Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive 3

Marriages
Can somebody explain or rewrite this. I removed the part about Vivian being his 3rd wife since the citations didn't really directly support that. One cite was from a sons obituary and the other one I didn't see that mentioned either. How many wives has this guy had? What are their names and do we have reliable sources for that? Could that info please be added here first> Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The details were in the 2 references you deleted. The first source indicates that Frank and Kathleen Zundel had a son (Brian) together; the second source says that Brian was the 3rd child from VanderSloot's first marriage (ergo Kathleen Zundel was his first wife) and that Vivian was his third wife. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi RIR. The 2nd citation, I can't seem to get the article to scroll down?? Is anybody else having a problem with it? I am not seeing where it says in it that Vivian is his 3rd wife? Does that mean that his current wife is his 4th wife?? What do others think about this?--Malerooster (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's coming up fine for me. It's displaying as 2 columns and in the second column 6th paragraph it says: "Cassie is the youngest child of Frank's third wife, Vivian VanderSloot." I guess that means current wife has to be at least #4. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I still can't get the page to display correctly. If it actually says that, then I guess thats ok. Again, does anybody else have an opinion. This really isn't that big a deal, imho, it just seemed like OR and was really confusing, imho. Who was his 2nd wife? Also, in your revert, you included VanderS;loot's first name which doesn't seem necessary. --Malerooster (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

MaleRooster, the layout of that page is indeed goofy. On my screen the picture lies over the second column, obscuring it. I was able to read the text by going into Source Mode and reading the raw copy. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, finally got it to load so I could read it. I tweeked it slightly. Still wondering about wife #2 :) --Malerooster (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, great, I was just about to paste a Google cache link for you. Tweak looks good. Thanks for the catch. Yes, mystery wife #2 -- maybe someone here knows of a source. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I am reverting back to an earlier, simpler paragraph that does not contravene SYNTH. If anybody finds a source that EXPLICTLY states the number of his marriages, and to whom, then we must omit all this speculation, even though some of it is very clever. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. The article isn't speculating about the number of marriages but simply directly quoting the source that said his third wife was Vivian. You are deleting text based on a direct quote. That's WP:DE/WP:TE so please stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How about an edit along the lines of "VanderSloot was previously married to Katherine VanderSloot and Vivian Vandersloot"? That would make the paragraph a little less confusing until we find a source mentioning another wife. HtownCat (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources specifically state that Kathleen was wife #1 and that Vivian was wife #3. There's no confusion. You may never find any other public sources with more info, but if you find any, please let us know. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I can see nothing wrong with HtownCat's proposed change. It is truthful. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's no more truthful than the original version. Both of you have failed to provide any reason why the existing text should be changed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it is just a matter of acceding to the desire of another editor as long as it does not harm the article. I support the proposed change. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not my desire, and there's no reason to alter it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Some experienced editors are completely ignoring WP:3RR on this article. Rather than embarrass you with notices on your usertalk pages, I hope a reminder here will suffice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fully-protected the page for a week because of the edit warring. From my quick scan it didn't look like the participants were very close to finding a consensus version in the WP:ORN discussion - how about opening an RfC instead? If you think an RfC would be a good idea, it would probably be worth discussing its format here for a couple of days so that when the discussion proper opens it has a good chance of finding a consensus outcome. If you need any help with that, just give me a shout. I'll be watching the page for edit requests too, in case anyone has a request that isn't related to the dispute. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like a Good Idea. See WP:Request for comment: "When starting an RfC, you must first decide if the primary issue is a user's conduct, in which case you use the Request for comment on user process; otherwise, use the process described below in the Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues section." GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we would do best to treat this as a content dispute. Most often, when the content issues are sorted out the conduct issues tend to disappear. Do you have any suggestions for a question to ask in a potential RfC? I generally find that it is best to keep the question itself neutral and then put any evidence/arguments in the RfC body, although other structures can work as well. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

- No, I hate to say it, but it is a user's conduct which is at issue. The content has been talked to death here. As for the questions, they can be found at ORN, but nobody has chimed in to answer them yet.

The questions are:


 * 1) Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the [LGBT] Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
 * 2)  Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
 * 3) Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?

Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC) -


 * There is also a question asked at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Improving GLBT section
I am proposing that, instead of making a blanket statement that VanderSloot has been accused by "journalists and gay-rights advocates" (which begs the question as to their numbers or their importance) that we instead specifically state who these accusers are, with citations to their criticisms.

Proposed version

"Some have accused VanderSloot of outing Zuckerman, including journalist Jody Mae Chang (in an opinion column), Mother Jones magazine, television host and political commentator Rachel Maddow,[84][85] Salon magazine,[citation needed] the editors of the Boise Weekly,[86] and Zuckerman himself.[87] In 2012, VanderSloot denied the charge, saying that Zuckerman had already posted his sexual orientation on a public website, that a local radio show and the community had been discussing the fact and that he, VanderSloot, had attempted to defend Zuckerman's motives;[88] Post Register editor Dean Miller, however, wrote later that Zuckerman's sexual orientation had been known only by Zuckerman's family and a few of his close friends and colleagues.[83]"

Version as it exists now

"VanderSloot was accused of outing Zuckerman.[11][72][12][77][51][90][81][91] In 2012, VanderSloot denied the charge, saying that Zuckerman had already posted his sexual orientation on a public website, that a local radio show and the community had been discussing the fact and that he, VanderSloot, had attempted to defend Zuckerman's motives;[92] Post Register editor Dean Miller, however, wrote later that Zuckerman's sexual orientation had been known only by Zuckerman's family and a few of his close friends and colleagues.[51][77][79]"

Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that that's an improvement. It's more verbose, for one thing.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was invited to comment on this article. My initial reaction is that the Zuckerman stuff seems to be worth including, but if you're going to include it, you should explain who 'Zuckerman' is and give his first name! Reading the article as it is now, I came across the references to 'Zuckerman' and thought 'who the hell is this guy?'. How about 'VanderSloot issued critical statements[84][85] regarding a series of investigative articles[86][87] by Peter Zuckerman in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council.[88]...' (italics added) Robofish (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a good point. Some people have been doing some deletions but not considering the consequences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is longer, but it is also more accurate. (1) Instead of using the passive voice (which hides information), the revised version uses an active voice to tell who did the accusing. (2) It cites the person or the agency doing the accusing to the place where the accusing is done (the actual words of the accusation, in other words). GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed version looks good. It's longer, but also much more specific.  I also agree with Robofish and suggest adding Zuckerman's name to this sentence (edits shown in caps): "In 2006, VanderSloot issued critical statements[84][85] regarding a series of investigative articles BY JOURNALIST PETER ZUCKERMAN[86][87] in the Idaho Falls Post Register about incidents of child molestation by a Boy Scout director in the Grand Teton Council.[88]"HtownCat (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I restored that paragraph, but we still need a source for the Salon magazine claim. I have also explained who Zuckerman was, or is. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * RIR, did you mean to delete Zuckerman's name/affiliation? It's hard to imagine why.  Please fix it, and be more careful with that sort of thing.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No Nomo, I totally missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. I made a correction. Does that look OK? Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that the Block has been lifted, I restored the paragraph that HtownCat and I like, and I hope other editors will pay attention to Revert only when necessary. Thanks so much. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation overkill.
Just a note to recommend a fine essay at Citation overkill, particularly the paragraph that states:

One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples such as "Garphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5] of ...". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up his point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that his opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for his edit. Using just one or two good citations at good points in the VanderSloot article instead of a host of them would really improve the piece. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to be more specific than that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well here is an example where some finer tuning could be applied:
 * Melaleuca has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations including "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[30][39][40][41][42][43]
 * I have not looked at the sources. Do all of them give the same exact quote? and say exactly what this sentence says? I'm thinking its likely that one source is from Idaho, one from Michigan etc. If that is the case it would be good to have the specific source next to each specific phrase rather than having the reader hunt through the sources. At the same time I have to say that WP is built on reliable sources and its commendable that editors are providing good sourcing. So maybe some middle ground could be found going forward :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 00:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In some cases multiple citations are used because the material deals with issues that could best be described as critical of the BLP subject, and thus the bar is set rather high to demonstrate prominent/widespread coverage -- the downside of pruning sources under the guise of addressing citation overkill is that later on someone will inevitably argue that the issue did not receive coverage significant enough to warrant inclusion. In other cases, it demonstrates uniformity of facts or opinion across a fairly broad spectrum of publications/media outlets. Pointless duplication has been avoided as far as I can see. If there are any obvious exceptions, let me know. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an example: "VanderSloot and Melaleuca were financial supporters of Concerned Citizens for Family Values, an organization that ran attack ads targeting incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak during her 2000 re-election campaign against challenger Daniel T. Eismann.[39][40][54][55]." Another: "In 2010 VanderSloot funded two political action committees (PACs) that launched last-minute attack ads against Idaho 2nd District Judge John Bradbury, a Democrat, during his electoral run for state Supreme Court against Republican incumbent Justice Roger Burdick.[62][63][64][65] ." A third: "VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates.[11][12][39][83][84][85][86][87][88]."  GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Those are merely examples of multiple citations; they are not examples of citation overkill. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, so far as the last example goes, no, Keithbob, in fact NONE of those nine sources (as I remember, having read them a few weeks ago) state anything close to "VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates." Instead they are used to back up the WP:Synthesis in that section of the article. A discussion is still open on this problem (still unresolved) at ORN. Please join it if you can, everybody. Thank you.GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stay focused on the topic of the thread -- citation overkill. Given that you are already discussing your other issue elsewhere, it's counterproductive to stray off on that tangent here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ranching
There are a few problems with this recent revision. First, the newly added text refers to “numerous awards” but it’s unclear what the awards were and how many of them there were (i.e., the term “numerous” is vague and subjective).

Second, the 2 sources cited were from 1995 and 1996, and the awards appear to be have been from a Utah state fair during that time – thus, the text seems to be overgeneralized and should probably instead refer to the specific awards and dates (e.g., something like “the ranch received awards for x,y,z at the Idaho State Fair in 1995-1996").

Third, the 2 sources cited are not available online, so any relevant text should be quoted here where it can be discussed so as to come up with a more suitable entry.

Lastly, the text includes a quote about the ranch’s mission statement. I had previously made an edit so that this would be attributed it to the proper source – i.e. it was an unofficial statement from the ranch’s manager rather than an official statement from the ranch/owner itself. This was reverted for some reason which was not explained in the edit summary. I don’t even think the statement is noteworthy; it describes a promotional tag line; the more encyclopedic approach would be to explain what the ranch does, not what their slogan is. Nonetheless, if the statement is to be included (and I don’t think it should), it would have to be properly attributed.

I have reverted the edit pending resolution of these outstanding issues here on the Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are only 2-3 awards then it would be more accurate to state the specific awards and avoid the word 'numerous' and a request for quotes from the sources seems reasonable. As for the mission statement. I think we should remember that the article is about FLV and at some point details about his ranch or business etc may become tangential. But that will need to be assessed on a case by case basis. Just some food for thought.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We're on the same page. Let's see how it plays out. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The mission statement relates to VanderSloot based on the context of the quote in a source that was removed: "Brown said VanderSloot is intimately involved in the ranch, establishing its mission as 'providing ranchers in the Intermountain West with the best genetics at an affordable price.'" It demonstrates that VanderSloot is actively involved in this ranch and justifies why this section should be in the article.


 * The sources I referenced that were removed specifically named 21 awards won by the ranch. I could keep digging and find similar awards from other years and events, but three reliable sources is more than enough for one sentence.  The articles are too long to post in their entirety but here are relevant excerpts.  I could create a table that lists them, but I think it's better to consolidate them.  I'm not worried about copyright in this case because the information is freely available:


 * "UTAH STATE FAIR SALUTES WINNERS" Piedmontese. Champion Heifer Calf, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls. Reserve Champion Heifer Calf, Morning Star Farms, Albion, Idaho. Champion Senior Female Morning Star Farms, Albion, Idaho. Reserve Champion Senior Female, Enghsaspen Wood Piedmontes, Salt Lake City. Grand Champion Female, Morning Star Farms, Albion, Idaho. Reserve Grand Champion Female, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls. Reserve Champion Bull Calf, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls. Champion Senior Bull, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls. Reserve Champion Senior Bull, Enghsaspen Wood Piedmontes, Salt Lake City. Reserve Grand Champion Bull, Enghsaspen Wood Piedmontes, Salt Lake City.


 * "Cream of the Crop: This Year's Roundup of Utah State Fair Winners; More State Fair Winners" PIEDMONTESE -- Champion heifer calf, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; reserve champion heifer calf, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; champion senior female, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; reserve champion senior female, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; grand champion female, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; reserve grand champion female, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; champion bull calf, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; reserve champion bull calf, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; champion senior bull, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; reserve champion senior bull, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; grand champion bull, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; reserve grand champion bull, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; premier exhibitor, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho; premier breeder, Riverbend Ranch, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Andrew (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "From Horses to Horticulture" Piedmontese -- Grand champion female, Riverbend Ranch, St. Anthony, Idaho; reserve grand champion female, Riverbend Ranch, St. Anthony, Idaho; grand champion bull, Aspenwood Ranch, Salt Lake City; reserve grand champion bull, Riverbend Ranch, St. Anthony, Idaho.


 * If there is a reliable source that says the ranch received 21 awards than that qualifies for the term "numerous" IMO. As for relevance.. if FLV is the owner of the ranch then I think its OK to say he owns an award winning ranch. More details about the ranch such as its history, profits and losses, staff changes etc. would generally be off topic IMO. Not saying anyone is proposing that, just mentioning it as a possible caution for future additions. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Jody May-Chang
Is an independent blogger - her "Reader's Opinion" in the newspaper is just that - and is not a relaible source, nor are her self-published writings reliable sources for any WP:BLP per WP:SPS. Collect (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Chang's article is not a self-published work. Furthermore, she was referred to directly by two of the secondary sources. Please stop trying to whitewash the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reader's Opinion" means it is an opinion from a reader. No different from a "letter to the editor" in fact, which is disallowed as a source. And "may-chang.com" is clearly an SPS, and is clearly a blog.  I found no sign of her being more than that, and the fact she herself edited this article is a troubling sign.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the matter of VS being accused of outing Zuckerman were being reported here as fact, you would have a point. But since we're representing it as an accusation from various specified people, there is no difficulty in using an article published in the newspaper's opinion section to support the assertion that Jody May Chang accused VS of outing Zuckerman.  The fact that her piece was cited by two other reliable sources reinforces the case for treating it this way.  The fact that the passage was rewritten to specify the identities of the individuals (avoiding passive voice, as previously) also supports including it.  I would, however, exclude may-chang.com as a source here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of a letter to the editor ("Reader's opinion") fails WP:RS.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with Nomo's assessment. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This clearly fails WP:RS. As Collect correctly noted it is a letter to the editor and therfore not usable as a reliable source. That Rachel Maddow (big suprise) and Salon (another big suprise) would reference the LOE is of no significance. Arzel (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it does not clearly fail WP:RS. Read Nomo's explanation as to why it does not. Your snide comments about Maddow and Salon do not negate the fact that those are WP:RS and that they establish the connection with Chang. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Letters to the editor are not reliable sources for any claims as they are not reliable sources per WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As Nomo explained, the source (a newspaper op-ed) is being cited as evidence of what the author (Jody May-Chang) stated. This is perfectly acceptable according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSOPINION, and it's backed up by two additional secondary sources. No reason at all to push for such tendentious editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the letter writer doesn't appear notable enough to even have a wikipedia article about them, I have to doubt their opinions being notable enough to include in a BLP. Arkon (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not someone has a WP bio has never been a yardstick for assessing whether or not a source meets WP:RS. The May-Chang connection was mentioned by two other secondary sources, so you're really grasping st straws there. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should wikipedia be including the views of this person? That's the part you haven't really addressed. Arkon (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Letters to the editor may be (marginally) allowable for indication of the writer's opinion, if the writer or opinion is otherwise notable; but it was being used to support an alleged statement of fact. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, I didn't even notice the 2 instances you just fixed. I fully agree with those changes. The prior argument was about an instance in which the source was being used to back up a statement by the author and would be allowable as per NEWSORG and RSOPINION. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Collect is correct that opinion pieces should not be used as sources for biographies of living persons or for other articles for that matter. If a news story reported this then it would be a reliable secondary source and could establish weight and provide a reason for inclusion.  While that policy may exclude many good commentaries, the upside is that it excludes may bad ones.  TFD (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Easily resolved, I think: if other sources note that Chang asserted VS outed Zuckerman, just cite those other sources to support text re what Chang asserted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSOPINION seem to make it clear that opinion pieces are not precluded, especially not when they are used in the same narrow context as in the case of Jody May Chang (ie, backing up a statement by the author). That aside, the secondary sources mentioning Chang do in fact establish that this merits inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No they do not. Those are highly partisan sources and do not substantiate the claim, they simply repeat the claim.  Arzel (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a URL for the source in question? -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Providing quote for Katrina aid
Below is the requested quote for the Philanthropy section: Melaleuca Inc. President Frank VanderSloot, meanwhile, flew to Baton Rouge during the weekend to drop off sup-plies at several shelters. "We took some food, some snacks and things," he said. "They didn't last long." He was flying back home Tuesday with some extra passengers -- three families. VanderSloot said he was taking one -- an elderly couple, their granddaughter and two Pomeranians -- to stay with relatives in Salt Lake City. Another family needed transportation to San Diego, so he gave them a ride to Utah and was trying to find a way to get them from Salt Lake City to California. The third family is coming to Idaho Falls with VanderSloot, who said he'd give them a job and allow them to stay with him as long as they needed to stay. HtownCat (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like rather silly content to include; not the least bit encyclopedic. Find a source from the family's POV and maybe there will be something there worth mentioning. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree its undue weight to go into any details but a quick sentence that that he flew to BR, dropped off supplies and helped a few families with their transport/housing issues would be OK.-- — Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Will edit accordingly. HtownCat (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Political campaign financing: Two sentences removed.
The section stated that "VanderSloot and Melaleuca were financial supporters of Concerned Citizens for Family Values," but none of the four sources at the end of that sentence makes such a statement. The closest is the Eamon Murphy piece from AOL Daily Finance, which says that the CCFV was "one of VanderSloot's favorite causes," but not that VDS or ML gave money. The Trilhaase piece is clearly labeled: "The editorial posted here is provided by permission of its original publisher and does not necessarily reflect the views of Idaho Public Television," and thus is not a Reliable Source.

As for the Kyle Cheek and Martin Mayer books, there is no mention of VanderSloot in either of them. and.

Because of the lack of Reliable Sources in these two sentences, I am removing them from the article. If I am mistaken in my research, just respond here. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you blind or just being obstructive as usual? The very first of the references you deleted (Salon) says: "Concerned Citizens for Family Values, to which Melaleuca and VanderSloot were large donors". Please stop wasting everyone's time with this pointless griping and tendentious editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with being blind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_blind_people#Writers GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right; I missed that reference, but the Salon article by Glenn Greenwald specifically links to an opinion piece at http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/meddle-lunka/Content?oid=2239914, titled "Meddle-Lunka," by Bill Cope. Greenwald's article is certainly an Op-ed, and there is not a hint of solid Shoe-leather reporting or objectivity in there at all. And what about the other sources? I checked them all. As I mentioned, anybody can correct me here. But nicely, please. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't even dignify that with a response, it's so ridiculous. Stop being disruptive please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Although it is often difficult when editing a contentious article, we should always assume good faith, remain civil and be patient with each other. Its also important to stay on the topic of content and avoid making derogatory comments about editor behavior.... If the first source is valid and supports the cited text then that's OK. However if other sources at the end of the sentence do not specifically support the WP article text than they should be removed lest they mislead our readers. If one, or some are in the grey zone then we can discuss those sources here and gain consensus.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the two sentences again, for the reasons given above. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. You deleted it once already today and then did it again after Nomo reverted your deletion. Did you miss the part where KeithBob said "discuss those sources here and gain consensus". Was that asking too much? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * George, I think you might have missed the fact that I did not merely revert, I added a new source (from Forbes) that won't cause you any concern. Possibly there is still a need to re-word the passage so that it conforms to the sources we have.  But I think it was inappropriate for you simply to undo my edit; again my guess is that you didn't check it closely enough.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and by the way, I think a case could be made that you're both currently at the limit of 3RR on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Nomo, if I made a mistaken edit. (1) I have to admit that this editing exercise is becoming so complicated that I can't find the exact edit you are referring to. Can you provide a diff? (2) Also, do you think it is OK to retain controversial material in a BLP if the Sources are challenged (even if wrongly)? GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the edit you reverted, ; note the new source (already pointed out to you above) and the slight but significant change in wording. I don't see anything controversial there.  Again, if you have specific concerns then propose a revision that doesn't involve wholesale deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Strassel’s POV Problem
The recent edits highlighting WSJ Strassel’s pernicious attacks on the president are far from NPOV. When I first added the section about the Obama campaign team including VandeSloot on its list of high-profile big money Romney donors, I included a link to Strassel’s article (among several others) but I purposely avoided highlighting any of Strassel’s politically-charged opinion-based accusations, instead favoring text and sources that offered a more balanced middle-of-the-road factual account of the events. It is a fact that a list of donors was published; it is not a fact that the list is an “enemies list” as Strassel and FOX News contended.

It is a fact that VanderSloot is being audited by the IRS, but it’s not a fact that the audit was retributive, as right-wing talking heads like Strassel, Hannity, and FOX News alleged. It is also a fact that Strassel’s attack was criticized by several journalists including (but not limited to) Rachel Maddow. Lots of sources covered these events in a neutral manner (reporting just the facts without the accusations), so giving undue weight to the hysterical right-wing sources is inappropriate (i.e, it is a biased minority opinion). Clearly, the recent edits are problematic with respect to NPOV and undue weight. The previous version was well balanced and avoided this POV quagmire, while at the same time giving more than sufficient weight to VanderSloot's public comments about the events. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * RIR, I would let this one go. The text in question is not written in any sort of dramatic language.  If there are several sources that adopt the view that the audit is retributive, then even if it's a minority view it deserves to be covered to a limit extent.  Not the thing to edit-war over, in my view -- especially given the continued attempts to nail you at 3rrn.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Referring to an enemies list, saying that VS had a target on his back, and that the IRS audit was politically motivated is extremely dramatic language. It is an extreme viewpoint (espoused by right-wing sources like Hannity, FOX news, and Strassel) that has been countered by several other sources as baseless. If it's to be included at all, it needs to be counterbalanced with the opposing viewpoints. VanderSloot claims that he's a victim because he's a private citizen. Other sources argue that his assertion was unfounded and he was attempting to play the victim for political purposes -- i.e., he's not a "private citizen" per se -- he's Romney's campaign finance manager. The right wing sources refer to an "enemies list". This too is a biased accusation. It is merely a list of major donors put forth in the interest of transparency; not a list of "enemies". VS also alleges that the IRS targeted him unfairly because he was a Romney donor. That too is a baseless accusation. This issues needs to be handled in a balanced manner or removed altogether. What I object to most is that the reversion was undone twice and in both instances, the editors bypassed the Talk page and addressed none of the issues. That's not how things are supposed to be done here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that Strassel's article was an op-ed piece -- exactly the type of source that has generated major outcries from editors like George Louis and Collect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This attack against VanderSloot has been noted by several. Additionally, the other verbage uses WP voice to make statements against VanderSloot which are clearly from the Obama campaign, a serious BLP issue.  Arzel (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. Could you please expound on that a bit more. The original version of the text in question described all of the key details about the events in a very evenhanded and factual manner and was based on a broad cross-sample of sources that had written about the subject. The revised version introduced all sorts of baseless conjecture and accusations based on an op-ed piece by Strassel, which represented the POV of a very small group of partisan right-wing sources. Your reply did not address any of the key issues at stake, like NPOV, undue weight, and the use of op-ed in a BLP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomo, I appreciate that you responded to the fact that the Strassel accusations were based on an op-ed piece and deleted a portion of the offending text. However, the larger problems still remain: the article gives extraordinarily undue weight to a particularly biased and non-represntative POV based on Strassel’s op-ed. The offenses in the revised text occur in two places; the first being the line:


 * The campaign website was labeled the president’s “enemies list” by the media and Republican politicians. 

This “enemies list” accusation is an absurdly partisan opinion, one not rooted in fact, and it was countered by other journalists, as I already pointed out, and these sources are not mentioned. Also, notice that the two citations to support the statement from "the media" and "Republican politicians" are (1) Strassel’s op-ed, and (2) an unattributed statement based on a source that cannot be readily verified (i.e., the alleged ABC report does not appear to be an online source, which is particularly problematic for such a contentious statement). The sourcing here is terrible and the statement is contentious, non-neutral, and arguably WP:FRINGE. In contrast, the sources that were used to construct the original version of the text were carefully selected to be neutral and well balanced; they included local press reports (Idaho Press-Tribune, Idaho Statesman) and a good cross sampling of perspectives (NPR, USA Today, and even FOX News). None were op-eds.

Bear in mind that the WP Project Conservatism crew (eg, GeorgeLouis, Collect, Andrewman327) have campaigned relentlessly over the last couple months for the exclusion of op-ed pieces in this article on the basis that they violate WP policy (although in most of those instances, the sources had been cited in compliance with WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSOPINION). So the current issues are exacerbated by the hypocrisy of arguing strenuously for the exclusion of op-eds when they have a critical slant, but arguing strenuously in their favor when they have a positive slant for VanderSloot. To make matters worse, Strassel is mentioned a second time, and given an entire paragraph and the final word in the section. All 3 sources cited were op-eds by Strassel:


 * The Wall Street Journal published a series of articles criticizing the audits and treatment of VanderSloot and other Romney campaign donors. 

Not only does this violate op-ed policy but the violation of undue weight is unmistakable; not only because of the undue prominence given to Strassel, but also the lack of balance with other sources that criticized Strassel for inventing a conspiratorial-type theory and inappropriately portraying VanderSloot as a victim. The responses condemning Strassel’s biased reporting appeared not only in conventional news reports but also in numerous op-eds. When I constructed the section I purposely avoided stepping into this quagmire for a reason, and I was very careful to include balanced coverage, even addressing that VanderSloot felt he was targeted unfairly. But the he-said/she-said opinion-based arguments are tangential, non-encyclopedic, and a distraction from the key facts. If we do decide to go there anyway, despite the reasons why we shouldn't, then it’s essential that the text be balanced and not focused so much on Strassel’s op eds. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question here does not mention Strassel, nor any details about her theory. The fact that the WSJ published three articles on this issue is noteworthy. If we're going to use Salon, we should allow Strassel via WSJ. If we are going to include a quote from the campaign website that refers to him as "litigious, combative" etc., then we should certainly include some of the criticism directed at the campaign for the list.HtownCat (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's misleading. It doesn't matter whether or not Strassel's name is explicitly mentioned; the text in question relies exclusively on Strassel's op-ed pieces -- the articles are clearly labeled op-ed. It's a fringe partisan POV and a scurrilous accusation against the President, the inclusion of which does nothing to improve VanderSloot's BLP. It is given extreme undue weight (cited in two different sections and given the final word in the section). There are multiple neutral sources that cover the meat of the story without resorting to partisan rhetoric and ad hominems. Clearly, there is no support for the statement attributed to "the media and Republican politicians". I have pointed out multiple sources that disputed and criticized Strassel's account and yet none of them were cited. Lastly, this isn't a trade and Salon has nothing to do with this thread, so focus on the matter at hand please. The inclusion of this text is indefensible on several counts -- it violates the rules on op-eds, undue weight, attribution, balance, and NPOV. You've provided no reasonable defense because there is no reasonable defense. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as the opinions are properly cited as opinions, there is no reason to excise them. NPOV refers to balance of all sources in an entire article - it does not require individual opinions to be "neutral" and, as a strnage fact, most opinions in this world are not neutral.  What we do is note that they are opinions.   I would further note that some of the sources currently used  in this article are, in fact, partisan and opposed to VdS.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is a major source and being featured on it is a notable event in and of itself. Besides that, I read the entire reference list and found that if we remove the WSJ piece we'd also have to remove many other sources. I'm not suggesting that we should remove all of these sources, but I'm providing a context for why it would be silly to pull WSJ.

POV issues of existing sources

Looking through the references list, there are several sources that have strong point of view bias. Here are Wikipedia descriptions of several of them:


 * "Salon is a progressive liberal online magazine..."


 * "Rolling Stone... is devoted to music, liberal politics, and popular culture."

Op-Eds and editorials already on the page
 * "Mother Jones (abbreviated MoJo) is a politically liberal American magazine..."

Additionally, there are several op-eds and editorials cited, here are only three of them:


 * "VanderSloot won Supreme Court race," is an editorial with a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it is not necessarily the opinion of the publisher.


 * Same thing with If you buy radio stations, who needs attack ads?


 * Best Multiple Personalities 2012 is a Boise Weekly editorial.

Andrew (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a hostage negotiation. The merits of the sources and text in this thread are a standalone issue. The specific instances in which reporting by Salon, Rolling Stone, and Mother Jones are cited have already been discussed at length. It's counterproductive to re-litigate previously resolved issues, especially on this thread.


 * That aside, your argument consists solely of "The Wall Street Journal editorial page is a major source and being featured on it is a notable event in and of itself". I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean, but it addresses precisely none of the issues I raised above. No one is arguing that the general event (ie, the campaign team's inclusion of Vandersloot's name on a list of top Romney donors) in the section isn't notable; quite the opposite. I wrote the entry about the event, so obviously I recognize its notability. It's not even an issue of citing an op-ed per se (which can be allowable under limited circumstances). The point is that the event was covered by multiple independent non-op-ed sources and they handled it in an even-handed manner without politicizing the issue and turning it into a partisan pre-election slag-fest. What you are arguing for is to outweigh neutral, independent, factual reporting with the shrill op-ed-based non-factual opinion of a partisan talking head. This would be one of the the worst forms of abuse of an op-ed, and it stands in marked contrast with the false parallels you alluded to above.


 * As I've shown several times already, there are other sources that denounced Strassel's op-eds, so fair balance would require that they be given equal weight, and by then the section will have degenerated into a he-said/she-said op-ed war that simply doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. If that line were to be crossed, then the matter would need to be covered fairly, yet I see no concern on your part about addressing WP:BALANCE, not to mention the other even more critical issues.


 * As for the attempt to include "The campaign website was labeled the president’s “enemies list” by the media and Republican politicians", the core issue is that the "enemies list" accusation is not based on anything factual. The list of top Romney donors wasn't published as an "enemies list"; it's purely a label that reflects the politically motivated spin-doctoring of a partisan pundit minority, so really, who gives a damn if they labeled it an enemies list. A secondary issue is that it's not even attributed properly -- it's an egregious misrepresentation to say that it was "the media" and "(nameless) Republican politicians" that labeled the list as such. The original and stable version of the section describes in a neutral manner that VanderSloot felt he was being targeted unfairly and that he took to the airwaves to air his grievances (and used that as an opportunity to solicit more donations for Romney's campaign). That's more than sufficient and it reflects what mainstream sources reported. There's no need to add that VS said "I knew it was like taping a target to my back." VanderSloot portrays himself as a victim, but WP is not the place to further that agenda.


 * The proposed addition of "The Wall Street Journal published a series of articles criticizing the audits and treatment of VanderSloot" again begs the question "so what"? It doesn't have enough meat to stand on its own because it doesn't describe the basis for the criticism, and there's no way that WP is going to report some baseless scurrilous accusations by Strassel -- based on no evidence whatsoever -- that the audits were retributive or that the President had anything to do with them. That VanderSloot is being audited is a fact; that the audits were retributive is not a fact; it's not even a well-founded opinion; it's not even a compelling conspiracy theory. WP doesn't report idle gossip. This sort of inappropriate use of an op-ed stands in marked contrast with other quotes in the article that reflect obvious facts (supported by multiple sources), such as VanderSloot being a high-profile big-money donor and vocal advocate of conservative politicians and causes, or that he has taken controversial stands on LGBT issues. Furthermore, in those instances, the comments were directed at VanderSloot, whereas in this case the comments are directed at the President, which adds insult to injury because it's tangential and not directly relevant to VanderSloot. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Great - you show above exactly why the WSJ material belongs in this BLP. Better evidence sould not be found.  And I suggest at this point consensus is for inclusion of that material.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your threadbare comment completely ignored the issues raised and it's emblematic of WP:TAGTEAM. Show some respect for the "D" in WP:BRD and don't claim consensus where none exists. You might want to read WP:CON, which says:


 * "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Limit talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If other Op Ed articles are currently being cited in the article then it seems only fair to allow one in this instance also as long as there is an inline attribution, so as not to mislead the reader into thinking that this is the voice of the WSJ. If it is the opinion of one writer, without editorial oversight, then that must be made clear. For example. In a series of opinion pieces written by Strassel of the WSJ etc...... So that's an improvement that needs to be made in my opinion. At the same time we cannot, as editors, discount a source because we feel the opinion is baseless. We state who the opinion is from, the name of the reliable source publication, and let the reader decide if it has any merit.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is not unreasonable, but there are still the issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE to address, as outlined above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Keithbob's suggestion here for framing the info as an opinion piece, but one of the WSJ sources that I cited wasn't by Strassel. The tone is a bit less accusatory than the Strassel articles, although it's presenting similar information: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203604577397031654422966.html. So perhaps we could lead into the presented information with "Several opinion pieces published by the Wall Street Journal..." HtownCat (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Better to count up the opinion pieces and use the exact figure. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just be aware, as I pointed out already, that if you propose to mention these muckraking op-eds, they will have to be balanced by other sources that objected strongly to Strassel's dirt throwing accusations. That's going to open up a Pandora's box, but if you want go there, WP:BALANCE must be respected. Also it did not go unnoticed that the current position you are taking contradicts every instance in which you loudly protested the use of anything remotely resembling an op-ed (even though those specific instances were compliant with policy and ultimately deemed appropriate during noticeboard discussions). The hypocrisy is unmistakable and unfortunate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the sentence. Rhode Island Red, if you already have the sources that object to Strassel, by all means add them for balance. HtownCat (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I still think that the newly added portion is shallow and unencyclopedic because it doesn't discuss the nature of the criticism (which is what really matters) and leaves innuendo hanging in the air, but at least, since I have added additional sources, it is now balanced. It would have been better had the new text been first proposed here on the Talk page, since there is an ongoing active discussion taking place, but I've come to realize that such a commonsense approach (WP:BRD) is not the MO for some editors here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack Ads
Two editors from the "conservative" block have made two attempts now to remove every mention of the term "attack ads" from the article and replace it with just "ads". No attempt was made to discuss the issue, and now, as usual, it's turning into another edit war. As I've explained in my edit summary -- twice -- the term used by the sources was "attack ads" -- because they were attack ads. The term has a very specific and clearly defined meaning that is perfectly applicable in this case and the use of the term is exactly consistent with what the sources wrote. There is absolutely no valid reason to delete this term from the article and if the attempts to whitewash it continue, the COI/user conduct will be brought to the attention of the admins. This hyper-partisan disruptive POV pushing cannot continue unchecked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would certainly suggest raising it elsewhere, rather than continuing to revert (it's not worth it!). I'm quite prepared to compromise on that one, myself -- particularly if the sources in question do not use the term (and perhaps even if they do...).  I should add that raising it elsewhere seems unlikely to provoke sympathy; I'm only saying I think it's preferable to reverting.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I raised the issue here on Talk after it became necessary so as to avert an edit war. I figured that the edit summaries alone would have sufficed. The sources do in fact use the term attack ads. The term has a very specific meaning (unlike "ads"). They weren't just "ads", and they didn't merely support VanderSloot's favored candidate; they were ads specifically designed to denigrate a particular candidate. So the term is used properly with respect to meaning and usage by the cited sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could indicate which source(s) and (particularly if the source is long) quote from it. I suppose if the term is used by multiple sources I'd likely change my mind and insist on using it in our article (though I note the current version includes the term -- perhaps it's sufficient?).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm tied up for a bit but I'll get that posted by EOD. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When one looks at the number of times "attack ads" was used, and in a non-neutral manner (ads against someone - and then specifying attack ads against someone? Nope - NPOV requires assiduously neutral wording.  Collect (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Attack ads are by definition "against someone". NPOV does not require that the terms used by multiple sources be replaced with some other term of another editor's choosing. Using the term attack ads is not injecting a non-neutral POV; quite the contrary -- neutrality means respecting the words of the sources without overriding it with one's personal POV. If it's an issue of the number of times the term is used, I would be amenable for the sake of compromise, to use it once in the lead and once in the first entry in the campaign contributions section, with "ads against" used subsequently. Would that be acceptable to you Collect? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We already say that as ad was "against" someone - that does not mean we need gtto shout ATTACK ADS!!! over and over. I suggest the single use in the lede is more than sufficient, and ask you revert your weird insistance that every wikilinked word in the lede "must wikilinked in the body" which ain't so.  Really.  I fear you so desire to stress ATTACK ADS that you miss WP:NPOV utterly and entirely.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I already proposed a potential compromise to mention "attack ads" it in the lead and in the first entry, which is appropriate because the lead only summarizes what's in the body text; it is not the place to introduce content that is not discussed in the body text. This would have been clear had you read WP:LEAD as I suggested in my edit summary.. It would have been a good comrpomise for you to accept, but since you didn't, I'm going to followup with Nomo's request and we can take it from there. I never once proposed that every mention of "attack ads" needs to be wikilinked. That's either a red herring or a misinterpretation on your part.  Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomo, regarding your request, the numerous examples below should be more than sufficient to back up the point. Let me know if you have any questions.


 * Lewiston Morning Tribune: “On Friday Roark shrugged off the suit as an attempt at intimidation by VanderSloot, whose companies have contributed $35,000 to Roark’s opponent, Lawrence Wasden, and spent $16,500 for a radio attack ad against Roark in Eastern Idaho.”


 * Davidson (“Herndon, Simpson in lead for runoff”. Post Register): “Though the campaigning among the candidates was cordial, Herndon was attacked on May 7, when a newly formed political action committee, Citizens for Truth and Justice, ran an ‘Anybody but Herndon’ ad in the Post Register… paid for by special interest groups which clearly attack specific candidates.”


 * Draper (“7th District judge race still fairly quiet”. Post Register): “Citizens for Truth and Justice, weighed in, blanketing the airwaves and running ads urging residents to vote for "Anyone but Herndon."… Herndon plans to take further attack ads in stride, saying they didn't work in April.”


 * Corbin (Title -- “Attack ads have local link”. Post Register): Self-explanatory title


 * Fisher (Title: “If you buy radio stations, who needs attack ads?” Lewiston Morning Tribune): Self-explanatory title.


 * NBC Nightly News (Feb 2, 2012): “An outspoken conservative and devout Mormon, VS’s Idaho company pumped $1 million into a super PAC backing Mitt Romney, helping to pay for a barrage of attack ads in the Florida primary.”


 * Russell (“Groups fined over ads against judge”. The Spokesman-Review): “Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa has announced fines against two groups that launched last-minute campaign attacks against an Idaho Supreme Court candidate without following the disclosure requirements of the state’s Sunshine Law.”


 * KTVB News (“Groups must pay $1,900 fines for illegal campaigns”): “Citizens for Justice and Citizens for Commonsense Solutions were behind attack ads against Idaho Supreme Court candidate John Bradbury, who lost to incumbent Roger Burdick on May 25.”


 * Idaho Statesman (“Ads attacking judicial candidate violated state disclosure law, official says”. May 24).


 * Zuckerman: “VanderSloot once outed me as gay in a newspaper attack ad. He bought the ad because he disapproved of my investigative series about child molesters in the Boy Scouts.)”

As should now be apparent, every instance in which “attack ads” was mentioned in the article was justified since it is the same terminology used by one or more of the cited sources in each section (not to mention in other sources that weren’t cited). It’s a widely used term that has a very specific meaning and refers to a particular type of ad, as indicated by the WP article on the term. It’s not inherently negative; it’s just what those types of ads are called. There is no POV issue with respect to use of the term in the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * None of which excuses the wanton violation of WP:NPOV.  And you seem so oddly isnistent on shouting ATTACK ADS every chance you get when just about any ad opposing a person could be called that.  Wikipedia uses neutral language, and that is official policy.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing in WP:NPOV that supports the POV you are pushing -- zero. There is no POV violation here and merely shouting "NPOV" over and over again is not an argument, it's just obnoxious. Your misinterpretations of policy in support of such contentious claims on your part is disruptive and highly inappropriate. You're also being rigid and inflexible even when an overly generous compromise was offered. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

edit request
The "FDA letter" paragraph was discussed at several noticeboards, and by consensus was found not to be properly in this BLP. See Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_51


 * The case has gone on for ten days and should be closed by now, as partially resolved. There is a rough consensus not to include the paragraph on the 1997 warning letter, which was the original issue that was brought to DRN. The Rolling Stone and Slate articles don't explicitly mention the 1997 letter, but do refer to the controversy over Melaleuca's supplements. Inclusion of a more general statement describing the controversy will have to be discussed on the article's talk page, as DRN is not a substitute for talk page discussion.SGCM (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What I was getting at is the common situation where there is a clear consensus against an editor's preferred version and a long history of him inserting it and being reverted (but not in the last 24 hours -- see WP:3RR). sometimes in such cases the editor with the minority opinion keeps trying to get it into the article again and again, each time arguing -- again -- for inclusion on the talk page and seeing -- again -- everyone else disagreeing. That's the sort of situation where WP:BRD isn't much help. WP:STICK may be of help, though... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 

Thus the paragraph:


 * Melaleuca has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations including "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[39][40][41][30][42][43]

Should have the FDA charge removed, as well as the "false and misleading claims" quote removed, and the remaining sentence is simply SYNTH in the first place as no source catenates the claims. What should remain is that Melaleuca has been accused of making excessive claims about supplements. and delete the FDA letter primary source (from fda.gov per DRN consensus) Collect (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting idea, but the sentence "Melaleuca has been accused of making excessive claims about supplements" is not needed as an introduction to whatever will follow. It might be better to write: "On Jan. 3, 2011, agency XXXX accused Melaleuca of making YYYY statement about Melaleuca, to which the company responded ZZZZ and the result was QQQQ." In other words, details instead of a generality. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The aim is not perfection, but undoing what was described as edit war insertion of the section by one editor. As there was a "broad consensus" that the material was UNDUE, it seems proper to ask that such insertion be undone.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the paragraph should be eliminated. Completely. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no basis for your objections. The sources cited are reliable and the text in question is an accurate summary of what the sources said. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * DRN was pretty clear consensus, RIR -- time to drop the stick. Collect (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * DRN was about a different portion of text, sources, and context. It's blatantly misleading to claim that a consensus was established in relation to the current text and sources. Use of the template in this case was inappropriate because the requested edit is controversial and had not been through prior discussion. Again, the current text is an accurate summary and it's properly sourced. Time to stop the POV pushing, railroading, and whitewashing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

But, Red, I checked one of the sources (Greenwald), and it said nothing about making excessive claims about supplements. I really didn't want to waste my time checking the others for a subject that most everybody has agreed to drop, or at least consented to dropping. That's what consensus means. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please spare me your "buts". Your edit request was not only inappropriate given the lack of prior discussion or any consensus supporting it, but it's completely without merit. Your comment about the Greenwald article (In Salon magazine) was just plain wrong -- the article did in fact refer to the FDA's involvement over deceptive supplement claims. Just so that you don't waste any more time with this red herring of a request, here is the text in the article, as it stands now, as well as the relevant excerpts from the sources that support it:


 * Current text:
 * "Melaleuca has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations including "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[30][39][40][41][42][43]


 * Supporting Excerpts:
 * In 1991, Melaleuca entered into a voluntary compliance assurance with the Idaho attorney general's office, which found that "certain independent marketing executives of Melaleuca" had violated Idaho law…The company was ordered to pay the state $1,000 for the cost of the investigation…In 1992, the Michigan attorney general's office investigated Melaleuca's business practices…Melaleuca…signed an agreement with the state assuring that it would "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid," and that it would enforce its own policies to prevent distributors from referring to the FDA, FTC, or attorney general in its marketing materials…The Food and Drug Administration also has accused Melaleuca of deceiving consumers about some of its supplements—which the company claimed could treat clogged arteries or cure arthritis."  (NB: The MJ article also links directly to the FDA warning letter, which is cited in the BLP)


 * Melaleuca’s get-rich pitches have in the past caused Michigan regulators to take action, resulting in the company’s entering into a voluntary agreement to “not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid”‘; it entered into a separate voluntary agreement with the Idaho attorney general’s office, which found that “certain independent marketing executives of Melaleuca” had violated Idaho law; and the Food and Drug Administration previously accused Melaleuca of deceiving consumers about some of its supplements.


 * "Not everyone has been so admiring of Melaleuca's business practices: The "wellness company" has been targeted by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations."


 * The FDA has rebuked Melaleuca for making "false and misleading" claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid."


 * The FDA has rebuked Melaleuca for making ‘false and misleading’ claims about its supplements, and the company has signed a consent decree agreeing to ‘not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.’
 * Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps I misread the article. Sorry, Red. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a chronic "misreading" problem that arises, curiously, whenever you try to POV push. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Civility, Rhode Island Red; Assume Good Faith. And I suggest you stop edit warring, the article has already been put on SYSOP lock. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The drive-by comment (a banal civility/AGF/3RR lecture) isn't constructive Jeremy, and stalking me here, after having a previous disagreement on an unrelated page (Protandim) shows poor judgement. Appropriate steps were already taken to resolve the dispute, so you're a day late and a pound short, so to speak. FYI, it was I who just requested SYSOP lock. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And the person warned by Admins to stop edit warring beforehand. Now stop being uncivil. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as you appear to suddenly have forgotten, I was editing this page before I found your shoddy work on the Protandim page. Be civil and assume good faith. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Your claim is false Jeremy. You first edited Protandim on Sept 13/12, at which time I left you a warning for disruptive editing. Your first contribution on Vandersloots BLP was on Sept 18. The transition from your confronting me on Protandim to attacking me on Vandersloot is chronicled clearly on my Talk page, and it culminated in my Sept 18 report of your second round of edit warring and stalking to WP admin. So, suffice it to say, your excuse is dead wrong and my charge of stalking stands. My assumption of good faith is to not to call you a liar. BTW calling my work shoddy while admonishing me to be civil strikes me as more than a tad hypocritical. This entire issue is a distraction, so just recuse yourself. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Abusive behavior is frowned upon with Wikipedia. You leave out that I've left several warnings on your talk page. Are you really this resistant to civil behaviour? I have no interest in your edits, only in the benefits of this page. My first correction was to correct your grammar (that gets tiresome, trust me), I then added a source that you had no problem with, and it appears you only cared when I began trying to actually help the page in terms of content, when you began edit-warring. I don't know why you've decided you have any authority on Wikipedia, but your warning is bound to turn into a block considering the high level of edit warring you've immediately resumed. If it's a distraction stop writing as if you think it's a competition. I have no time for such childishness. If you have a charge, address the appropriate channels, I'll assume you're just blustering if you don't ;) Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat they key point one last time -- you stalked me here and you should recuse yourself. That aside, this thread is devolving, so keep it focused on content and take your petty vindictive bloviating elsewhere.

Getting back on track
When we start talking about the section that replaced the FDA letter, we can't seem to stay focused. Moving past the talking points, let’s look at what the company actually did wrong using the cited sources.


 * The Rolling Stone piece doesn't have much information.
 * The billmoyers.com piece only quotes the RollingStone piece and does not provide any new information. It should be removed.
 * DailyFinance contains mostly references to other articles.
 * The FDA letter was already taken to DRN and it was decided that it was not worth including.

The Salon piece actually cites a few interesting sources:
 * The link that accompanies the content about the promise “not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid” was improperly added, which is frustrating.
 * |lang_es&oe=UTF-8 Likewise, this link appears dead
 * An article in the Orlando Sentinel from 1992 finally provides some detail: "During the past year, Melaleuca has signed agreements with Idaho and Michigan in which it agreed to stop its distributors from promising prospective salespeople that they could make thousands of dollars a month selling the products. Officials in both states cleared the company's marketing plan and blamed renegade distributors for any problems." http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-09-04/business/9209040518_1_melaleuca-distributors-network-marketing
 * There is also a link to a 1991 primary source from the Idaho state government that says that "certain independent marketing executives of Melaleuca have failed to comply with certain policies of Melaleuca, and that the actions of these independent marketing executives are in violation of Idaho law." There was no admission of guilt.

All in all, it seems that we can verifiably say that the company had problems with some of its sales force making outlandish claims in the early 1990s. The current section of the article does not give the reader the correct impression.

VanderSloot's website has a response to this issue, including a letter from the Idaho government. Andrewman327 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems that you're saying that the sources cited are not reliable or do not support the text that's currently in the article -- neither of which is true. You say that the the Rolling Stone article "doesn't have much information". I'm not sure what this nebulous observation is supposed to mean, but in fact the Rolling Stone article contains enough information to back up the text in the BLP. The Bill Moyers article quotes the Rolling Stone article, which makes it a tertiary source -- highly desirable. Similarly, the Daily Finance article contains all the information necessary to support the text in the BLP. It's deceptive to say that it was previously decided that "the FDA letter was not worth including". The FDA letter was discussed in an entirely different context; however, it fits perfectly with the the revised text and several editors have already commented to that effect. The FDA letter was also referred to directly by two secondary sources cited in the BLP, so clearly it is appropriate to cite it.


 * All in all, what "we can verifiably say" is exactly what's currently in the article. I sincerely hope that hope you abandon this attempt to POV push and whitewash the article, as these pointless discussions are a waste of everyone's time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to push any POV, I want to figure out what really happened. Why did they enter into voluntary agreements?  When did all of this happen?  If the company is a scam, it's important to figure that out.  Reading the Idaho Attorney General letter, I doubt that VanderSloot is a scam artist.  It's not fair to throw out a bunch of allegations without any context, even if other websites with a clear POV have done so.  Apply the same reasoning as you did for my claim that the ranch won "numerous awards".  Did any of the events described in the current version of the article verifiably take place in the past few years?  I'm following up with your summary of this edit. Andrew (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the tangential questions you raised above are important to you, you can get to work figuring out the answers and get back to us when/if you do. However, these questions have no bearing on the text or the reliable sources that are currently in the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I finally figured out what the articles are referring to: two cases of multiple salespeople making illegal claims about the company in 1992. I adjusted the statement to reflect BLP.  I also removed the FDA letter per noticeboard consensus; the mediator stated that it should only be included if it could be directly related to other company events.  I'm not married to the wording but it's important to note that nothing that was referenced in your version of the section happened in this decade or the last.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewman327 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about here with respect to illegal claims in 1992, but there was no consensus to remove all mention of the FDA and you edit was tendentious, so it was reverted. If you have an opinion on the matter or a proposal to make, do it here please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording on the section is still vague and inaccurate. In 1992, two states investigated the company and concluded that it had done nothing wrong but that some of its contractors had said utterly stupid and misleading things.  Company officials signed voluntary agreements that Melaleuca would do a better job of keeping house.  In 1997, the FDA sent a warning letter that was already decided not to be important in this article unless it could be directly linked to something of relevance to VanderSloot.  The burden is on whomever still wants to include it to prove that it belongs.  It looks like the FDA never took any other action.  In 2012, VanderSloot released a letter from the Idaho Attorney General that stated that that state has never conducted any formal investigation into the company. The current article makes it sound like investigations are frequent and ongoing, which is not true.  It would be better to mention the referenced events as just that, events.  Has anyone seen if VanderSloot was named in the voluntary agreements?  I don't want to duplicate research. On another issue in this section, the "nine patents" figure is outdated.  It either needs an "As of 2004" or nine should be replaced with a non-specific term.  I've tried changing it several different ways but keep getting undone.Andrew (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your first assertion is incorrect. According to the source in question the States had not “concluded that it (Melaleuca) had done nothing wrong”. Subsequent to being investigated, the company signed a consent decree to not engage in pyramid scheme marketing, and then the company’s marketing plan was cleared going forward (i.e. the company agreed to do “a better job of keeping house” as you said).


 * The detail about the FDA (i.e., that the company was using misleading advertising to sell their supplements) is supported by 5 sources. Inclusion of this detail is perfectly appropriate. I don’t know what to make of this alleged 2012 letter from VanderSloot that you spoke of, because you provided no evidence of its existence, but I don’t see how it would change matters even if it did exist. A primary self-published source from VanderSloot would most likely be useless. Even if it’s from the Idaho AG, then it has nothing to do with the FDAs action. I also dispute your claim that “the current article makes it sound like investigations are frequent and ongoing.” The article merely reports, very concisely, that “Melaleuca was also targeted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for ‘false and misleading’ claims about its supplements, which is exactly what the sources reported.


 * With regard to the nine patents, that’s the number that sources referred to, and the mention of the patents is integrated into the text as it was in the original sources, indicating that the R&D team generated the 9 patents. Even if you were to go do a patent search and come up with a different number, that number wouldn't merit inclusion because it would be a product of your original research and not something that has been mentioned by secondary sources. There was also no need to mention the patents twice (as it had been prior to revision) because it gave undue weight. There's no reason for such undue focus on the matter of patents. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Three big things are important here:
 * 1. All allegations occurred between 1991 and 1997 and should be labeled as such. Apply the same narrow tailoring that you're advocating for the ranch awards.


 * 2. None of the sources you provided say that the company was convicted of any offense, let alone the actual subject of the BLP, VanderSloot. Therefore their violations are alleged.
 * 3. As far as the patents are concerned, this is exactly why the powers that be created the As of tag. I've mentioned it before.  Andrew (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like we're cross posting about the State action/FDA on 2 different threads. I have added a new comment in the FDA thread. so let's continue discussion about the FDA there. With regard to the "as of tag" the problem is that one of the sources cited is from 2012, so it would be inappropriate to add "as of 2004" given that there is no indication that the source was referring to any specific dates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ranch Awards
Andrewman, you just changed the text that said "The ranch received awards at the Utah State Fair in 1995-1997" to "The ranch received 21 awards at the Utah State Fair in its first four years of operation", and you justified the change in you edit summary with the explanation "clarified ranch awards information". Can you please explain how this is a clarification? The sources do not mention anything about "first 4 years of operation" nor do they mention 21 awards; they are merely lists of awards received during the 1995, 1996, and 1997 Utah State Fair. As such, your addition does not appear to be a clarification but rather WP:OR. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per your earlier request, I quoted the awards section in another part of the talk page. In order to make it even easier to see, here's a table of all of the awards the ranch won for its Piedmontese cattle.  Counting is not original research and it is clearly allowed by WP rules.  I realized that I couldn't tell if the ranch was 4 or 5 years old when it received the last of its awards so I changed that figure to 5.  Again, subtracting the date when something happened from the date when something was created an allowable calculation.


 * As I suspected. In that case, the text revision is problematic. First off, you initially changed the date range "1995-1997" to "first 4 years of operation", and then you changed it to "first 5 years". That's misleading. The ranch did not receive any awards  in its first 2 years of operation; it won them in 1995-1997. Secondly, since the list you assembled to come up with the count of 21 awards involved 3 different sources, it is WP:SYNTH. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Using multiple sources for independent claims is not SYNTH - in fact it is how articles are meade as a rule. It is linking unrelated claims from two or more sources to make a new claim which would be SYNTH, and that is not present in using sources for individual awards and making a list.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That definition of SYNTH seems to describe exactly what Andrewman did. He took three sources that did not make the claim about "21 awards" and made a new claim based on an an amalgamation of the 3 sources. Are you willing to cede the argument or shall we go to the WP:OR noticeboards with this? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:CALC is all that is needed to show that this is not OR. I am not even sure why this is an issue.  What is the problem with this?  Arzel (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to go to the boards. I'll third be the forth and agree with the above that this is logical and perfectly acceptable. -- No unique  names  18:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with the above editors that, yes, we can add 2+2 to make 4, but where did Andrew get his info? I cannot access the citation in the article footnotes, so I assume that he Andrew has access to a hard copy somewhere. Is that correct? GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a hard copy. The Deseret piece is actually online, I just forgot the link.  The other two pieces are articles in the Salt Lake Tribune, which is archived by several major research databases.


 * Andrew (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You all may or may not be right about the simple addition; the date range change seems misleading and unnecessary. However, since the conservative clique always seems to speak with one voice on every issue, I'd feel better if we had some input from NPOV editors on the matter. WP:TAGTEAM seems to be snowballing and is cause for concern. This is Wikipedia, not ConservapediaRhode Island Red (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For the last time - there is no tagteam trying to get at you. There is no conspiracy or "clique" aiming at your back.  There is no "single voice on every issue" here.  There is no cabal trying to put you down.  There is no collusion between editors all of whom are "against you."     Is this finally clear?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to be histrionic. A growing group of Conservative editors that takes exactly the same position (often tendentious), on every issue looks like a POV/TAGTEAM/COI issue to me. Shouting "no" a bunch of times doesn't change that perception. Ultimately, the issue would be up to the admins to decide. That aside, I reiterate that it would be nice to have some input from editors that don't have a partisan political position. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A neat trick - I seem to be called a Labourite by Australians and Brits (see my Johann Hari edits, inter alia). And I avoid any partisanship, as a look at my edits on List of Presidential nicknames will also show.  So all that is left is what you call "histrionics."  And shouting "COI" also makes no sense at all -- I fear you are seeking to see cabals at every juncture :(. Collect (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a user conduct issue that won't get resolved on this thread. Nonetheless, if the situation continues to get out of hand like it has been, it will have to go to ArbCom for resolution. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then quit bitching about it here. It is getting quite tiresome.  Exactly what is the contention with this issue?  You seem to be against it simply because you don't like VanderSloot.  Arzel (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against the change because I think it's a synthetic, somewhat misleading, and entirely unnecessary edit. I thought I already made that abundantly clear. It has nothing whatsoever to do with feeling one way or another about VS. It's a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme, but it's difficult to resolve even simple issues like these when all the feedback is coming from editors with a particular political POV and POV on this article. Hope you can understand that. Either way, as you suggested, it's time to move on. There are other mechanisms for dealing with that issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)