketing company, Melaleuca”
 * Susan Brown (Gainesville Sun correspondent): “Melaleuca Inc. sells vitamins, personal hygiene products, household cleaners and other consumables through multilevel marketing. President Frank VanderSloot said Melaleuca pays a 7 percent commission to seven levels of distributors.
 * Susan Brown (in Lakeland Ledger: via NYT Regional Newspapers wire)“…Frank Vandersloot, president of Idaho Falls, Idaho-based Melaleuca Inc, a multilevel distributor of vitamins, personal hygiene products, household cleaners, and other goods.”
 * Dean Miller (Nieman Reports): "...VanderSloot. He owns an international multilevel marketing/health products company, Melaleuca, Inc."

MLM Experts
 * Robert L. FitzPatrick: “Pyramid Scheme Alert compiled an analysis of the actual average incomes of a sample of 10,000 sales representatives for Nuskin, Nikken, Melaleuca, Reliv, Arbonne, Free Life International and Cyberwize.com. These seven multi-level marketing companies, six of which are large, well-known members of the Direct Selling Association (DSA) and the seventh a newer and fast-growing MLM, are regarded in the multi-level marketing business as representative examples of that industry. They are representative in product type, pay plan, business structure, and marketing claims of the majority of multi-level marketing companies. The companies were selected based on the data available but also on the representative nature of these companies.” (see also
 * Jon M Taylor: Includes Melaleuca on list of MLM companies.
 * Stephen Barrett: Includes Melaleuca on list of MLM companies

Organizations
 * Human Rights Campaign: “Subsidiaries of VanderSloot's multi-level marketing company Melaleuca, of which he is CEO, have poured a combined $1 million into Restore Our Future, the main super PAC associated with Romney.”

Consumer Organizations
 * BBB: (lists Melaleuca as multilevel marketing company)

Former Melaleuca Executives
 * SEC Filing: “From 1991 to 1998, he [Timothy Transtrum] worked for Melaleuca Inc., a network marketing company, during which time he became Director of International Operations"(NB: "network marketing" is a synonym for MLM -- see multi-level marketing).
 * Spencer Reese (former in-house counsel for Melaleuca): “Spencer Reese is a partner in the law firm of Grimes & Reese. He is a graduate of the Washington University School of Law and is a member of the Idaho, Missouri and Colorado bars. He was formerly in-house counsel for Melaleuca, Inc., a multilevel marketing company with sales in excess of $260 million.”

Melaleuca’s Statements in Court Affidavits
 * “Melaleuca argues that OrGano seeks this information solely to support its unclean hands defense by attempting to establish that Melalueca engaged in the same “bad acts” against other competing multi-level marketing companies.”
 * “Accordingly, Melalueca’s response period shall be reduced, and its response must include those documents which describe Melaleuca’s recruiting of new marketing executives from competing multi-level marketing companies within the last six (6) years.”
 * “When Marketing Executives join Melaleuca, they sign what is called an Independent Marketing Executive Agreement with Melaleuca. The Bartholomews were Marketing Executives at Melaleuca until recently, when they left Melaleuca and joined another multi-level marketing company called Independent Energy Alliance (“IEA”).”

Other Sources in Court Cases
 * “Melaleuca is a consumer direct-marketing company, and commonly known and referred to as a multi-level marketing company. It manufactures skin care and other health products and markets these products through a complex network of independent contractors referred to as Independent Marketing Executives (“IME”). Each IME has the potential to create a multi-level customer base over which it has oversight. Each IME also receives a regular commission payment reflecting a certain percentage of the income derived from the sales made by other IME’s in his or her downline.”

Why Is There Still a POV Tag on LGBT Section?
Can anyone explain why there is still a POV tag on the LGBT Issue section? Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mainly because of editors who keep inserting material from their own POV therein, and into the BLP in general. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the tag is there preemptively to discourage people from "inserting material from their own POV therein" (which would be improper use of the tag) or are you saying that there is currently non-NPOV text in the section, and if you are, what is the text that's being questioned? Be specific please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be no reason whatsoever to have kept the tag in all this time, and since you chose to ignore my question about the tag, it has now been removed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting to stable version
Both my editor friends above make some good points, but really there is no argument over this matter anywhere except on this page, as I noted above, so until it develops that there really IS some controversy in the outside world, I think it best just to sidestep the matter, which is a concern, it seems, nowhere else but here. So I am reverting back to what has been called (with some justification) the "stable" version. I hope you understand this is not a personal matter, even though I have taken an interest in this subject and will post some more suggested changes when I have them ready — just a few more sources to check. Thanks very much to all concerned. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "really there is no argument over this matter anywhere except on this page, as I noted above, so until it develops that there really IS some controversy in the outside world, I think it best just to sidestep the matter, which is a concern, it seems, nowhere else but here."
 * Your comment is so cryptic and lacking in substance that I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. The designation of Melaleuca as an MLM is not a controversy anywhere except in the minds of a few SPA/socks and partisan editors who are POV pushing. You had no basis for deleting MLM from from the article, and certainly not for removing the other uncontested material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs)
 * I think RIR's case is pretty overwhelming. The sources provided by Roadpiece do not appear to dispute the MLM characterisation -- they fail to use the term. (I did not check them all -- if I'm wrong, please identify which ones do so.)  So we have a large number of good sources that characterise the company as a MLM organisation and nothing much to indicate that those sources are wrong.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * VanderSloot has gone to great pains to distance himself from the MLM model, while simultaneously describing his company as exactly that. The underlying definition of the term multilevel marketing is not altered by vaguely expressed BLP policy concerns. Even the simplest search indicates dozens of articles (and hundreds of blogs and forums and such) indicating that there is a large and active controversy on the MLM status of Melaleuca. It appears that people who sell for Melaleuca are on one side, and everybody else is on the other. The notion that there is no argument on this except on Wikipedia is ridiculous.Grayfell (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite the overwhelming evidence I presented above, Collect came along today and just decided to delete "MLM" from the article anyway without any further explanation on the talk page. There's a very disturbing pattern of partisanship and WP:OWN on this article, and Collect's latest actions are a stellar example. This doesn't come across well, particularly since several reliable sources have described Vandersloot as been being overly aggressive in his attempts to stifle criticism. He's gone after several journalists and bloggers several times, and when he did, it made national news. It's a sensitive issue, and the optics of a few editors here trying to game the system could generate adverse PR for Vandersloot, so it is completely unacceptable. It could be perceived that they are acting on behalf of Vandersloot, regardless of whether or not they truly are. If these shenanigans continue (such as the earlier vote stacking using SPA/sock puppets and Collect's latest edit), I won't be pussyfooting around and wasting time with WP:3 or WP:DR; it;s a serious enough matter that I will be compelled to take this straight to WP:ArbCom and request that the offending editors be permanently blocked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS amd WP:BLP please! Opinion sources are not useful for making claims of fact in a BLP. Period.  And the fact you continuously re-ad such sources when the other editors disagree with you is tendentious editing.   As for your accusations of SPA -- I have more than 2500 pages on my watchlist, making that attack about as fatuous as is humanly possible.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am well acquainted with WP:RS and WP:BLP and there is nothing in those policy statements that supports you removal of the term MLM. I didn't accuse you of being an SPA/sock, so spare me the faux outrage. However, you did say misleadingly imply that there was a consensus that supported your actions, and that vague consensus you indirectly referred to involved 3 SPAs who appear to be socks. I explained this clearly already so don't try gin up your arguments with BS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please try to actually use facts -- I removed the "multi-level marketing" claim precisely once - which means your rant is pretty far off the mark.  To be precise:  which are distributed through multilevel marketing.   which does not have a single reliable source in the entire edit. . The "Mother Jones" and "Rolling Stone" opinion articles are not "reliable sources" for any contentious claims of fact.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps they aren't opinion articles at all, but rather investigative journalism. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect: "Please try to actually use facts -- I removed the 'multi-level marketing' claim precisely once - which means your rant is pretty far off the mark."
 * In addition to the the edit you admitted to above, you expunged "MLM" from the article at least 3 other times in just the past couple of days, and as recently as today (and that's not including the number of times you did it back in June). So either you're very bad at counting to three, or you're lying on purpose. You're lucky that you haven't been blocked for WP:3RR. Deception won't help you win any arguments here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Claims made by non-RS sources are required to be removed per WP:BLP. If you wish to object to that policy, try proposing changes over there.   Mother Jones is not a proper source for contentious claims of fact.  And I am redacting your personal attack.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, please stop removing the citations that Red has restored. And keep in mind that this article is likely to be seen as election-related, hence under community article probation, so your edit-warring will not be accepted. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are tendentious inthe extreme in your belief that a source which is not RS for a contentious claim must by used in a WP:BLP.  Is there a reason wht you believe that opinion articles are good sources for BLPs?  And IIRC your edit war BATTLEGROUND mentality across a large number of articles may well be the problem here as well.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your just repeating the same baseless charge, ignoring community input, and missing the big picture completely. There are a plethora of reliable sources to support use of the term "MLM"; therefore the claim is not contentious. I see no purpose in further argument about this. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then use the reliable sources and not use the opinion articles sources! Simple, really.  At this point you appear more interested in using political silly season articles as sources than in using your "plethora" of genuine fact sources.  Really a bit sad. Collect (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not "opinion" articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nomo. There is no basis for labeling investigative reporting by Mother Jones as an "opinion article". However, I'm glad to see that at least we're making some headway and the term MLM is no longer being contested. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)